If that's true, then America hasn't had any honest people worth voting for pretty much ever. (this may be true, but hardly newsworthy if you consider it so)
cubeless
Diamond Member
- Sep 17, 2001
- 4,295
- 1
- 81
he is pretty funny, eh?
must be new politics to pay $20mm for 500k 'promised' latino votes to some schmoe but not pay big sister's $20mm campaign debt to get her undivided attention and tighten up the lock on millions of people who may not be as sure a bet???
There's a difference between discussion and trolling.
Hillary has only herself to blame for her campaign debts. She was all but mathematically eliminated for months but continued on. No one forced her to not pay her bills and loan her campaign her own money.
I guess if you ignore all the posts I've made where I've said he's done things wrong then sure.
As someone else said I'd love to know what YOU think he did wrong, and if you do think it's wrong how it is different then pretty much every other campaign in US history. (particularly the last 50 years or so)
Not that you care of course. Your post was pretty much just a cut and paste job anyway.
Same question to you: What did he do wrong, and if you do think it's wrong please explain how it is any different then normal campaign functioning?
If I unerstood the story correctly:
- I don't see any broken pledge. The guy made the offer, and the candidates said they would not pay his demand for his superdelegate vote, when he was trying to get one or the other to do so to defeat their opponent in the primary. The fact that neither did before the primary was done means they met the pledge. Now offering to fund the program doesn't get the benefit he'd offered of helping them win the primary, so the pledge isn't 'broken' by doing that and the thread title is wrong.
- The actual issue is a 'gray issue' perhaps. Politics is about two main tools to implement policy, laws and money.
If the guy merely asked them to say they care about Hispanic voters, no problem, but what good would that do the program? None, really.
If the guy asked them to make general commitments that they 'supported assistance for Hispanic voting programs', it wouldn't be too controversial, but leaves them weasel room.
One issue seems to be that if the guy based his vote on their position on funding Hispanic voting, it wouldn't be too controversial, even if people said he's too one-issue. It wouldn't be 'corruption' really. But it's the explicit offer instead of being a little more subtle that makes it 'look bad'. That doesn't seem entirely rational, that we all pretend that these things aren't largely decided by money and alliances.
So, the guy was direct, fund the program he supports (which could as easily have been cancer research or more police), get his vote.
Gray area; the candidates chose not to take his offer, and avoid any 'stigma'.
If the guy had a more personal benefit from the donation, then you go towards 'black', corruption.
So, this seems like a non-story other than to raise the issue of how this works, and the wrong attack in the subject line.
- I don't see any broken pledge. The guy made the offer, and the candidates said they would not pay his demand for his superdelegate vote, when he was trying to get one or the other to do so to defeat their opponent in the primary. The fact that neither did before the primary was done means they met the pledge. Now offering to fund the program doesn't get the benefit he'd offered of helping them win the primary, so the pledge isn't 'broken' by doing that and the thread title is wrong.
- The actual issue is a 'gray issue' perhaps. Politics is about two main tools to implement policy, laws and money.
If the guy merely asked them to say they care about Hispanic voters, no problem, but what good would that do the program? None, really.
If the guy asked them to make general commitments that they 'supported assistance for Hispanic voting programs', it wouldn't be too controversial, but leaves them weasel room.
One issue seems to be that if the guy based his vote on their position on funding Hispanic voting, it wouldn't be too controversial, even if people said he's too one-issue. It wouldn't be 'corruption' really. But it's the explicit offer instead of being a little more subtle that makes it 'look bad'. That doesn't seem entirely rational, that we all pretend that these things aren't largely decided by money and alliances.
So, the guy was direct, fund the program he supports (which could as easily have been cancer research or more police), get his vote.
Gray area; the candidates chose not to take his offer, and avoid any 'stigma'.
If the guy had a more personal benefit from the donation, then you go towards 'black', corruption.
So, this seems like a non-story other than to raise the issue of how this works, and the wrong attack in the subject line.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
I agree with Craig on the above (again)
The original offer was to sell his vote for funds for a cause.
Neither candidate took him up on it.
Now he is saying for xx dollar investment into the cause, he will be able to turn out a larger vote.
This is what the Dems always want (and Repub also) - turn out their supporters!
