Is this a joke?

[patrickaa317]

It's on Obama's actual site but I can't believe he is so arrogant that he could actually ask people to advertise for him through their wedding, birthday or anniversary party. Is he that worried about November that he is trying to have people forego wedding gifts to give a donation to his campaign?

I haven't seen this type of move in the past, is it a common political move? Or is it a new one?

[saxitoxin]

I just puked a little

[Phatscotty]

I just puked a little

This should help you feel better



Enter right now so they can have all your information! They will only use it to make sure you get well soon.

[natty dread]

There's a saying in northern Krasnoyarsk that basically goes, it's not stupid to ask for a price, it's only stupid to pay it.

Basically, who cares? If someone is dumb enough to give their money to a politician instead of buying a gift to an actual person, let them.

[Timminz]

He's always been on the cutting edge of political fund-raising. This seems like he's just expanding the possible revenue streams. If people choose to give him money in this fashion, I'd call it a successful campaign.

Tangentially related: is this method better or worse than getting $10 million from someone who spent over $20 million trying to deny you the nomination, just months previously?

[Gillipig]

Yes, haha! The president sure has humor.

[saxitoxin]

Good points, Natty and Timminz.

By way of comparison, the ladies who do the donkey shows in Nuevo Laredo have opened a positive revenue stream for themselves, even though it's unusual, a bit creepy and makes people cringe. And, while men at their bachelor's parties may be laughing from the sidelines, they're still throwing dollars her way.

Barack Obama is kind of like a woman having sex with a donkey. It's a little shameless and people may be laughing at him, but he's gettin' that paper!

[patrickaa317]

He's always been on the cutting edge of political fund-raising. This seems like he's just expanding the possible revenue streams. If people choose to give him money in this fashion, I'd call it a successful campaign.

Tangentially related: is this method better or worse than getting $10 million from someone who spent over $20 million trying to deny you the nomination, just months previously?

I don't see it as cutting edge, I see it as complete arrogance. "Don't give a gift to the bride & groom, give a gift to the man running for office; I need it more than they do. They don't need new china dishes, they can just use paper plates. They need me for president more than they need that toaster oven."

Would you be ok if they started saying "just cut the money you give to charity in half, and donate the other half to me."? Seems like that is another revenue stream that is currently untapped.

And the person that gave them $10 million after spending $20 against them, that is their own business with what they do with their money, be it campaign or actual money. I think it is a pretty poor decision but if I had those kinds of resources, I might make some pretty bad decisions in other peoples eyes too.

[Timminz]

He's always been on the cutting edge of political fund-raising. This seems like he's just expanding the possible revenue streams. If people choose to give him money in this fashion, I'd call it a successful campaign.

Tangentially related: is this method better or worse than getting $10 million from someone who spent over $20 million trying to deny you the nomination, just months previously?

I don't see it as cutting edge, I see it as complete arrogance. "Don't give a gift to the bride & groom, give a gift to the man running for office; I need it more than they do. They don't need new china dishes, they can just use paper plates. They need me for president more than they need that toaster oven."

After reading your explanation of how you're misunderstanding the campaign, I totally understand why you're against it.

It seems to me that the campaign is actually encouraging the to-be-wedded couple to ask their guests to donate rather than buying them a gift, not encouraging guests to stiff the bride and groom on their own behest (as you have framed it). It's a small, but significant difference. Also, it's all voluntary. Why shouldn't a couple be able to ask their wedding guests to do something with their gift money other than buying them a toaster or blender? On top of that, requesting donations in place of gifts doesn't force any of the guests to do so. They're still free to buy some half-rate trinket, or donate to some charity in the couple's names, or stiff them entirely and just go for the free meal.

Ain't freedom grand!

[Gillipig]

He's always been on the cutting edge of political fund-raising. This seems like he's just expanding the possible revenue streams. If people choose to give him money in this fashion, I'd call it a successful campaign.

Tangentially related: is this method better or worse than getting $10 million from someone who spent over $20 million trying to deny you the nomination, just months previously?

I don't see it as cutting edge, I see it as complete arrogance. "Don't give a gift to the bride & groom, give a gift to the man running for office; I need it more than they do. They don't need new china dishes, they can just use paper plates. They need me for president more than they need that toaster oven."

After reading your explanation of how you're misunderstanding the campaign, I totally understand why you're against it.

It seems to me that the campaign is actually encouraging the to-be-wedded couple to ask their guests to donate rather than buying them a gift, not encouraging guests to stiff the bride and groom on their own behest (as you have framed it). It's a small, but significant difference. Also, it's all voluntary. Why shouldn't a couple be able to ask their wedding guests to do something with their gift money other than buying them a toaster or blender? On top of that, requesting donations in place of gifts doesn't force any of the guests to do so. They're still free to buy some half-rate trinket, or donate to some charity in the couple's names, or stiff them entirely and just go for the free meal.

