$57 per vote & unmitigated greed.

$57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/4/2010 6:17:32 PM)
That's right kinkroids. Meg Whitman spent about $175 million of her own money to get elected gov. of Calif. She ended up with a personal, election spending tab of $57 per peson who voted for her. Prompting one Calif. GOP hopeful to say "I could have lost this election for only $80 million. ...even though a very smart women, a graduate of Princeton and Harvard Business school for crying out loud, a billionaire as an original investor of and CEO at eBay, she just didn't truly understand all of the citizen requirements, employer requirements and tax ramifications of hiring household help in Calif. Now for this we truly need a pill although I don't think big pharma will go after this narrow market. One reason I think she lost... Think about this cyberpols, in the great and glorious, classless, egalitarian American diaspora, lives is a woman worth something like $1 or $2 billion, that's billion...fuck'n dollars and she can't just hire household help like she did say...for eBay ? What kind of mental illness is that...narcissism ? She was thinking what ? "I can pay say $20,000 to house and feed a slave..er servant for a year but $30,000 maybe $40,000 or more is simply out of the question, can't afford it." "I mean for a year it would take a about a entire day's of my tax free interest income to pay her." Thanx for the decent paying very temporary election jobs girl, now go back and count your money...make sure it's all still there and we'd be lucky never to hear of your kind again.

servantforuse -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/4/2010 6:26:59 PM)
So what . This is a free Country. She can spend her money as she wishes.

DomKen -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/4/2010 6:46:25 PM)
I wonder how much her poor handling of eBay played into this. I'm certain I'm not the only former eBay seller who has nothing good to say about her time as CEO.

MrRodgers -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/4/2010 6:56:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse So what . This is a free Country. She can spend her money as she wishes. Yes, she can but there is something wrong in your head and for me...her character to even suggest to me that she couldn't follow the law in hiring her household help. It takes a particular kind of hubris to be that wealthy and still look to illegally cut financial corners at such piddling amount of costs. It's narcissism or as I suggest...unmitigated greed...or both.

MrRodgers -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/4/2010 6:59:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I wonder how much her poor handling of eBay played into this. I'm certain I'm not the only former eBay seller who has nothing good to say about her time as CEO. Life is timing and so is buying and selling stocks. She did take eBay from $4 million a year to $8 billion...a year. Lost billions or more on PayPal and Skype but you'll have that in good ole greedy, stupid corporate America.

stef -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/4/2010 7:05:15 PM)
Too bad the election didn't have a 'Buy It Now' button or she might have won. ~stef

slvemike4u -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/4/2010 8:04:29 PM)
It was even worse than that.....her first screw up was obviously hiring an illegal.....she than compounds that by her cold indifferent attitude towards this woman (who worked for her for 9 years) could not be bothered in helping this long time employee find an immigration lawyer.Was quoted as saying that immediate deportation was appropriate.So she pisses off the right by hiring an illegal...pisses off the left by acting in a heartless manner....and made no friends at all with Hispanic voters....especially after the former employee detailed what she characterised as shabby and dehumanizing treatment at the hands of her former boss and her family. A political savant this woman is.

Fellow -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/4/2010 8:59:05 PM)
I do not see why it is so negative to spend your own money in an effort to make a positive difference in country's life? How can you beat establishment candidate without sufficient funds? Some democrats have done it. No problem in these cases?

slvemike4u -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/4/2010 9:05:48 PM)
She is free to spend her money in any manner she so chooses...whether or not the ultimate goal was to make a "positive difference" is of course open to debate.Who's to say the goal was simply to feed a massive ego? Or perhaps the naked thirst for power? Perhaps she just liked the gov's residence...I have no idea...and neither do you. What we do know is the voters of California have chosen not to fufill what ever goal she was pursuing

MrRodgers -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/4/2010 9:17:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow I do not see why it is so negative to spend your own money in an effort to make a positive difference in country's life? How can you beat establishment candidate without sufficient funds? Some democrats have done it. No problem in these cases? Well except that it means only the rich will by far make up the majority and it is right around the corner for all houses...once it becomes a new American 'tradition'...buying your way into office. Obviously my point is that here is a woman with this much money who can afford to spend a king's ransom to run for office but can't afford follow the law and the real labor market for infinitesimally small amount of money for household help ?