The only flaw in this announcement is that it was done prior to the convention so it looks like a back room deal.
Obama does not need the vote for the convention - he should have just stayed out of the picture and let Dean handle it as a representative of the Dem party.
All is actually does is provide some more rubber bullets for the smear campaigns.
The original offer was to sell his vote for funds for a cause.
Neither candidate took him up on it.
Now he is saying for xx dollar investment into the cause, he will be able to turn out a larger vote.
This is what the Dems always want (and Repub also) - turn out their supporters!
The only flaw in this announcement is that it was done prior to the convention so it looks like a back room deal.
Obama does not need the vote for the convention - he should have just stayed out of the picture and let Dean handle it as a representative of the Dem party.
All is actually does is provide some more rubber bullets for the smear campaigns.
Hey for once we agree. Obama's broken other campaign pledges (financing, FISA) and I'm more then willing to slam him on those when he does. In this case there simply doesn't seem to be an issue.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
- Mar 13, 2005
- 891
- 153
- 106
That's not quite true. The primary is not over yet and this superdelegate has not yet cast his vote. He will cast that vote at the convention. It may be true that Obama won't need the vote of this superdelegate but that doesn't negate the fact that Obama has met the $20 million demand and will, in return recieve the vote at the convention. The pledge has been broken.
We disagree. The only issue was the appearance of 'buying the vote', when the vote was offered to Obama and Hillary to help one of them win.
Now that the primary *is* over, with Obama having secured the delegates and Hillary conceding, there's no longer any 'appearance of impropriety'.
The pledge by them was only relevant to not 'buying his vote'. That election, between Obama and Hillary, is over, there's no more vote to buy. The votes are set for Obama.
You would have to explain why Obama wants his vote enough for it to influence his funding the program, to make the case you're trying to make. There's no reason for him to want it.
Oh give me a fucking break. Obviously Obama doesn't need this guy's vote and so obviously he's not dropping $20 million for it.
- Mar 13, 2005
- 891
- 153
- 106
Repeating a lie really doesn't make it come true.
The primary will be over when the votes are cast at the convention. It isn't over yet.
Obama has not secured the delegates, or the nomination, until the votes are cast, at the convention. Neither candidate won enough delegates to secure the nomination. If Obama secures the nomination, he will need superdelegate votes to do it. The supers who have declared for Obama are still free to change their minds if they feel that Obama can't win.
Hillary could have conceded but she did not. She merely suspended her campaign. She still has control of her delegates. Since neither she nor Obama has enough delegates, there will be a roll call and the nominee will be selected at the convention.
The delegates and superdelegates will have to decide who is the nominee at the convention. If Obama continues his downward spiral in the polls, the supers could easily switch their votes to Hillary. Their job is to select a candidate who they believe to be electable. It would seem that, right now, the only guaranteed superdelegate vote Obama has secured is the one he just bought and paid for.
HeXploiT
Diamond Member
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
Well this pretty much destroys any argument that Obama is different or that he'll bring "change" to Washington.
This resembles third world politics.
I can't image there is a more corrupt, anti-democratic and dishonest behavior than illegally buying votes.
He should have come out and announced that even the idea that someone might sell their vote is repugnant.
Instead he buys it.
Sickening bought & sold politician.
This resembles third world politics.
I can't image there is a more corrupt, anti-democratic and dishonest behavior than illegally buying votes.
He should have come out and announced that even the idea that someone might sell their vote is repugnant.
Instead he buys it.
Sickening bought & sold politician.
Please explain how he is buying votes and furthermore please explain how this is different then how campaigns are run the world over.
HeXploiT
Diamond Member
- Jun 11, 2004
- 4,359
- 1
- 76
Please explain how this is buying votes? Are you intentionally being obtuse?
This is a form of treason that 50 years ago might have been deserving of the death penalty.
Of course this is no different than campaigns the world over. It's disgusting. Americans are supposed to have an HONEST system.
People have no clue what national sovereignty means today.
Our forefathers who fought and died for this nation would have been repulsed by this. They would have screamed for Obamas head on a platter. This guy was arrested for merely attempting to sell his vote on ebay BECAUSE IT IS WRONG AND TREASONOUS!
Yet Americans are becoming so brainwashed that now we'll accept it?
What sickening mindless boobs we have become.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter