GarfieldJL Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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 Republicans ask officials to probe Barack Obama's illegal contributions Newsweek 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Technically he did, I did some checking and he did break a contract.[/Quote] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 It's over man. Give it up, and accept that you get to enjoy the next four years with President Barack Hussein Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 What consideration did Obama recieve for the contract? None. Then there is no contract. Obama breaking Public Financing Pledge Obama Flip-Flop? Seems to me that he did break his word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Are you threatening me? With moderator action if you're gonna sit around and moan about Obama for the next 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 I don't suppose it's even remotely possible that more people just plain liked the guy, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. [/Quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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.[/Quote] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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 is. Obama already had what you described that gives him nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted November 5, 2008 Author Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogue Nine Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.