1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

The First $100 million dollar Chief Executive?

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by Wildkow, Apr 2, 2007.

  1. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Is this obscene or what? This figures are not absolutely accurate but they are close. If anyone can update or contribute figures from other candidates’ let me know.

    Hillary Clinton - $36M = $26M raised + $10M (left over Senate campaign funds)
    Mitt Romney - $23M ($2M of his own money)
    Barack Obama - $18M
    Rudy Giuliani - $18M
    John Edwards - $14M
    John McCain - $12M

    Total Front Runners = $123 Million dollars. . . and we are still 20 months out.


    Wildkow


    edit: 8:05pm lowered McCain to an estimated $12M from $14M upon fair and balanced facts from the Fox News Network.
     
  2. huskers

    huskers Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    2,542
    2,485
    0
    Location:
    Nebraska
    Vehicle:
    2017 Prius Prime
    Model:
    Prime Advanced
    I guess none of us will be running soon !!! ;)
     
  3. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Of the rich, by the rich, for the rich. The U.S. was founded by the rich, and has always been run by the rich. Our wars are fought to benefit the rich. Even the Civil War was a struggle between the rich industrialists of the north and the rich slave-holding plantation owners of the south, though they always convince the poor folks to do the killing and the dying.

    Elections have always been expensive enough to keep poor candidates, or candidates without rich backers, out of the running.
     
  4. burritos

    burritos Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    4,946
    252
    0
    Location:
    California
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 2 2007, 06:26 PM) [snapback]416698[/snapback]</div>
    We need publicly funded campaigns only.
     
  5. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Numbers for Obama haven't been released yet. They are supposed to be announce on Wed. Speculation is that he's #2 at $20 million or more, putting Edwards third.

    All candidates are refusing to accept public funding because that would limit how much they could spend. So they're going to raise all their own money so they can spend as much of it as they want.

    Now...is this going to spur the economy at all? I imagine most of it will go for transportation and advertising/media.

    Too bad we can't just do away with voting and advertising all together. Make it a flat out contest. Whoever raises the most money wins, and all money raised by all candidates is donated to the Government to pay down the debt. Excess goes to Education and Universal Health. The Candidate would then continue their "fund raising" efforts throughout their term, turning over all of the money to government programs and debt reduction. To me, that is a candidates value; how much revenue they can raise. And if it's not going to something constructive, like paying down the debt, then it's pretty much useless.
     
  6. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 2 2007, 07:59 PM) [snapback]416795[/snapback]</div>
    That's for the democrats only correct? Because as far as I know Romney still has appox. $23M. I edited McCain;s figure from $14M to $12M upon fair and balanced facts from Fox News Network.

    Wildkow
     
  7. fshagan

    fshagan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    1,766
    4
    0
    Location:
    Noneofyourbusiness, CA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Raising money is an indication that the person is popular, as the most an individual can give to a campaign is $2,300. $25 million in $2,300 donations is quite a few, don't you think?

    But wait. That limit is per "campaign", so all of the candidates (except one) have both a primary campaign and a general election campaign, so individual donors can give $4,600 ($2,300 to each campaign). IIRC, after an election, a campaign can give all its money to anything or anyone it likes, so any left over money in the "primary campaign" can be rolled over into the general election campaign. That means the candidate has effectively circumvented the election laws and some citizens in reality contributed twice the amount to their general election campaign.

    So far, they aren't talking about how much money is in the primary campaign and how much is in the general election campaign, but I think that will come out in the disclosures a bit later.

    So who is the candidate who didn't play the shell game breaking the spirit of the campaign laws and making the candidates looking just so greasy? One of the top guys in terms of donations.

    Mitt Romney ... see http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Relea...uarter_Receipts ... raised over 20 million in $2,300 contributions and loaned his campaign 2.35 million. On the radio today, I heard him say that the number people don't know yet is how much of that money has already been spent ... raising money in $2,300 increments requires a lot of work, a lot of "meet and greet", and that gets expensive.

    I find it interesting that arguably the most conservative candidate, from a party that traditionally believes limiting free speech by telling me how much money I can give to a candidate is reprehensible, is the candidate who most closely played by the stupid, arcane and wholly ineffective rules. He raised more money from working class Republicans than the presumed front runner, Rudy Giuliani did from his fat cat endorsements.
     
  8. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 2 2007, 07:59 PM) [snapback]416795[/snapback]</div>
    I have a better idea. I've been saying this for decades:

    Instead of elections, have lotteries. But since the worst choices are the people who want the job, put everyone's name in the computerized hat. Every person who meets the age and citizenship requirements. Let the computer select a name. That person becomes president. Same for governors and congress and all other elected offices. Judges, too. If your name comes up, you have to serve. One term. Once you've served, you're excused for life. If you refuse, you spend the term in prison, in solitary confinement, with nothing to read but the collected speeches of Enver Hoxha. The laws of probability would guarantee that every category would be represented in proportion to their numbers. Both sexes, all racial and linguistic groups. All religions. All sexual orientations. Everybody'd be represented.

    When I first thought of this, I thought it was an original idea. Then I found out the ancient Greeks used to do it this way. Sure beats the way we do it now.
     
  9. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 2 2007, 11:49 PM) [snapback]416846[/snapback]</div>
    There's actually a science fiction short story predicated on anyone who wants the job should be barred from getting elected.