Ain't freedom grand!

Donating to a politicall party is like putting money in a black hole. Useless.

[patrickaa317]

He's always been on the cutting edge of political fund-raising. This seems like he's just expanding the possible revenue streams. If people choose to give him money in this fashion, I'd call it a successful campaign.

Tangentially related: is this method better or worse than getting $10 million from someone who spent over $20 million trying to deny you the nomination, just months previously?

I don't see it as cutting edge, I see it as complete arrogance. "Don't give a gift to the bride & groom, give a gift to the man running for office; I need it more than they do. They don't need new china dishes, they can just use paper plates. They need me for president more than they need that toaster oven."

After reading your explanation of how you're misunderstanding the campaign, I totally understand why you're against it.

It seems to me that the campaign is actually encouraging the to-be-wedded couple to ask their guests to donate rather than buying them a gift, not encouraging guests to stiff the bride and groom on their own behest (as you have framed it). It's a small, but significant difference. Also, it's all voluntary. Why shouldn't a couple be able to ask their wedding guests to do something with their gift money other than buying them a toaster or blender? On top of that, requesting donations in place of gifts doesn't force any of the guests to do so. They're still free to buy some half-rate trinket, or donate to some charity in the couple's names, or stiff them entirely and just go for the free meal.

Ain't freedom grand!

Oh I agree, the choice behind whether someone does it or not is up to them. It is a unique way to fundraise, doesn't remove the arrogance out of suggesting the idea though.

[Timminz]

Donating to a politicall party is like putting money in a black hole. Useless.

Yet, for now, people in the USA are free to do so if they want. Anyone who opposes this campaign is against freedom.

[Woodruff]

Barack Obama is kind of like a woman having sex with a donkey.

Phatscotty's gonna add this one to his sig. <laughing>

[patrickaa317]

Donating to a politicall party is like putting money in a black hole. Useless.

Yet, for now, people in the USA are free to do so if they want. Anyone who opposes this campaign is against freedom.

So you mean whenever someone criticizes what someone says, where they worship, what they do with their money; are those critics also "against freedom"?

If you said that just to be funny, then disregard the above comment.

[Woodruff]

He's always been on the cutting edge of political fund-raising. This seems like he's just expanding the possible revenue streams. If people choose to give him money in this fashion, I'd call it a successful campaign.

Tangentially related: is this method better or worse than getting $10 million from someone who spent over $20 million trying to deny you the nomination, just months previously?

I don't see it as cutting edge, I see it as complete arrogance. "Don't give a gift to the bride & groom, give a gift to the man running for office; I need it more than they do. They don't need new china dishes, they can just use paper plates. They need me for president more than they need that toaster oven."

If the people are big Barack Obama fans, they may well prefer the donation given to him in their name. People do this sort of thing all the time in the name of other things (admittedly most often charities, but not always).

Donating to a politicall party is like putting money in a black hole. Useless.

I certainly agree, at more than the local level.

[patrickaa317]

He's always been on the cutting edge of political fund-raising. This seems like he's just expanding the possible revenue streams. If people choose to give him money in this fashion, I'd call it a successful campaign.

Tangentially related: is this method better or worse than getting $10 million from someone who spent over $20 million trying to deny you the nomination, just months previously?

I don't see it as cutting edge, I see it as complete arrogance. "Don't give a gift to the bride & groom, give a gift to the man running for office; I need it more than they do. They don't need new china dishes, they can just use paper plates. They need me for president more than they need that toaster oven."

If the people are big Barack Obama fans, they may well prefer the donation given to him in their name. People do this sort of thing all the time in the name of other things (admittedly most often charities, but not always).

Then they can take their wedding cash and donate it on their own terms after the wedding.

And I think it is honorable when people do it with charities, especially if it is something closely related to them. i.e. American Heart Association after losing a parent to heart issues.

Asking someone to throw politics into a wedding is quite the fundraising tactic.

[Gillipig]

Donating to a politicall party is like putting money in a black hole. Useless.

Yet, for now, people in the USA are free to do so if they want. Anyone who opposes this campaign is against freedom.

You use big words but miss the point completely. Just because I oppose this campaign and think that anyone falling for this money fishing trap is an idiot, doesn't mean I wish to take away their freedom to waste money. Enlightning people on their stupidity is also a right. To use your words "anyone who opposes my right to oppose this campaign is against freedom". Unlike your sentence this one is actually true.

[Timminz]

Donating to a politicall party is like putting money in a black hole. Useless.

Yet, for now, people in the USA are free to do so if they want. Anyone who opposes this campaign is against freedom.

So you mean whenever someone criticizes what someone says, where they worship, what they do with their money; are those critics also "against freedom"?

If you said that just to be funny, then disregard the above comment.

You seem to be keen on stretching what I've said into totally unrelated topics.

