I thought they had this in the bag

I thought they had this in the bag (Full Version)

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

Message

thishereboi -> I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 6:58:06 AM)
I keep hearing how there in no chance that any of the available repubs will win this november and we can look forward to another 4 years of Obama. Now looking at the field of candidates, I would have to say they are probably right. So if that is the case, why is the left pouring so much money into the election? Why do I get daily emails begging for more? I even got one the other day asking why I hadn't donated yet after receiving so many emails asking for money? I have to admit that was a first for me. I have had a lot of groups ask for money, but I have never had them come back later and ask why I hadn't given yet. Maybe if they spent more time worrying about jobs this country would be in better shape. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ad-race-2012-obama-spot-tops-most-frequently-220106682.html "The Mitt Romney campaign has spent more than $55 million on political advertising—the most of any Republican candidate this election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org. Barack Obama has spent $63 million, a little less than half of his $136 million war chest. That doesn't include the super PACs supporting them, which have spent millions more."

Owner59 -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 7:07:01 AM)
Donating is another form of voting...another form of democracy in action. IMO.....it`s not the amount of money donated but the number of donations. The more donations.....the more democratic.

slvemike4u -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 7:09:19 AM)
Could be that there is more at stake this November than just the Oval Office ? Could be that the current occupant of that office is seeking a landslide win,so as to bank what is known as a referendum from the electorate ? Could be winning back the House would allow this President to fully implement his agenda ? Could be they just want to kick the Republican's in the nuts and rub their faces in the dirt ?

Musicmystery -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 7:09:54 AM)
quote: I keep hearing how there in no chance that any of the available repubs will win this november and we can look forward to another 4 years of Obama. Now looking at the field of candidates, I would have to say they are probably right. So if that is the case, why is the left pouring so much money into the election? Because (1) it ain't over 'til it's over, and responding quickly to the inevitable attacks takes cash; (2) Congress is up for grabs this year. New House Reps are up for a test, and several 2006 Dem Senators are up for re-election in a narrowly divided Senate; (3) American voters are swayed by those expensive ads. If voters thought for themselves, it wouldn't work; (4) thanks to a Supreme Court near you, corporations can pour unlimited money into an election.

Lucylastic -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 7:13:45 AM)
The money spent by all parties is obscene How much did that woman spend on one race ??? what was her name... the HP ex prezzidente. How much has koch brothers given?? it should be the number of donations maybe, but the money spending is obscene on alll sides, and yes Im even talking about mahers million too.

Owner59 -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 7:27:08 AM)
If one get zillions of $25 donations.......it`s a sign of popularity.When the Koch-bros give a zillion bucks a piece....it`s a bit less democratic. Personally I`m happy to see individual citizens bringing what little political power they have to bear against the vulture capitalists . And......when did anyone anywhere say anything "was in the bag"?

kalikshama -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 9:58:12 AM)
Bill Maher's Warning to Liberals: Obama Could Still Lose to Santorum In last night's final New Rule, Bill Maher had a two-pronged message, first noting how Rick Santorum is a joke candidate, but then noting that Americans have far too often gone ahead and elected those joke candidates as President. So, maybe that's why everywhere I go lately, the supermarket, the dry cleaners, the withdrawal window at my bank (weeps), people all say the same thing to me. "May I have some money?" But after that, they say, "Obama is gonna crush these clowns. It's gonna be the biggest landslide since...." And then their voices trail off, 'cause they don't know any history. Because history shows that many times, the joke candidate is the one who ends up winning. And you don't even have to go all the way back to that asshole Millard Fillmoreto verify this. Just think about the year 2000, when gas was 12¢ a gallon, and the Internet was powered by steam. George W. Bush, the town drunk of Texas, decided he should try his hand at some presidentin'. And oh, how we laughed! Ha ha ha ha ha! He was up against super-smart Al Gore, America's one-man genius bar. It was IQ versus barbecue. But as we know, Bush won, twice, and Al Gore is now running a TV station that you only get if you order the "Just Give Me Every Damn Channel in the World" package. Or, take back in 1968, the idea of Ronald Reagan as President was so ridiculous, it was a running gag on Laugh-In. Right along with the one they did about an Asian basketball player. .... Yes, Obama could lose. And in fact, in the swing states, which are the only states that matter, he is losing in this week's Gallup poll, to both Romney and Santorum. 59% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, and that's before they gave away the Best Picture award to some silent French movie where nothing blows up! I often talk about how conservatives are in a bubble, but liberals have their bubble too. And inside it, Obama is a shoe-in, because the Republicans are just so ridiculously out of touch. Well, they may be out of touch with you, but believe me, they're in touch with your brother-in-law in rural Pennsylvania. Video here, the transcribed part starting about halfway in (sorry no time stamp): http://spinnyliberal.com/2012/03/03/real-time-with-bill-maher-new-rules-3212/