    In it there was no longer any voting. A computer decided what traits were needed at the point in time by a leader, then sifted through the biographies of all eligible citizens and chose the best person for the job. By law they could no turn down the nomination. That was it. They were it.

    I'm sure given time I could find the story. It was probably Stanley G. Weinbaum or one of those guys. I remember reading it in a set of "Best Of...." books I have.
     
  10. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 2 2007, 10:41 PM) [snapback]416872[/snapback]</div>
    I would not trust a computer to decide "who's best" for the job. All I want the computer to do is pick a name entirely at random.

    The only thing a computer does is follow the instructions in its program, and a program for deciding "who's best" will carry the programmer's biases, which will almost certainly exclude the underprivileged classes. I want proportional representation for all citizens, and only random selection can achieve that.
     
  11. fshagan

    fshagan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2005
    1,766
    4
    0
    Location:
    Noneofyourbusiness, CA
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 2 2007, 08:49 PM) [snapback]416846[/snapback]</div>

    Interesting, but I think it would suffer from the same disadvantages that strict term limits have proven to generate here in California; namely, in a town where all the political leaders are newbies, the most experienced folks are the lobbyists. And the lobbyists have more influence, not less.
     
  12. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Apr 3 2007, 11:44 PM) [snapback]417486[/snapback]</div>
    Good point. So we stagger the terms. And we limit the right to lobby government to individuals acting on their own behalf without pay. IOW, corporations lose the right to be considered citizens.

    Of course all this is mad utopian fantasy, because the corporations run the country and they'll kill anybody who ever actually poses a threat to their power and who cannot be bought off.
     
  13. Loveit

    Loveit New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    473
    1
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Apr 2 2007, 09:38 PM) [snapback]416785[/snapback]</div>
    So are you willing to fund someone who doesn't have the same interests in how our gov't is run?


    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Apr 2 2007, 11:49 PM) [snapback]416846[/snapback]</div>
    Yes, you are right about that. But I don't think many people are gonna go for it!

    Most of the people who voted got their thumbs dipped in some sort of ink or wine stain, that way they knew who voted and or didn't . Good gravy, help those who didn't vote. I believe they were punished.
     
  14. daniel

    daniel Cat Lovers Against the Bomb

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    14,487
    1,518
    0
    Location:
    Spokane, WA
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(loveit @ Apr 4 2007, 11:31 AM) [snapback]417723[/snapback]</div>
    Excuse me, what does this refer to? Elections in ancient Greece? The political organization of ancient Greece was a collection of city-states. Those that were democratic (notably Athens, though not for its whole history) were able to gather every elligible person (free male citizens) into a single building for debates and decision-making. They didn't have our kind of elections.
     
  15. larkinmj

    larkinmj New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    1,996
    5
    0
    The ideas from science fiction and ancient Greece are interesting. But the only way to move this country away from oligarchy is to enact campaign finance reform, public financing for campaigns, and strict anti-lobbyist laws. Both parties are guilty of greed and corporate whorism; the Republicans just happen to be more skillful at it. Unless there's a grassroots effort to break the corporate hold on American politics, we might as well just sit home, watch "American Idol", and let the rulers pick whichever they choose of the "lesser of two evils" of the multi-million dollar candidates.
     
  16. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Corrections:

    Hillary Clinton - $26M raised (+ $10M from Senate campaign)
    Barack Obama - <strike>$18M</strike> $25M
    Mitt Romney - $23M
    Rudy Giuliani - <strike>$18M</strike> $15M
    John Edwards - $14M
    John McCain - $12.5M
    Chris Dodd - $4M (+$5M from Senate campaign)
    Bill Richardson - $6M

    Barack rivals Clinton in fundraising
     
  17. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 5 2007, 12:13 AM) [snapback]418096[/snapback]</div>
    Whoa that is a huge jump for Barack and you edited out Hillary's $36M total campaign funds and Mitt's own $2M contribution to his election, how come?

    Wildkow
     
  18. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Apr 5 2007, 04:06 AM) [snapback]418114[/snapback]</div>
    Did you bother to read the article I linked to?

    Hillary raised $26M. She transferred $10M from her senate campaign. Which I stated. I also stated any senate transfers from other campaigns. Did I need to add them together for the math challenged? Hillary total $36M. Dodd total $9M. Happy? Wasn't this about fundraising?

    Romney is only listed as $23M. No mention of how much of that is his own money.

    Citations are given for a reason. You could check the facts in the article I linked and point out any errors or omissions. You can also provide a link to any article you find that contradicts the article I found.

    It's called.....research.
     
  19. desynch

    desynch Die-Hard Conservative

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    607
    2
    0
    Location:
    Lakehouse
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 2 2007, 09:59 PM) [snapback]416795[/snapback]</div>
    Wow. Socialism.
     
  20. Wildkow

    Wildkow New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    5,270
    37
    36
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Apr 5 2007, 01:05 PM) [snapback]418383[/snapback]</div>
    Geeeez, OK don't get your panties in a bundle! :rolleyes: [attachmentid=7299] :lol: I was just asking and I doubt the link in your article would explain your reasons for leaving them out. WoW someone needs a nappypoo or maybe just a good healthy poo. <_<

    Wildkow
     

    Attached Files: