Meanwhile in Obamaland,, the Obama Bundlers

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Hoss, Oct 28, 2011.

  1. Hoss

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    12,050
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    398
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Eastern town
    Obama Backers Tied to Lobbies Raise Millions


    "— Despite a pledge not to take money from lobbyists, President Obama has relied on prominent supporters who are active in the lobbying industry to raise millions of dollars for his re-election bid."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/us/politics/obama-bundlers-have-ties-to-lobbying.html


    so it would seem President Obama continues to say one thing and do another.... yet another reason he has left me and a lot of others so greatly disappointed.
     
  2. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,302
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,685
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    Yeah.... darn him for not being stupid enough to say no.
     
  3. Q Vee

    Q Vee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,032
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England, USA
    Yes. Things were so much better when Haliburton was running the White House. And now that the Republicans have control of the House of Rep. they are doing such and exemplary job of democratic legislating. President Obama needs to be perfect on everything he does and keep every single promise he has ever made in order to even be considered as an effective national and world leader.

    Those folks in "Obamaland" need to forget about how he avoided a second Great Depression, and ended the threat of Bin Laden, and overturned DADT, and improved access to healthcare. President Obama is obviously just in it for his own personal gain and could care less about the country's infrastructure and the decline of the middle class. His acceptance of funds from "lobbyists" is definitely key to his ultimate goals of deception and redirection. Why else would he use Executive Orders to fulfill some his objectives? Isn't that what other former Presidents used them for?

    At least we can count on the Republicans to keep their word. They will do anything to make him a one-term President, and blocking legislation and federal appointments are proof that they know how to get the job done. Four years of adding to the inefficiency of government is a small price for the public to pay so they can get what they want.

    It is just mind blowing the Stellar choices they are putting up for candidates for the President of the United States -- I still don't understand why Gov. Palin did not go for it. Surely she represents the best the Tea Party has to offer. After all they are not a "Lobbying" group and would have no influence whatsoever on government issues if their candidate was in power.

    Yes. President Obama sure has done a disservice to his supporters by attempting to overreach and bring the Republicans into a consensus building, non-partisan Congress, working jointly with the Administration. That is simply political blasphemy. Almost as disappointing as the fact that he has been President for just over 2 and a half years has not accomplished everything that he ran for! It took him this long to finally bring home the troops from Iraq. A war that was over before he even took office for Pete Sake!

    This bundler issue is just the last straw for sure. Forget Obamaland. Bring on Disneyland and the Stepford Congress. How much worse could they be?

    Oh right, we already know that answer from the previous Administration of 8 years that brought us to this crisis in the first place. It would be simply, HORRIFIC!!
     
  4. D_Miranda_Wrights

    D_Miranda_Wrights Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    4
    It's a pretty tepid move in the first place. Not accepting donations from lobbyists isn't going to do anything, considering that lobbyists are still going to be critical to greasing the wheel of the Hill
     
  5. Phil Ayesho

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Messages:
    5,595
    Likes Received:
    884
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    Obama never said he would not take money from people connected with Lobbies...
    He said he would enforce rules making it harder for former elected officials and their employees to become lobbyists immediately upon leaving office or employ of sitting congressmen.

    It seems your beef is not with the actual fact of lobbying... nor of political donations... but with the idea of a politician Saying one thing and Doing another...

    In which case... it seems to me you ought to be Really pissed at every single GOP politician elected in the past 25 years.

    They all SAID they believed in balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility, and lowering the deficits...
    But they all VOTED to spend vastly more money, reduce Federal revenue, ( like racking up a bunch of credit card debt and THEN asking your boss to cut your pay )
    and they all Increased the size of the deficits.

    Obama never promised not to bail out private corporations in trouble... Republicans ran on that promise... and it was Republicans that voted for the TARP plan proposed by Republican President George Bush, AFTER Republican de-regulation of banking and securities had created a 'free market' money grab that destroyed 25% of the value of the entire United States.

    The actual numbers do not lie... Unless you are in the top 10% of income earners here in the US... then Republican policies have undermined your financial interests, and transferred much of your potential wealth into the hands of the top 10%

    Everyone but the top 10% has seen real earning contrasted with inflation, stagnate, and the 90% forced to divvy up a smaller and smaller portion of the pie.

    It was republicans that appointed the justices that decided that Corporations controlled by the top 1% can spend INFINITE amounts of money in support of any candidate they choose... which, of course, only makes the problem of lobbying and money influenced policy far worse, doesn't it?


    So, if you aren't literally a multi-millionaire.... supporting the GOP makes you a moron of the lowest order.

    Literally too stupid to understand where your actual interests lie. Perhaps brainwashed by the litany of corporate controlled propaganda and lies promulgated by FOX and Murdoch's other media outlets dedicated to convincing morons to back things like 'flat taxes' or 'national sales taxes' that literally fuck 90% of income earners in the ass to enrich the billionaires even more. Or to believe that government is "bad" when it is Government that actually ENABLES small businesses to even operate thru the infrastructure and support services it provides.
    (really, how much do you think coca cola would cost if the Government did not supply them with purified and safe water at fractions of a penny per gallon? And roads to drive their delivery trucks on? )



    Of course... it might simply be that all these middle class GOP supporters are not Entirely stupid... They may simply be SO racist, that their political beliefs are dictated by the fact that Obama is black.


    But then... the GOP's transparently All white ( token blacks notwithstanding) all Rich, let money do what it wants leadership has long presented this false front of inclusion, masking an organization run by folks who might as well be wearing white hoods.


    Seriously... If you dislike Obama because his actions don't match his rhetoric...
    then LOATHE the GOP for the FACTS... Reagan talked about lower taxes, but in fact RAISED THEM ELEVEN times in 8 years.
    They ALL talk about eliminating deficits whenever a democrat is in the white house... but every Republican president since Nixon had significantly INCREASED the Deficit. Reagan doubled it, and Bush II Tripled it.

    BUSH I promised no new taxes, and then raised them- and got booted...

    Not to mention that since taking control of the House, the GOP has not even DEBATED a single bill that addresses JOBS. They TALK about jobs all the time...But they filibuster even allowing discussion of any bill that actually seeks to improve unemployment.
    but they have admitted that their number one aim is to defeat Obama by preventing ANY Obama supported bill from getting voted on. No matter how bad the economy is, nor how much it might help, nor even how much any bill includes Republican policy ideas...
    That is essentially abandoning the interests of the nation and exacerbating the economic crisis... making American's lives WORSE, as a means to win power.

    You like THAT group of millionaire fucks better than Obama?

    And don't forget to take a look at the economic statistics... Clinton got elected because 12 years of Reagan's Voodoo economics had left the middle class in worse shape. And Bush II and his republican controlled house and senate managed to REALLY trash not only the US economy, but imperil the world economy with their Ayn Rand inspired idiocy.

    Herman Cain is right about ONE thing.
    If you aren't Rich or don't have a job, Blame Yourself.

    If you're a liberal, Blame yourself for not getting off your lazy ass and voting against the GOP in 2010.
    And if you're a conservative or independent, blame yourself for every time you voted GOP in the last 25 years.

    Income inequality has not been this bad since the era leading up to the crash of 29.

    That same era that caused revolutions in Russia, Labor riots in Europe and the US, and religious and moral extremists passing prohibition...

    Since Newt Gingrich and the NeoCons came on the scene, there has been Class warfare going on in this country and parts of Europe.

    The robber barrons are on the march... and trying their best to "shame" anyone calling out their overt assault on the middle class by calling that 'class warfare'... kind of like calling a nuclear missile a "peacekeeper"- or a Bill that strips your constitutional rights the "patriot act"...

    Well, folks... they are right... it ain't REALLY a war until BOTH sides are in the fight.

    So its class warfare... the only question is, WHO'S SIDE ARE YOU ON?

    The rich whose multinational corporate 'personhoods' pledge no allegiance to anything but their own wealth?

    Or the 99% who ARE WE the People mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America?