Enjoy the journey. I'm going to stay right here. Let me know if/when you come back around this way. Maybe then, we can play some more.

[Timminz]

Donating to a politicall party is like putting money in a black hole. Useless.

Yet, for now, people in the USA are free to do so if they want. Anyone who opposes this campaign is against freedom.

You use big words but miss the point completely. Just because I oppose this campaign and think that anyone falling for this money fishing trap is an idiot, doesn't mean I wish to take away their freedom to waste money. Enlightning people on their stupidity is also a right. To use your words "anyone who opposes my right to oppose this campaign is against freedom". Unlike your sentence this one is actually true.

Which of those words do you consider big?

The long and the short of it is, if you oppose this particular marketing campaign, don't spend your money on the product it is advertising. It's a pretty simple concept.

Why do you think that people should limit where they can spend their own money, just to fit within some arbitrary rule you've happened to set for yourself?

[PLAYER57832]

It's on Obama's actual site but I can't believe he is so arrogant that he could actually ask people to advertise for him through their wedding, birthday or anniversary party. Is he that worried about November that he is trying to have people forego wedding gifts to give a donation to his campaign?

I haven't seen this type of move in the past, is it a common political move? Or is it a new one?

Are you sure its official? Anybody basically can create a site and call it official. Even on official sites, those making/working on the website often post things without verifying if its "OK", first. I believe there are actually some legal reasons for that.

At any rate, I think it is getting normal, but is also distasteful.

[patrickaa317]

Donating to a politicall party is like putting money in a black hole. Useless.

Yet, for now, people in the USA are free to do so if they want. Anyone who opposes this campaign is against freedom.

So you mean whenever someone criticizes what someone says, where they worship, what they do with their money; are those critics also "against freedom"?

If you said that just to be funny, then disregard the above comment.

You seem to be keen on stretching what I've said into totally unrelated topics.

Enjoy the journey. I'm going to stay right here. Let me know if/when you come back around this way. Maybe then, we can play some more.

You claimed anyone who opposed this campaign is against freedom. I oppose it as I think it is probably one of the lowest moments in political fundraising, especially for the highest office. I am not opposing the ability to do it but I do not think it is a cutting edge, ok fundraising technique.

[Woodruff]

He's always been on the cutting edge of political fund-raising. This seems like he's just expanding the possible revenue streams. If people choose to give him money in this fashion, I'd call it a successful campaign.

Tangentially related: is this method better or worse than getting $10 million from someone who spent over $20 million trying to deny you the nomination, just months previously?

I don't see it as cutting edge, I see it as complete arrogance. "Don't give a gift to the bride & groom, give a gift to the man running for office; I need it more than they do. They don't need new china dishes, they can just use paper plates. They need me for president more than they need that toaster oven."

If the people are big Barack Obama fans, they may well prefer the donation given to him in their name. People do this sort of thing all the time in the name of other things (admittedly most often charities, but not always).

Then they can take their wedding cash and donate it on their own terms after the wedding.

What's the actual difference between those two scenarios?

And I think it is honorable when people do it with charities, especially if it is something closely related to them. i.e. American Heart Association after losing a parent to heart issues.

I agree completely.

Asking someone to throw politics into a wedding is quite the fundraising tactic.

I can't imagine anyone who wasn't already exceptionally politically-motivated already doing this, so I don't really see it as any different than any other fundraising tactic.

I consider it personally distasteful, but I know of a lot of people who I don't think would (many in this forum, who will likely be loudly complaining about it soon).

[john9blue]

@ timminz, natty, etc.

it's okay to dislike this! you're not obligated to agree with everything obama does and you won't be lumped into the "stupid american conservatives" camp if you can at least admit that this is distasteful at best.

the world ain't black and white, guys.

Barack Obama is kind of like a woman having sex with a donkey.

Phatscotty's gonna add this one to his sig. <laughing>

i was strongly considering it.

[Army of GOD]

There's a saying in northern Krasnoyarsk that basically goes, it's not stupid to ask for a price, it's only stupid to pay it.

Basically, who cares? If someone is dumb enough to give their money to a politician instead of buying a gift to an actual person, let them.

I'm sorry, but this is hilarious coming from you.

You always seems to attack me whenever I blame someone who gets scammed for being an idiot, yet if it's Barack Obama, it's ok to scam people.

f*ck you're such a little troll.

[john9blue]

There's a saying in northern Krasnoyarsk that basically goes, it's not stupid to ask for a price, it's only stupid to pay it.

Basically, who cares? If someone is dumb enough to give their money to a politician instead of buying a gift to an actual person, let them.

I'm sorry, but this is hilarious coming from you.

You always seems to attack me whenever I blame someone who gets scammed for being an idiot, yet if it's Barack Obama, it's ok to scam people.

f*ck you're such a little troll.

he is not trolling.

people are often unaware of their own hypocrisy and try to justify or ignore it when confronted with it. it's human nature