PDA

View Full Version : Would Obama have won if he had kept his pledge for public financing?


GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 10:26 AM
While I congradulate him on his victory, I'm just curious would he have won if he had kept his pledge to take public funding?


He spent well over $700,000,000 dollars, compared to McCain's approx $84,000,000.

He had several major news networks in the tank for him, and top that off a lot of his small donations were probably illegal.

I'm just trying to go with liberal sources to prove my point.
Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5061593.ece)
Republicans ask officials to probe Barack Obama's illegal contributions (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/republicans/3141914/Republicans-ask-officials-to-probe-Barack-Obama-illegal-contributions.html)
Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/162403)

Fox News has also reported on this, as has newsbusters, Drudge Report, etc.

It's just a serious question because McCain tried to put in campaign finance reform to keep foreign interests, big rich guys (George Soros is an example), etc. from influencing the election.

mimartin
11-05-2008, 10:36 AM
First Obama did not break any laws or contracts. He said he would negotiate with the Republican nominee, and that is all. Once the money started rolling in Obama would have been a fool to limit the money he could spend especially considering the money the Republican Party had at its disposal not mentioning what groups like the NRA spent. McCain may have spent 84 million, but there was way more than that spent on his campaign.

Yes, Obama still would have won. The election was a referendum on the economy. Look at the number one issue on the voters minds and you will see it was the economy. Ask yourself how did some nobody governor from Arkansas ever get into the White House and the answer will be the economy. America elects Republicans when the country is doing well and we elect Democrats will the Republican run the economy into the ground.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 11:12 AM
First Obama did not break any laws or contracts. He said he would negotiate with the Republican nominee, and that it all. Once the money started rolling in Obama would have been a fool to limit the money he could spend especially considering the money the Republican Party had at its disposal not mentioning what groups like the NRA spent.


Technically he did, I did some checking and he did break a contract.
However, most contracts can be and are made orally, like buying a law textbook, or purchasing coffee at a shop. Contract law can be classified, as is habitual in civil law systems, as part of a general law of obligations (along with tort, unjust enrichment or restitution).
Contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract)

In fact, I could go as far as saying Obama was in breach of contract, because his statements were on tape.


Yes, Obama still would have won. The election was a referendum on the economy. Look at the number one issue on the voters mind and you will see it was the economy. Ask yourself how did some nobody governor from Arkansas ever get into the White House and the answer will be the economy. America elects Republicans when the country is doing well and we elect Democrats will the Republican run the economy into the ground.

He used that money to paint McCain into something he wasn't and to distort whom actually held responsibility for the economic mess, he also used all that money to campaign in so many states that there was absolutely no way for McCain to match him.

So if he didn't have that money, he might not have been able to win, because he wouldn't have been able to distort McCain's record and his own record in the public's mind like he did.

mimartin
11-05-2008, 11:15 AM
Technically he did, I did some checking and he did break a contract. What consideration did Obama recieve for the contract? None. Then there is no contract.



Oh, yea it was Obama that distorted the truth about McCain in his ads. :rolleyes: :lol:

ET Warrior
11-05-2008, 11:31 AM
It's over man. Give it up, and accept that you get to enjoy the next four years with President Barack Hussein Obama.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 12:39 PM
What consideration did Obama recieve for the contract? None. Then there is no contract.


Obama on Public Financing 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsOnmKK5j6Y&eurl=http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/19/breaking-obama-passes-on-public-financing/)

Obama breaking Public Financing Pledge (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys8Uf8dI444&feature=related)

Obama Flip-Flop? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29St1JDzcYs&feature=related)

Another Video from CNN (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2QvR91TWQY)


Seems to me that he did break his word.

Astor
11-05-2008, 12:42 PM
I don't think it was about the money - it certainly contributed - but Obama's willpower, drive and dedication seem to have pretty much sold it for him.

Web Rider
11-05-2008, 12:43 PM
No, because you're not going to do it Garfield, not here. I will not tolerate even another month of what you've been doing since you started posting here. You want to say "I told you so"? Kindly take it somewhere else.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 12:46 PM
No, because you're not going to do it, not here. I will not tolerate even another month of what you've been doing since you started posting here. You want to say "I told you so"? Kindly take it somewhere else.

Are you threatening me?


Seriously, while yeah I briefly had in an above post about telling people that I told them so, generally the practice is to wait until he does something to abuse his position or something else that is completely boneheaded, then you tell people that you told them so...

Web Rider
11-05-2008, 12:50 PM
Are you threatening me?

With moderator action if you're gonna sit around and moan about Obama for the next 4 years.