    If we really want Congress to do its damn job, then we should KICK out of office EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN, and EVERY Democrat who Votes with them to back the monied fucks without regard to their constituencies.

    Give Obama not only the Presidency... but a Congress unanimously dedicated to putting bills up for VOTE rather than simply stopping all debate thru misuse of filibuster.

    What the GOP calls the "Tyranny of the Majority" is actually called "democracy"... the foundational idea of the Constitution.

    Obama got elected telling us that Yes, We Can...

    And then WE let him down in 2010 by letting a a Kock Brothers funded Tea Party flood the polls unopposed.

    Time to shoulder the burden with him and hand him the majority that will allow the progress we saw in his first two years.

    The GOP supports increasing riches for 1% thru increasing poverty for the rest, and Government that does NOTHING to aid its own citizens in times of crisis.
    They support welfare benefiting Corporate "people" but not flesh and blood people.


    And their Idea of a Free Market is that the Wealthy ought to be Free to BUY the government that suits THEM, while the rest of us will not have enough money to even buy a doctor when we need one.


    Even MOST of the wealthy are in favor of paying more in taxes...

    This political debate is being driven and shaped by less than 0.1% of the uber-wealthy.


    And anyone not in their class who takes their side is an utter shithead.
     
  6. D_Miranda_Wrights

    D_Miranda_Wrights Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    4
    Phil, when politicians know that voters will default back to "but the other dude is worse" at the ballot box or when donating, they have no reason to listen to any of their complaints. Politics is a leverage game. I think this was a pretty pointless symbolic gesture in the first place, but upwards of 80% of your post is about how bad the GOP sucks, and how retarded it would be to break ranks over something like this. This is a microcosm of the exact attitude that lets politicians get away with breaking promises that most swing voters don't know/care about.
     
  7. Q Vee

    Q Vee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,032
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England, USA
    "You can fool (or please) some of the people, all of the the time,
    You can fool (or please) all of the people, some of the time
    but you can not fool (or please) all of the people, all of the time."


    Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain or P. T. Barnum or ?... (depending...)


    So Young Native, please clarify for me, in the political climate of today, how do voters (or do voters) hold President Obama (and/or other pols. in similar circumstances) accountable for this "pretty pointless symbolic gesture"/promise? And if no, why not? Basically, does the thread, the original OP and the NYT report have a worthy point on this?
     
  8. D_Miranda_Wrights

    D_Miranda_Wrights Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    970
    Likes Received:
    4
    Eh, I don't think any of us really can hold them accountable. Most Americans don't know what "bundlers" are, and tune out of the discussion. If a candidate says they don't take money from lobbyists, they're going to get more votes out of it than they lose, even if it's half-true. Lobbyists are going to have huge power even if they can't donate to Presidential campaigns, directly or indirectly. They're so integral to the way D.C. works.

    This is part of the reason I much prefer local politics, where pissing a few people off can actually have repercussions. :) That's just kind of the nature of national politics...no sitting president gets primaried for shit like this, and short of outright fraud, candidates can do about anything financially, and the gain in $ is usually worth the handful of votes lost from partisans and high-attention voters.
     
    #8 D_Miranda_Wrights, Oct 29, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2011
  9. Q Vee

    Q Vee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,032
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England, USA
    Thanks Young Native. Seems like President Obama is no worse than any other politician and maybe just a bit better with a not so pointless gesture that by all accounts cost him not so unsubstantial campaign funds from registered Lobbyists.

    Add this to the list of accomplishments in the two and a half years plus of his Administration and he comes out way ahead of the eight years of the Haliburton White House -- politically speaking.

    Things are not so bad in Obamaland afterall.
     
  10. D_Hairy Truman

    D_Hairy Truman New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    i agree
     
  11. OhWiseOne

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    4,493
    Albums:
    10
    Likes Received:
    133
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    Verified:
    Photo
    blah......blah.....blah
     
  12. Hoss

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    12,050
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    398
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Eastern town
    This wasn't about who is worse and who is better and wasn't intended to be another bash Bush and all Republicans or even bash President Obama. I was simply stating my disappointment that he has seen fit to take lobbying money in a circuitous way and then feels it is right to accept it and apparently many voters are sadly inclined to think the same way.