erieangel -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 10:30:43 AM)
It ain't over til its over. Obama could lose to either Santorum or Romney. However, that said, the House is up for grabs. And several democratically-held senate seats are up for reelection--more than the number of Republican-held seats. If the Democrats fail to maintain their narrow margin in the Senate and fail to take the House, we can look forward to at least 2 more years like the past two--nothing done about jobs or the economy (the Republicans won the House after campaigning on jobs and economy and to this date have offered not a single jobs bill), a reflexive knee jerk action to saying "NO" to everything Obama would suggest, and more bills that would erase decades of advancement for not only women but minorities as well. So why does the DNC and other Democratic group keep asking for money? Because this election is important. It is important for women. It is important for progressives. And mostly, it is important for this country that Democrats keep the White House, keep the Senate and improve the margin, and win back the House by a wide margin.

vincentML -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 10:41:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The money spent by all parties is obscene How much did that woman spend on one race ??? what was her name... the HP ex prezzidente. How much has koch brothers given?? it should be the number of donations maybe, but the money spending is obscene on alll sides, and yes Im even talking about mahers million too. Can't agree here. The spending of money is never obscene. "Money makes the world go round, the world go round; a buck, a franc, a yen, or a pound, money makes the world go round." Seriously, it helps the economy a bit. But not so much since we have a $12 Trillion economy. Another point, allowing fools to spend all that money is like giving them enough rope to hang themselves. It is a very thorough vetting process. Much better than the short election times in Europe. Lookee Russe. Vladimir only allowed one month for campaigning. Not good, methinks.

servantforuse -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 10:45:12 AM)
Music, Thanks to a Supreme Court near you, Unions can also pour ujlimited amounts of money into a campaign. If they are allowed to do it, why not corporations as well ?

Lucylastic -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 10:49:39 AM)
Honestly, you are entitled to your opinion, I find it severely obscene. You are fine to disagree with me. I totally disagree with the thorough vetting part as well. This is the most ridiculous, time wasting , way to vote in politicians. again you can disagree:)

SternSkipper -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 11:41:19 AM)
quote: Donating is another form of voting...another form of democracy in action. IMO.....it`s not the amount of money donated but the number of donations. The more donations.....the more democratic. She's bitching about Obama raising millions from Millions of PEOPLE???? That's pretty flaky One of the major networks last night ran a piece on how about 5 or 6 very rich men are funding MOST of the republican primary's funding. You tell me which is more fucked up and which is more of a bag job?

SternSkipper -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 11:45:16 AM)
quote: The money spent by all parties is obscene Love your new sign.... It's very much in keeping with the Duchess Of Dissent theme[8D]

kalikshama -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 12:26:24 PM)
[image]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/407366_10150563008991275_177486166274_9409487_2044559540_n.jpg[/image]

SoftBonds -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 3:07:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Music, Thanks to a Supreme Court near you, Unions can also pour ujlimited amounts of money into a campaign. If they are allowed to do it, why not corporations as well ? Turn that around, thanks to a Supreme Court near you, Corporations can pour unlimited amounts of money into a campaign, why not unions as well. Of course, a union can point out that they are donating a very small amount per member, since they are a cooperative responsible to their members. A corporation on the other hand, is a single entity. It could try to claim that all their employees are paying for the donation, but that only works in their employees can change the policies or remove the leadership by a vote-instead of the shareholders. Now a Co-op would have that claim...