Astor
11-05-2008, 12:51 PM
I don't suppose it's even remotely possible that more people just plain liked the guy, is it?

mimartin
11-05-2008, 12:59 PM
Seems to me that he did break his word.
Agreed, but he did not break any contract as you implied. I will go as far to say Obama would have been stupid not to change his mind when conditions change. That is the reason I supported Obama he will change as conditions change. :xp:

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 01:00 PM
Agreed, but he did not break any contract as you implied. I will go as far to say Obama would have been stupid not to change his mind when conditions change. That is the reason I supported Obama he will change as conditions change. :xp:

No, technically if you look at the definition I found, he did break a contract, you can have an oral contract, especially if there is a video record. Some wills are on audio or video tape.

mimartin
11-05-2008, 01:03 PM
No, technically if you look at the definition I found, he did break a contract, you can have an oral contract, especially if there is a video record. Some wills are on audio or video tape.

Where is the consideration required to make a legal contract under American law?

Or are you using another countries law to make your point?

Contract Law 101
Seven essential elements of a legal contract

Offer.

Acceptance.

Consideration

Legal Intent.

Capacity.

Legal Object.

Genuine Consent.

Each of these elements must be present for a contract to be binding and enforceable.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 01:06 PM
Where is the consideration required to make a legal contract under American law?


The United States allows for Oral contracts to be made, while it is harder to prosecute someone over an oral contract, if you have a video tape or audio tape it does show that there is indeed a contract.


Or are you using another countries law to make your point?

Uh, why would I bring another country's laws into this. Seriously, using your argument a visually impaired person could not enter into a contract because they can't see the document.

Web Rider
11-05-2008, 01:12 PM
Seriously, using your argument a visually impaired person could not enter into a contract because they can't see the document.

According to legal protections afforded to the blind, unless the contract was provided in a braile format, this would be correct.

mimartin
11-05-2008, 01:27 PM
The United States allows for Oral contracts to be made, while it is harder to prosecute someone over an oral contract, if you have a video tape or audio tape it does show that there is indeed a contract.
Yes they do. So again I ask where is the consideration to make this a legal oral contract.

If you would have completely read the definition you linked you would have read: Consideration is the central concept in the common law of contracts and is required, in most cases, for a contract to be enforceable. Consideration is the price one pays for another's promise.

So yes, Obama made an offer and yes as an American you may have accepted his offer, but that still does not make his offer a legal contract without consideration.

I’m no lawyer, but I am a small business owner and work in the insurance industry. I have to know what makes a legally binding contract in order to survive, plus I’ve taken many hours of contract law in college and continuing education. Darth333 would be able to explain it better, but I'm unsure of Canadian Law is the same as U.S. law when it comes to contracts.

Seriously, using your argument a visually impaired person could not enter into a contract because they can't see the document.
No I'm not. You just don't know what consideration is. I hope you do now.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 01:33 PM
Going over Contract Law 101

Offer: If the Republican nominee agrees to take public financing he would take public financing.

Acceptance: Senator McCain agreed to take public financing.

Consideration: Both would end up on same footing with no way for either side to gain an overwhelming advantage. (this is actually the most contraversial requirement for a contract) Thus both receive something. (neither Obama nor McCain expected to get the finance advantage over the other at the time, but the contract was made)

Legal Intent: Was to ensure that there would be a level playing field without corporate, foreign, etc. interests being involved.

Capacity: Both candidates were legally competitent

Legal Object: Campaign Finances

Genuine Consent: Both parties had agreed without any duress.

I believe I just satisified all the requirements specified.

mimartin
11-05-2008, 01:38 PM
Consideration: Both would end up on same footing with no way for either side to gain an overwhelming advantage. (this is actually the most contraversial requirement for a contract) Thus both receive something. (neither Obama nor McCain expected to get the finance advantage over the other at the time, but the contract was made)
My hopes are dashed. You still don't know what consideration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration) is. Obama already had what you described that gives him nothing.

tk102
11-05-2008, 01:42 PM
No, because you're not going to do it Garfield, not here. I will not tolerate even another month of what you've been doing since you started posting here. You want to say "I told you so"? Kindly take it somewhere else.
Web Rider: Feel free to use the ignore list. There is nothing requiring you to participate in this thread.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 01:42 PM
My hopes are dashed. You still don't know what consideration is. Obama already had what you described that gives him nothing.

At the time he didn't have that money though, when he made the pledge it was back in 2007 when the primaries were underway, he stood to gain politically by taking the public funds pledge for the general election, that he wouldn't secumb to special interest groups. So he gained politically, he just didn't count on the fact he could get huge sums of money later on.

McCain however had made the pledge as well, and McCain was the Republican Nominee, so Obama was in breach of contract.

ET Warrior
11-05-2008, 01:44 PM
No GarfieldJL. He was not. There was no legally binding contract, no matter how much you repeat it and wish it was so. It simply is not true.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 01:46 PM
No GarfieldJL. He was not. There was no legally binding contract, no matter how much you repeat it and wish it was so. It simply is not true.

I satisified all the requirements, it would be extremely hard to prosecute because it was between politicians, but the requirements have been satisified.

mimartin
11-05-2008, 01:49 PM
McCain however had made the pledge as well, and McCain was the Republican Nominee, so Obama was in breach of contract.
You know saying something over and over does not make it true.

Even the Republican Contract with American was not a legal contract thus I can't sue them for their line item veto and term limit promise.

I satisified all the requirements, it would be extremely hard to prosecute because it was between politicians, but the requirements have been satisified.No, you can't seem to get past the consideration part.

At the time he didn't have that money though, when he made the pledge it was back in 2007 when the primaries were underway, he stood to gain politically by taking the public funds pledge for the general election, that he wouldn't secumb to special interest groups. So he gained politically, he just didn't count on the fact he could get huge sums of money later on. If he would have actually received the public funds, then you would have a case, but since he did not receive any there was no consideration. If McCain would have sent him anything acceptable to Obama that would have been considered consideration. Consideration does not have to be anything of value. In some states love can be considered consideration. However, in this case I did not feel the love for Obama from McCain or from you for that matter. :D

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 01:53 PM
News Flash: Obama was a lawyer (he graduated from some podunk law school called Harvard or something) and he taught constitutional law (at some rinky dink school called the University of Chicago) so I think he might know a thing or two about the legal requirements of a contract. He wouldn't have entered a binding contract if he knew he had to break it.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 01:58 PM
News Flash: Obama was a lawyer (he graduated from some podunk law school called Harvard or something) and he taught constitutional law (at some rinky dink school called the University of Chicago) so I think the might know a thing or two about the legal requirements of a contract. He wouldn't have entered a binding contract if he knew he had to break it.

He also claimed to be a professor which turned out to be bogus. While I know he was a lawyer, I also know he was a politician (most politicians are lawyers), while it would be extremely hard to prosecute him on it because it was between candidates of opposing parties and then we get into accusations that rulings were partisan in nature. The fact remains that he was indeed in breach of contract, the absolute minimum you can argue is that he broke his word.

Astor
11-05-2008, 02:01 PM
While I know he was a lawyer, I also know he was a politician (most politicians are lawyers), while it would be extremely hard to prosecute him on it because it was between candidates of opposing parties and then we get into accusations that rulings were partisan in nature. The fact remains that he was indeed in breach of contract, the absolute minimum you can argue is that he broke his word.

You've not presented any conclusive proof that it even was a contract. You've just tossed accusations in an attempt to prove that he'd have lost if he hadn't had the money.

Politicians say a lot of things. They don't always follow through on them. I see no 'contract' in anything that he said.

I agree with Rogue that Obama wouldn't be foolish enough to enter into such a contract.

jrrtoken
11-05-2008, 02:03 PM
He also claimed to be a professor which turned out to be bogus.lolwut? (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html)

mimartin
11-05-2008, 02:03 PM
The fact remains that he was not in breach of contract, the absolute most you can argue is that he broke his word.Fixed

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 02:09 PM
The fact remains that he was not in breach of contract, the absolute most you can argue is that he broke his word.Fixed
Quit trying to twist things that I said mimartin. I am standing by the statement that he is in breach of contract.


The absolute most you can argue contrary to that is that he broke his word.



Remember, I satisified all the conditions that you gave as far as a contract is concerned.

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 02:11 PM
Quit trying to twist things that I said mimartin. I am standing by the statement that he is in breach of contract.


The absolute most you can argue contrary to that is that he broke his word.



Remember, I satisified all the conditions that you gave as far as a contract is concerned.
So you're saying you know more about the law than Barack Obama probably does? Really.

Your reasoning would fall flat on its face in a court of law, which is why you are wrong.

mimartin
11-05-2008, 02:17 PM
Remember, I satisified all the conditions that you gave as far as a contract is concerned. No, you failed to get past the consideration part.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 02:32 PM
So you're saying you know more about the law than Barack Obama probably does? Really.


I'm saying that he's a politician, and he's from Chicago. There is a history of political corruption in Chicago, see Obama's buddy Rezko.


Your reasoning would fall flat on its face in a court of law, which is why you are wrong.

Actually the difficulty would be more in determining what would be the reprecussions for being in breach of contract than whether or not one took place.

If McCain had done something like this there would be calls for lawsuits and the whole nine yards.

Also to quote myself:
At the time he didn't have that money though, when he made the pledge it was back in 2007 when the primaries were underway, he stood to gain politically by taking the public funds pledge for the general election, that he wouldn't secumb to special interest groups. So he gained politically, he just didn't count on the fact he could get huge sums of money later on.

So when he made his pledge/contract, he actually gained something when he did so. He broke his side of the contract as soon as he realized that he could get a lot of untraceable cash.