Musicmystery -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/4/2010 9:23:58 PM)
Once it becomes? 85 years ago Will Rogers was quipping "A fool and his money are soon elected..."

pahunkboy -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/4/2010 9:28:55 PM)
Well she ran- and she lost. SHit happens.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/5/2010 1:55:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow I do not see why it is so negative to spend your own money in an effort to make a positive difference in country's life? How can you beat establishment candidate without sufficient funds? Some democrats have done it. No problem in these cases? Well except that it means only the rich will by far make up the majority and it is right around the corner for all houses...once it becomes a new American 'tradition'...buying your way into office. Obviously my point is that here is a woman with this much money who can afford to spend a king's ransom to run for office but can't afford follow the law and the real labor market for infinitesimally small amount of money for household help ? More BS from Mr Rodgers. Sweater bunched up? She did follow the law. What lost her votes is that she panicked when she did find out the woman was illegal and just fired her. If she had spent 20k on an immigration lawyer before Allred pumped out her litany of bullshit the results would have been closer, but she still probably wouldnt have won. Wonder where Nicky is today...did Allred dump her as soon as the polls opened?

truckinslave -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/5/2010 4:57:00 AM)
Exactly right. Out of all the problems California faces, THE most important one was Nikki Diaz. THE solution was to punish not the felon (Nikki Diaz), but the woman she defrauded. I hope they enjoy their bankruptcy.

Lucylastic -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/5/2010 5:12:54 AM)
yeah it has to be the illegals fault LMFAO

DomYngBlk -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/5/2010 5:16:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow I do not see why it is so negative to spend your own money in an effort to make a positive difference in country's life? How can you beat establishment candidate without sufficient funds? Some democrats have done it. No problem in these cases? Well except that it means only the rich will by far make up the majority and it is right around the corner for all houses...once it becomes a new American 'tradition'...buying your way into office. Obviously my point is that here is a woman with this much money who can afford to spend a king's ransom to run for office but can't afford follow the law and the real labor market for infinitesimally small amount of money for household help ? More BS from Mr Rodgers. Sweater bunched up? She did follow the law. What lost her votes is that she panicked when she did find out the woman was illegal and just fired her. If she had spent 20k on an immigration lawyer before Allred pumped out her litany of bullshit the results would have been closer, but she still probably wouldnt have won. Wonder where Nicky is today...did Allred dump her as soon as the polls opened? If you listened to the debates he just punk'd her. She lost cause she believed her own bullshit.

MrRodgers -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/5/2010 5:24:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow I do not see why it is so negative to spend your own money in an effort to make a positive difference in country's life? How can you beat establishment candidate without sufficient funds? Some democrats have done it. No problem in these cases? Well except that it means only the rich will by far make up the majority and it is right around the corner for all houses...once it becomes a new American 'tradition'...buying your way into office. Obviously my point is that here is a woman with this much money who can afford to spend a king's ransom to run for office but can't afford follow the law and the real labor market for infinitesimally small amount of money for household help ? More BS from Mr Rodgers. Sweater bunched up? She did follow the law. What lost her votes is that she panicked when she did find out the woman was illegal and just fired her. If she had spent 20k on an immigration lawyer before Allred pumped out her litany of bullshit the results would have been closer, but she still probably wouldnt have won. Wonder where Nicky is today...did Allred dump her as soon as the polls opened? She obviously did not follow the law with respect to her hiring of an illegal. After 9 years it comes out that she obviously felt 'entitled' to that but also to obtain the governor's mansion. Whitman: "I don't know you and you don't know me ?" The classic, greedy capitalist dodge. This woman is ill. Can't afford to hire household help like she hired help at eBay. What a piece of work. Should immigration start looking at eBay too...probably.

MrRodgers -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/5/2010 5:25:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Exactly right. Out of all the problems California faces, THE most important one was Nikki Diaz. THE solution was to punish not the felon (Nikki Diaz), but the woman she defrauded. I hope they enjoy their bankruptcy. As for this OP, you're grasping at straws.

slvemike4u -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/5/2010 7:04:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Exactly right. Out of all the problems California faces, THE most important one was Nikki Diaz. THE solution was to punish not the felon (Nikki Diaz), but the woman she defrauded. I hope they enjoy their bankruptcy. And how exactly did the voters of California punish Whitman...by deciding not to cast their votes for her....despite her having spent a fortune seeking to buy said votes? Where is the punishment ? Was the gov's mansion hers by dint of having spent more? Is she being prosecuted for having employed an illegal lo these many years(she should be IMO)? The voters made a choice ,as is their right....they chose not to have her as their gov......you see punishment....I see the choice of the people. Get over it....it wasn't your money Whitman wasted....lol.

rulemylife -> RE: $57 per vote & unmitigated greed. (11/5/2010 7:08:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse So what . This is a free Country. She can spend her money as she wishes. Government by the wealthy for the wealthy?

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875