Would Obama have won if he had kept his pledge for public financing?

[GarfieldJL]

  Rogue Nine said:

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]

  GarfieldJL said:

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]

  GarfieldJL said:

He also claimed to be a professor which turned out to be bogus.

lolwut?

[mimartin]

  GarfieldJL said:

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]

  mimartin said:

  deliberately misquoted said:

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]

  GarfieldJL said:

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]

  GarfieldJL said:

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]

  Rogue Nine said:

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.

 

  Rogue Nine said:

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:

  GarfieldJL said:

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]

  GarfieldJL said:

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.

  GarfieldJL said:

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.

 

  GarfieldJL said:

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]

  GarfieldJL said:

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]

  GarfieldJL said:

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.[/Quote] I will say it again. This does not constitute consideration. Going back to your original source for contract law 101.

 

  Quote

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.[/Quote] 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]

  mimartin said:

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.

  Quote

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

 

  mimartin said:

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.

 

  mimartin said:

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:

  Quote

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

 

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]

  ET Warrior said:

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.

 

  Rogue Nine said:

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.

 

 

  GarfieldJL said:

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.

 

  GarfieldJL said:

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]

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]

  Jae Onasi said:

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.

 

  Jae Onasi said:

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]

  GarfieldJL said:

Correction, it does constitute consideration because Senator McCain acted upon it in good faith to his detriment.

--Promissory Estoppel

 

  Quote

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[/Quote] 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]

  GarfieldJL said:

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]

  mimartin said:

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]

  jmac7142 said:

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.

 

  GarfieldJL said:

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]

  GarfieldJL said:

Correction, it does constitute consideration because Senator McCain acted upon it in good faith to his detriment.

--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]

  mimartin said:

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.

 

  Rogue Nine said:

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]

  GarfieldJL said:

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]

  GarfieldJL said:

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.

 

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]

  PastramiX said:

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

Republicans

 

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

 

  PastramiX said:

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.

 

  PastramiX said:

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.

 

  PastramiX said:

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.

 

  PastramiX said:

Guess who eats people?

Republicans Jeffrey Dahmer

 

What's this have to do with the topic.

[Web Rider]

  GarfieldJL said:

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.