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 02:41 PM
I'm saying that he's a politician, and he's from Chicago. There is a history of political corruption in Chicago, see Obama's buddy Rezko.
Thank you for not addressing my question at all.
Actually the difficulty would be more in determining what would be the reprecussions for being in breach of contract than whether or not one took place.
So you're saying a court of law would skip straight ahead to determining what punishment Obama should receive for 'breaching' his contract. Well hot damn, I didn't know that. Thank God we have you, our legal eagle, to clear up the hard legal questions. :rolleyes:

If McCain had done something like this there would be calls for lawsuits and the whole nine yards.
You make a lot of these statements, yet they are unprovable, so I wish you would just stop. It doesn't help the discussion in any way.

jrrtoken
11-05-2008, 02:48 PM
I'm saying that he's a politician, and he's from Chicago. There is a history of political corruption in Chicago, see Obama's buddy Rezko.Eh? So there was a history. Does that mean that the whole system is corrupted? Listen, I live next to Chicago, and I can tell you that singling out one city for known corruption is pretty ridiculous, when cities such as New York have seen a greater form of corruption in the government.

mimartin
11-05-2008, 02:54 PM
At the time he didn't have that money though, when he made the pledge it was back in 2007 when the primaries were underway, he stood to gain politically by taking the public funds pledge for the general election, that he wouldn't secumb to special interest groups. So he gained politically, he just didn't count on the fact he could get huge sums of money later on. I will say it again. This does not constitute consideration. Going back to your original source for contract law 101.

Elements of consideration
In order to meet consideration's requirements, a contract must fulfill three elements. First, there must be a bargain regarding terms of an exchange. Second, there must be a mutual exchange. In other words, both parties must get something out of the contract. Third, the exchange must be something of value. Like I said if Obama would have accepted public funds, then you would have a point, but since he did not receive anything there is no contract.

Yes, he broke his word, but so has every other politician that has run for elected office. It is no more criminal than the first Bush’s “Read my lips no new taxes” pledge. Obama was not under oath and it was not a legal contract.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 03:52 PM
I will say it again. This does not constitute consideration. Going back to your original source for contract law 101.


Correction, it does constitute consideration because Senator McCain acted upon it in good faith to his detriment.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel prevents one party from withdrawing a promise made to a second party if the latter has reasonably relied on that promise and acted upon it to his detriment.
--Promissory Estoppel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)


Like I said if Obama would have accepted public funds, then you would have a point, but since he did not receive anything there is no contract.


Again see above, the fact McCain did in good faith makes it a breach of contract.


Yes, he broke his word, but so has every other politician that has run for elected office. It is no more criminal than the first Bush’s “Read my lips no new taxes” pledge. Obama was not under oath and it was not a legal contract.

Again you do not have to be under oath to create an oral contract.

Exceptions to Consideration Clause:
Modern contract theory has also permitted remedies on alternate theories such as promissory estoppel. Also, charitable pledges are enforceable without consideration as are contracts under seal.--Consideration under American Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_under_American_law)

Because McCain acted in good faith to Obama's pledge, to McCain's detriment, it was a contract, while Obama may have been a lawyer, he apparently didn't specialize in contract law based on what I've found.

Just like a Lawyer that specializes in ambulence chasing wouldn't be a lawyer you'd want representing you in a Constitutional Law case before the Supreme Court.

EnderWiggin
11-05-2008, 04:14 PM
It's over man. Give it up, and accept that you get to enjoy the next four years with President Barack Hussein Obama.

QFE.

snipped I wasn't even talking to him.:raise:

News Flash: Obama was a lawyer (he graduated from some podunk law school called Harvard or something) and he taught constitutional law (at some rinky dink school called the University of Chicago) so I think he might know a thing or two about the legal requirements of a contract. He wouldn't have entered a binding contract if he knew he had to break it.
QFE.


Quit trying to twist things that I said mimartin. I am standing by the statement that he is in breach of contract.


You can stand by it all you want, but it still won't be true.


Remember, I satisified all the conditions that you gave as far as a contract is concerned.

Except for the part where you didn't.


I was hoping that this ridiculousness would be over after the election :(

_EW_

Jae Onasi
11-05-2008, 04:18 PM
If it's not in writing, it's not binding. Saying "we'll work something out" does not mean someone is now _required_ to work something out. I don't think it would have made a difference anyway--the DNC would have just paid for the ads instead of Obama's campaign if he had taken public funds. With the perfect storm of Bush's terribly low approval rating and the stock market meltdown 3 weeks before the election, along with Obama's incredible popularity and appeal to be something different from Bush and cut taxes for the middle class, I think it would have been impossible for any Republican to win.

Garfield, if the RNC thought they could win that contract argument, don't you think they'd actually be in court fighting it out now? Obviously they knew they couldn't win, so they haven't bothered.

Edit: Wiki links are not the same as legal textbooks or the laws in the state where the alleged 'oral contract' was made, so wiki is irrelevant in this case.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 04:25 PM
If it's not in writing, it's not binding. Saying "we'll work something out" does not mean someone is now _required_ to work something out. I don't think it would have made a difference anyway--the DNC would have just paid for the ads instead of Obama's campaign if he had taken public funds. With the perfect storm of Bush's terribly low approval rating and the stock market meltdown 3 weeks before the election, along with Obama's incredible popularity and appeal to be something different from Bush and cut taxes for the middle class, I think it would have been impossible for any Republican to win.


As I've already pointed out a contract doesn't need to be in writing, if there is a video or audio record, then it doesn't have to be in writing.


Garfield, if the RNC thought they could win that contract argument, don't you think they'd actually be in court fighting it out now? Obviously they knew they couldn't win, so they haven't bothered.

I'm not sure they could win it, but there is a case there not sure how far it would have proceeded but the argument is a valid one.

My question is, would he have won without breaking his pledge/contract/whatever you want to call it. In my opinion he wouldn't have, the fact he spent over 700 million dollars is insane.

mimartin
11-05-2008, 04:25 PM
Correction, it does constitute consideration because Senator McCain acted upon it in good faith to his detriment.
--Promissory Estoppel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)

American law
In the many jurisdictions of the United States, promissory estoppel is generally an alternative to consideration as a basis for enforcing a promise. It is also sometimes referred to as detrimental reliance.
The American Law Institute in 1932 included the principle of estoppel into § 90 of the Restatement of Contracts, stating:
A promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee and which does induce such action or forbearance is binding if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.
—Restatement (Second) removed the requirement that the detriment be "substantial".
The distinction between promissory estoppel and equitable estoppel should be noted:
Equitable estoppel is distinct from promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel involves a clear and definite promise, while equitable estoppel involves only representations and inducements. The representations at issue in promissory estoppel go to future intent, while equitable estoppel involves statement of past or present fact. It is also said that equitable estoppel lies in tort, while promissory estoppel lies in contract. The major distinction between equitable estoppel and promissory estoppel is that the former is available only as a defense, while promissory estoppel can be used as the basis of a cause of action for damages.
—28 Am Jur 2d Estoppel and Waiver § 35 Again there is no Contract unless we go with the another countries versision of the law or the law has change since this has been updated.

Det. Bart Lasiter
11-05-2008, 04:28 PM
As I've already pointed out a contract doesn't need to be in writing, if there is a video or audio record, then it doesn't have to be in writing.



I'm not sure they could win it, but there is a case there not sure how far it would have proceeded but the argument is a valid one.

My question is, would he have won without breaking his pledge/contract/whatever you want to call it. In my opinion he wouldn't have, the fact he spent over 700 million dollars is insane.Well, looks like we'll have to hold him to the consequences for breaching the contract outlined in the contract.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 04:29 PM
Again there is no Contract unless we go with the another countries versision of the law or the law has change since this has been updated.

Actually there is because you can define it as a substancial loss, I would consider a couple hundred million dollars worth of advertising to be pretty substancial.

mimartin
11-05-2008, 04:29 PM
Well, looks like we'll have to hold him to the consequences for breaching the contract outlined in the contract.

Let us give him the worse punishment possible, he has to clean up the mess Bush has made.

Actually there is because you can define it as a substancial loss, I would consider a couple hundred million dollars worth of advertising to be pretty substancial. 1. This has nothing to do with my post. 2. I'm taking EW advice as you don't even read your own sources, but only cherry pick the line that fits your argument and ignore the next line that make that line mute.

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 04:32 PM
Correction, it does constitute consideration because Senator McCain acted upon it in good faith to his detriment.
--Promissory Estoppel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel#Promissory_estoppel)

Because McCain acted in good faith to Obama's pledge, to McCain's detriment, it was a contract, while Obama may have been a lawyer, he apparently didn't specialize in contract law based on what I've found.

Promissory estoppel does not work in this situation, because there was nothing stopping McCain from taking private funding after Obama said he would. It would work if both candidates had agreed to take public funding and there was some force preventing one candidate from taking private funding if the other had also accepted private funding, but there isn't any such force. McCain was free at any time after Obama said he would not participate in public funding to engage in private funding of his campaign. McCain chose not to engage in private funding, thus there was no detriment to his position caused by Obama's backing out.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 04:33 PM
Let us give him the worse punishment possible, he has to clean up the mess Bush has made.

How much of it is due to the Democrats though, this subprime mess happened on their watch, and they planted the seeds for it... So this could be considered the Democrat's mess.

Promissory estoppel does not work in this situation, because there was nothing stopping McCain from taking private funding after Obama said he would. It would work if both candidates had agreed to take public funding and there was some force preventing one candidate from taking private funding if the other had also accepted private funding, but there isn't any such force. McCain was free at any time after Obama said he would not participate in public funding to engage in private funding of his campaign. McCain chose not to engage in private funding, thus there was no detriment to his position caused by Obama's backing out.

Wrong, because McCain had filled out the paperwork for Public Financing BEFORE Obama backed out. And the Democrats were all up in arms saying McCain would be unable to back out...

Astor
11-05-2008, 04:34 PM
Actually there is because you can define it as a substancial loss, I would consider a couple hundred million dollars worth of advertising to be pretty substancial.

It's not like McCain didn't have the same choice as Obama... he could have chosen the same funding as Obama, but didn't - I really don't see the big problem, and again, I don't see any 'contract' between anyone.

jrrtoken
11-05-2008, 04:37 PM
How much of it is due to the Democrats though, this subprime mess happened on their watch, and they planted the seeds for it... So this could be considered the Democrat's mess.:rofl:

Guess who turned a surplus into a deficit in a several months?
Republicans

Guess who got us into two wars?
Republicans

Guess who stood idly by while Katrina screwed the southeast?
Republicans

Guess who decided to deregulate the economy?
Republicans

Guess who eats people?
Republicans Jeffrey Dahmer

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 04:42 PM
Guess who turned a surplus into a deficit in a several months?
Republicans


That's up till 2006-07 when the dems gained power.


Guess who got us into two wars?
Republicans


So you saying we should have blown up an aspirin factory like the last time we were bombed by a terrorist and then whine to the UN. Like Clinton did.


Guess who stood idly by while Katrina screwed the southeast?
Republicans


You left out the Democrat Governor of Louisanna and the Democrat Mayor of New Orleans.


Guess who decided to deregulate the economy?
Republicans


Wasn't this when Clinton was President and the banks behind the subprime mortgage mess are Federally Insured.


Guess who eats people?
Republicans Jeffrey Dahmer

What's this have to do with the topic.

Web Rider
11-05-2008, 04:53 PM
You left out the Democrat Governor of Louisanna and the Democrat Mayor of New Orleans.

pfft, they didn't stand idly by.

They ran away.

Tommycat
11-05-2008, 04:54 PM
pfft, they didn't stand idly by.

They ran away.
I never do this, but QFT
Classic

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 05:07 PM
How much of it is due to the Democrats though, this subprime mess happened on their watch, and they planted the seeds for it... So this could be considered the Democrat's mess.
Bush and his policies certainly did not help it, and McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time, so he's equally culpable.
Wrong, because McCain had filled out the paperwork for Public Financing BEFORE Obama backed out. And the Democrats were all up in arms saying McCain would be unable to back out...
McCain couldn't back out because of his own entanglements with the FEC. He flip-flopped on public financing a lot in 2007 before signing on with the FEC. Let's not forget that McCain wanted to opt out of public financing, but couldn't because of his FEC entanglements. So he had to eat his gun and accept the public money because he couldn't accept private donations thanks to his own meanderings.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 05:12 PM
Bush and his policies certainly did not help it, and McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time, so he's equally culpable.


You need to read the bills that made it to Bush's desk because Bush cannot vote in the United States Senate.

See Articles I and II of the United States Constitution.


McCain couldn't back out because of his own entanglements with the FEC. He flip-flopped on public financing a lot in 2007 before signing on with the FEC. If there was a reason McCain couldn't accept private money, it was his own fault, not Obama's.

Actually, that's not entirely true. McCain filed the paperwork for public financing for when he entered the General Election before Obama went back on his word. You can argue all you want, but the point is McCain was locked in for Public Financing before Obama broke his pledge/contract.

mimartin
11-05-2008, 05:18 PM
You need to read the bills that made it to Bush's desk because Bush cannot vote in the United States Senate. Did I misread Rogue Nine's comment. I thought Rogue Nine's comment about Bush involved Bush's policies not bills. Oh, and my history may be vague, but wasn't there Republican Congress for 6 of his 8 years?

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 05:21 PM
You need to read the bills that made it to Bush's desk because Bush cannot vote in the United States Senate.
But McCain could. And did.

Actually, that's not entirely true. McCain filed the paperwork for public financing for when he entered the General Election before Obama went back on his word. You can argue all you want, but the point is McCain was locked in for Public Financing before Obama broke his pledge/contract.
Yeah, I just said that. He was locked into it because of all the problems he was going through with the FEC.

By admitting that McCain was locked in even before Obama made the decision to accept private financing, you've effectively demonstrated that it wasn't Obama's fault under promissory estoppel that McCain had spending limits. Thanks for making my argument for me.

mimartin
11-05-2008, 05:27 PM
By admitting that McCain was locked in even before Obama made the decision to accept private financing, you've effectively demonstrated that it wasn't Obama's fault under promissory estoppel that McCain had spending limits. Thanks for making my argument for me.:lol: FTW!!! :bow: ROGUE NINE

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 05:30 PM
But McCain could. And did.


The policies may have been good just Bush isn't a very good manager, and you said voting with Bush 90% of the time.


Yeah, I just said that. He was locked into it because of all the problems he was going through with the FEC.


McCain got locked in after Obama made the pledge.


By admitting that McCain was locked in even before Obama made the decision to accept private financing, you've effectively demonstrated that it wasn't Obama's fault under promissory estoppel that McCain had spending limits. Thanks for making my argument for me.

I never said that, he made the decision before McCain was locked in.

jrrtoken
11-05-2008, 05:32 PM
You have officially lost this argument. By providing no solid proof, by making wild accusations, and by having yourself corrected dozens of time, there is no more merit in this thread. Niner is lord.

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 05:38 PM
The policies may have been good just Bush isn't a very good manager, and you said voting with Bush 90% of the time.
Voting alongside Bush's positions 90% of the time. Which he said so himself.

McCain got locked in after Obama made the pledge.
Yeah, because the FEC was breathing down McCain's neck for trying to back out of public financing himself. :rolleyes:

I never said that, he [Obama] made the decision before McCain was locked in.
Excuse me?
but the point is McCain was locked in for Public Financing before Obama broke his pledge/contract.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 05:38 PM
You have officially lost this argument. By providing no solid proof, by making wild accusations, and by having yourself corrected dozens of time, there is no more merit in this thread. Niner is lord.

I have not lost anything, fact is Obama made the pledge/contract, McCain started into the Public Financing and then Obama renigged. That is a breach of contract.

Seriously even CBS News admits Obama broke his promise (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/20/politics/animal/main3852962.shtml), though it neglects to point out that McCain had entered into the public financing before he broke his word.

Yeah, because the FEC was breathing down McCain's neck for trying to back out of public financing himself.

You don't have your timeline straight, McCain tried to back out after Obama had renigged on his pledge and the FEC wouldn't let him back out.

Astor
11-05-2008, 05:41 PM
It's an election. The guys in it want to win (i'm assuming). Ergo, they'll do everything they can to win. Just because McCain chose to limit his funds doesn't mean that Obama had to.

As to his 'breaking his word' - get over it. Obama saw that he would raise more funds by not using public funding, so chose not to do so after he saw the advantage it would give it him.

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 05:46 PM
It's an election. The guys in it want to win (i'm assuming). Ergo, they'll do everything they can to win. Just because McCain chose to limit his funds doesn't mean that Obama had to.


I don't care that they want to win, I do care when they don't play by the rules.


As to his 'breaking his word' - get over it. Obama saw that he would raise more funds by not using public funding, so chose not to do so after he saw the advantage it would give it him.

The point is that he entered into a contract, and then it's extremely likely that Obama knowingly accepted illegal campaign contributions. Which is precisely why the public financing was put in place.

This election has basically just totally destroyed the public financing system, no candidate will ever take public financing again, which we end up with the same corruption problem that we had before the system was put in place.

Astor
11-05-2008, 05:51 PM
I don't care that they want to win, I do care when they don't play by the rules.

What rules? Someone didn't do something they said they would. That happens a lot, you know.

The point is that he entered into a contract, and then it's extremely likely that Obama knowingly accepted illegal campaign contributions.

Proof?

This election has basically just totally destroyed the public financing system, no candidate will ever take public financing again, which we end up with the same corruption problem that we had before the system was put in place.

Garfield, this could have been a chance for you to show that you could be gracious in defeat - just like McCain - but you still have to come up with some way of throwing accusations.

I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.

Maybe you should think about the Senator's words.

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 05:59 PM
You don't have your timeline straight, McCain tried to back out after Obama had renigged on his pledge and the FEC wouldn't let him back out.
Feb 6, 2008 - McCain tries to back out (http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/mccainletter.pdf).
Jun 18, 2008 - Obama opts out of public financing (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/19/obama-opts-out-of-public-financing/).

GarfieldJL
11-05-2008, 07:11 PM
Feb 6, 2008 - McCain tries to back out (http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/mccainletter.pdf).


This letter is to advise you that I, on behalf of myself and John McCain 2008, Inc., my principal campaign committee, am withdrawing from participation in the federal primary-election funding program established by the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act. No funds have been paid to date by the Department of the Treasury, and the certification of funds has not been pledged as security for private finances.
Wasn't that over a "loan" that McCain never took the money out? Furthermore, if you read the letter it is referring to the Republican Primary not the General Election. Nice try, but the primary is not the general election, and remember Mitt Romney was still in it in February spending large amounts of money.


Jun 18, 2008 - Obama opts out of public financing (http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/19/obama-opts-out-of-public-financing/).

Actually that makes it even worse for Obama, if you have the dates, because he made the pledge back in 2007. So this brings up three possibilities.

That McCain was trying to get it so his options remained open if Obama renigged, by getting hints from sources close to Obama.
That Obama was waiting to make sure that McCain would be unable to get out of the FEC conundrum before renigging so McCain wouldn't stand a chance.
(Most likely) That what you brought up concerning McCain has little to nothing to do with your argument considering it isn't even referring to the General Election.