    Since President Obama ran in 2008 on a message of "Change" it seems unfortunate that he (and apparently many voters) believe that the change need only be in how one gets their money even if it is still coming from the lobbyists and it is known that it is. Is this what President Obama meant by change? Is this what people really want? Very disappointing.
     
  13. Calboner

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,026
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2,465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Literally? :adam4:

    Ouch!
     
  14. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Obama would have bang his mother in the middle of Pennsylvania Ave stab her with a pitch fork and throw her in a wood chipper to be a worse president than the last one. You remember the last one, the one this country may never recover from? Obama has had some successes and some failures but over all I'll vote for him one more time.
     
  15. Hoss

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    12,050
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    398
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Eastern town
    I repeat....since so many here seem to be unable or incapable of understanding, this isn't about which President is better and which is worse. It also isn't about who you intend to vote for. It is about yet another President who has engaged in a lie and how it is disappointing especially from a man who promised CHANGE.

    As to your comments houtx48, they were disgusting in their nature.
     
  16. hot-rod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,565
    Likes Received:
    40
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    On Lake Austin, Austin, Texas
    Hey, the Supreme Court says it's OK for Republicans to accept money from corporations. So, Mr President, GO FOR IT!
     
  17. hot-rod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,565
    Likes Received:
    40
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    On Lake Austin, Austin, Texas
    lmao....Tell 'em the truth! Give 'em hell!
     
  18. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,388
    Likes Received:
    2,129
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    And hey corporations are people too.
     
  19. Q Vee

    Q Vee New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,032
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New England, USA
    Hoss, I agree houtx48's comments were over the top, though well meaning.

    Regarding your assertion on the lying President Obama and the reactions in this thread...REALLY!!!! You don't get it? OK. Let's stick strictly to your disappointment: the "LIE" = NO "CHANGE".

    I don't mean to be rude or insensitive but your concern sounds naive and myopic. I believe that is why your thread is getting the response it is. You want to hold President Obama accountable for the "Bundlers" but are comfortable overlooking that he refuses registered Lobbyists funds. That is a change and there is a cost associated with it. You view the "Bundlers" and lobbyists connection as an end run around the "promise." If he is lacking in real change why are Republicans and the Kook-brothers so determined to get rid of him? We can play the race card as long as we remember 3 names: Thomas, Steele and Cain. Ethnicity is at play for sure, but it is deeper than just that. To be blunt: He is not playing the game that "they" want him to play and "they" are royally pissed (read: changed the game).

    Why those supporters of Candidate Obama are so 'Black and White" (pun intended) with there support/satisfaction and subsequent disappointment with President Obama is beyond me. I am a Black man, progressive and wish President Obama was more strident in many of his actions, but I am not so unrealistic as to not understand 1) it took a long time to get us in this crap; 2) it will take a long time to change it (including Lobbyist influencing); 3) there may not be a complete about face but many changes have been and are being made; and 4) last and so not least, who is the alternative?

    So, Hoss, my questions to you are: Is this the most important issue for you; are you so disillusioned that the accomplishments that have been listed here are insignificant when compared to the "Bundlers" issue; if he did not have "Bundlers" would you be a happy camper in "Obamaland." And, which would you prefer: No Blunders and lack of funding for a successful campaign or Blunders and a second term?

    Obamaland works just fine for me thanks.
     
  20. Ldnn

    Ldnn Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    108
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Oslo (NO)
    Thoughtful comment, and from my point of view as an 'outsider' a lot of the problem may come from the far-reaching umbrella of "change" and the difficulty one has when needing to provide a retort, when asked "So, what has changed?". Perhaps the problem is that a lot of this change has been more subtle than originally expected, and this creates the view that the first term has been ineffective and wasteful.

    Plus, nobody likes the guy who turns around and says "If you didn't block so many of my bills in congress...", it looks petty and weak. Take responsibility. The difficulty will undoubtedly generating turnout with a more refined and less bombastic campaign platform for his push for a second term.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted