IDIOTS' GUIDE TO THE US ELECTIONS.

@Merry Andrew,

Thank you, Andrew.
Very informative!

0 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

I, for example, am a left wing nut whereas Omsic david is a right wing nut.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

Quote:

I, for example, am a left wing nut whereas Omsic david is a right wing nut.

Thank you for making the meaning of the term absolutely crystal clear, dyslexia!

0 Replies

Whereas i am a small red-head dog who types very, very well . . .

0 Replies

@Amigo,

Look what I said about Obama in 2008 before he was president. What a bunch of suckers. HOPE SALES! Laughing

The last post!

Quote:

Hi misolga,

If the polls say we will vote black, female, democrat or republican then $90,000,000 (Hillary, Obama) of interest money will go to that candidate. The same goes with the issues. We are polled on the issues.

Intill the we realize this manipulation in democracy there will be no real change. When we get disenchanted with one side or the other the Special interest money changes sides. And the candidate without any Special interest money is left out and we are left voting for the same powers year after year.

The media is a special interest. They sit in the same boardrooms of the people perpetuating the things the American voters want changed.

1. Poll the candidate:
Black, White, woman, man, Democrat, Republican.

2. Poll the issues:
Health care, imagration, War, Taxes.

3. Pick a candidate.

4. Give him/her the money and the media.

5. Block all other candidates.

This is How the election process works.

(I have to tell you I pasted the above from something I wrote in another thread )

http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/

http://www.opensecrets.org/

Look at Obamas contrabutions at open secrets.com

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Do you see how much money he raised from "Individual contributions"? Now go to White house for sale and see Obama.

http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/candidate.cfm?CandidateID=C0009

See his bundlers? This Bundling is a way around campaign finance laws that try to prevent the U.S. president from being a corporate product that is marketed to the people instead of what we (Americans) and the world actually needs and wants.

http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/bundlingproposal.cfm

1 Reply

@Amigo,

There, there, Amigo.
You live & learn. Wink

0 Replies

Obamas Top Contributors

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

2 Replies

@Amigo,

Quote:

Total:$388,283,755

Gosh. That's an amount not to be sneezed at! Surprised

Quote:

Obamas Top Contributors

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

What can we deduce from this list of top contributors? (Keeping in mind that this is the idiot's guide. Wink

)
I've never heard of some of these organizations ... like, for example, Wilmerhale Llp, or Skadden, Arps ....

3 Replies

@msolga,

Quote:

What can we deduce from this list of top contributors?

A degree of influence I assume.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Yes, I figured that, spendy. Smile

But I was wondering about the type of influence. What the contributors would have hoped to gain, in terms of government policies, etc ...

1 Reply

@msolga,

Perhaps this list of top contributors doesn't tell us very much at all? Who knows?
Never mind.
I assumed there was a reason for posting it here.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

What can we deduce from this list of top contributors? (Keeping in mind that this is the idiot's guide. )
I've never heard of some of these organizations ... like, for example, Wilmerhale Llp, or Skadden, Arps ....

They are large law firms.

The list above consists only of cash contributions directly to the campaign. Labor unions style their contributions as "voter registration and education" campaigns . They are an order of magnitude larger than any of the contributions listed above, and are not included amnong them. However, their activities are in fact very closely coordinated with the campaigns of Democrat candidates, and are generally indistinguishable from them..

0 Replies

@msolga,

Well Olga--one can only go on Dylan's "money doesn't talk, it swears" principle which seems from what I have read of history, which is quite a lot, to approximate to true wisdom.

And I assume it's a long list going further than the Top Twenty, like the record charts do for those who are interested, like the Mum and Dad of the idiot who came in 69th in the Great North Run, a boredom marathon, are interested.

I assume that any proposed legislation is run past the largest contributors, unofficially, so that they can give their opinions on it. Whether the opinions cause any adjustments to be made to the proposed legislation is probably a function of how high on the list is the source of the opinions and how easily they can be buried in the small print so that they are not immediately apparent to superficial observers

The University of California being in pole position and the millions of $10 contributors of no account.

What the contributors hope to gain is a matter which it would be best if you took up with them but if it makes more money than the cost of the contribution it can be safely placed in the Profit column.

Which is always a good thing I gather.

1 Reply

@spendius,

If the contributions are tax deductible it gets more complicated.

1 Reply

Thanks for both your responses, George & spendy.

I assumed the contributions were for campaign funding. I'd suppose there's a similar list of top contributors to the Republican Party, too.

I'm not sure what this particularly list tells us exactly, apart from that the members of a large number of education, technology & legal organizations supported Obama's campaign.

I don't know if transparency of political donations is an important issue or not in the US ... it certainly is in my own country.

3 Replies

@msolga,

There's a big story here tonight about the matter which is what they call "Breaking News" Breaking News excites people because it gives the impression that those who see it are ahead of those who haven't.

A £10 million contributor to our Labour Party, and our Labour Party is skint, is in dispute with a Labour transport minister. Lord Adonis, a Labour Peer with something of a doleful countenance, has condemned the British Airways union, UNITE, the £10 million benefactor and our largest union, over it's upcoming strike actions.

And with a close run election just weeks away.

And they wonder why Mr Brown shouts at people.

0 Replies

@Amigo,

Amigo wrote:

Obamas Top Contributors

University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820
Latham & Watkins $493,835

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638

to be honest amigo, I seriously question the validity of your "facts" of donations.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Quote:

The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.

It's important to remember this disclaimer. Although employees of the Unis gave much more to Obama McCain raised money too. This election had the largest disparity from academia.

Since we don't have McCains totals from various corporations it's hard to tell how much more Obama raised.

2 Replies

@panzade,

Quote:

It's important to remember this disclaimer.

Yes, I noted that when I read the information contained in the link.

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

If the contributions are tax deductible it gets more complicated.

They are not.

0 Replies

IDIOTS' GUIDE TO THE US ELECTIONS.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know