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 07:56 PM
Furthermore, if you read the letter it is referring to the Republican Primary not the General Election. Nice try, but the primary is not the general election, and remember Mitt Romney was still in it in February spending large amounts of money.
The Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account is a subsection of Presidential Election Campaign Fund (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/26/subtitles/h/chapters/96/sections/section_9037.html), which is set aside for general election funding. The law is clear. If you want to opt out of one, you opt out of the whole thing.

And I'm going to have to remind you that you said this:
Actually, that's not entirely true. McCain filed the paperwork for public financing for when he entered the General Election before Obama went back on his word. You can argue all you want, but the point is McCain was locked in for Public Financing before Obama broke his pledge/contract.
You got it right the first time.

mimartin
11-05-2008, 08:10 PM
I have not lost anything, fact is Obama made the pledge/contract, McCain started into the Public Financing and then Obama renigged. That is a breach of contract. Hedging your bet now? Earlier you said it was a contract.

First off I must apologize to the members and to President-Elect Obama as my entire argument was flawed. Obama never made a commitment to receive public money. He made a comment that he would meet with McCain to see if they could make a deal. Since McCain sign up for public money before Obama declared he would finance his campaign with private funds I apologize for saying that Obama broke his word.

1. Obama did not say he would take public money
2. McCain sign up for public funds before Obama declared he would finance with private funds.
3. There is no contract.

Tommycat
11-05-2008, 09:37 PM
Bush and his policies certainly did not help it, and McCain voted with Bush over 90% of the time, so he's equally culpable.
nit pick: Actually McCain DID NOT vote with Bush over 90% of the time. If he said this, I want to see proof of this. He DID however say that he voted with his PARTY over 90% of the time. It was said when he was trying to win the party nomination. It still looked bad for McCain anyway because he was trying to look like a maverick.

ET Warrior
11-05-2008, 09:59 PM
nit pick: Actually McCain DID NOT vote with Bush over 90% of the time.http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/669/

Rogue Nine
11-05-2008, 10:11 PM
nit pick: Actually McCain DID NOT vote with Bush over 90% of the time. If he said this, I want to see proof of this.
wsup wsup (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uThoBMfcFRc)

EnderWiggin
11-05-2008, 10:18 PM
How much of it is due to the Democrats though, this subprime mess happened on their watch, and they planted the seeds for it... So this could be considered the Democrat's mess.


I think that a lot of it is due to the mainstream media though, a lot of these messes happened on their watch - it's actually the media's mess.

_EW_

PS: well argued, Niner.

Tommycat
11-06-2008, 04:40 AM
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/669/

Heh... I stand corrected. My bad. Thanks for the link. Though it was 90% average. 77 at the lowest and 95% at the highest. Those numbers are also kinda skewed because of the issues he agreed with the president on. Immigration and the Iraq war were the main ones. Plus he missed more than half the votes last year. It is kind of a misrepresentation.

GarfieldJL
11-06-2008, 03:22 PM
Okay I just found something referring to a written document.

On a questionaire by the good government group Common Cause, Obama wrote, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=5210799&page=1)

Achilles
11-06-2008, 03:35 PM
Yep, he said that.

That he was unable to reach "an agreement with the Republican nominee" does not mean that he lied, broke his promise, went back on his word, changed his mind, etc, etc, etc.

Rogue Nine
11-06-2008, 03:36 PM
Okay I just found something referring to a written document.

ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=5210799&page=1)
Hahahaha, you're kidding, right? Let's break this down.

On a questionaire
A questionaire is not a binding legal contract.
by the good government group Common Cause,
Common Cause is not the FEC or any sort of official governmental body at all.
Obama wrote, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
"Aggressively pursue" does not equate to "I promise to make".



And yet again, reminding you that you said this:
Actually, that's not entirely true. McCain filed the paperwork for public financing for when he entered the General Election before Obama went back on his word. You can argue all you want, but the point is McCain was locked in for Public Financing before Obama broke his pledge/contract.

GarfieldJL
11-06-2008, 03:37 PM
Yep, he said that.

That he was unable to reach "an agreement with the Republican nominee" does not mean that he lied, broke his promise, went back on his word, changed his mind, etc, etc, etc.

Last I checked McCain was "locked" into public financing, and bear in mind I'm going off of ABC which is one of the news outlets that was in the tank for the Dems. I still have a few hundred thousand links to go through.

Achilles
11-06-2008, 03:46 PM
Go through as many links as you would like. It won't change the meaning of the words.

Your argument was that Obama committed to public financing. Those of us that followed the campaign pointed out that this wasn't what he said. Now that you yourself have quoted a source that confirms what we've been saying all along, I don't know what you hope to gain by continuing the debate the point (especially now that the campaign is over).

@random: Wasn't there an amended rule about repeating arguments that don't move the conversation forward? Because the rule is vague, I'm having difficulty determining whether a member of the staff should be applying it here or not.

Jae Onasi
11-06-2008, 03:50 PM
Yep, I think this thread has run its course.