VideoAdminGamma -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 4:48:36 PM)
Fast reply I have pulled several posts, that started with off topic comments and the replies to them. Please remain on topic and not commenting about other posters. VideoAdminGamma

SternSkipper -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 6:57:24 PM)
quote: Music, Thanks to a Supreme Court near you, Unions can also pour ujlimited amounts of money into a campaign. If they are allowed to do it, why not corporations as well ? And THAT is thanks to the VERY RICH MEN AND CORPORATIONS THAT MADE THE TEA PARTY TIE IN SO NEATLY TO THE GOP. What you posted is probably one of the best examples of willful distortion of the facts I have ever seen around here.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/9/2012 7:59:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi I keep hearing how there in no chance that any of the available repubs will win this november and we can look forward to another 4 years of Obama. Now looking at the field of candidates, I would have to say they are probably right. So if that is the case, why is the left pouring so much money into the election? Why do I get daily emails begging for more? I even got one the other day asking why I hadn't donated yet after receiving so many emails asking for money? I have to admit that was a first for me. I have had a lot of groups ask for money, but I have never had them come back later and ask why I hadn't given yet. Maybe if they spent more time worrying about jobs this country would be in better shape. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ad-race-2012-obama-spot-tops-most-frequently-220106682.html "The Mitt Romney campaign has spent more than $55 million on political advertising—the most of any Republican candidate this election cycle, according to OpenSecrets.org. Barack Obama has spent $63 million, a little less than half of his $136 million war chest. That doesn't include the super PACs supporting them, which have spent millions more." Clearly, you made money last year.

kalikshama -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/10/2012 5:08:32 AM)
quote: Music, Thanks to a Supreme Court near you, Unions can also pour ujlimited amounts of money into a campaign. If they are allowed to do it, why not corporations as well ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_%28organization%29 ...Citizens United is known for supporting conservative causes. The group produced a television advertisement that reveals several "surprisingly liberal" legislative actions taken by John McCain,[2] which aired on Fox News Channel.[3] ...The American Sovereignty Project is the lobbying arm of Citizens United, focused on issues related to American sovereignty and national security. Its goals include a complete withdrawal from the United Nations, defeat of the treaty establishing a permanent International Criminal Court, and "rejection of one-world government".[1] ...Citizens United Productions, headed by president David Bossie, has released 20 feature-length documentaries. The following is a list of films produced by Citizens United Productions. * ACLU: At War with America * America at Risk * Battle for America * Blocking 'The Path to 9/11' * Border War: The Battle Over Illegal Immigration * Broken Promises: The UN at 60 * Celsius 41.11 * Fire From The Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman * Generation Zero * Hillary: The Movie * HYPE: The Obama Effect * Nine Days that Changed the World * Perfect Valor * Rediscovering God in America * Rediscovering God in America II: Our Heritage * Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny * We Have the Power: Making America Energy Independent Rediscovering God in America, Rediscovering God in America II, Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny, We Have the Power, and Nine Days That Changed The World were hosted by Newt Gingrich and his third wife, Callista Gingrich. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations and unions. The nonprofit corporation Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act).[2] In a 5-4 split decision, the Court decided that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment. The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lower court complied with BCRA §203 and blocked the film Hillary: The Movie from being shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Supreme Court reversed the lower court, striking down those provisions of BCRA §203 that prohibited corporations, nonprofit corporations, and unions from spending on “electioneering communications.”[2] In BCRA §203, Congress defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] Although BCRA §203 had previously been weakened in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007), the broad constitutional principles announced in this opinion sparked immediate controversy and backlash. The Court upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5]

outhere69 -> RE: I thought they had this in the bag (3/10/2012 8:10:21 AM)
Anyone ever shown the percentage of money in play by unions vs. corporations? Union representation is a very small part of the job market nowadays.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625