How to Cost a Presidental Campaign $1 & 5 Minutes





Introduction: How to Cost a Presidental Campaign $1 & 5 Minutes

About: Holy cow, celebrating over seven years with this website. Formerly known as RocketScientist2015.

Want to undermine a candidate's race? Help keep some one out of the White House? In this Ible, I'll show you how to do just that...

Step 1: Name This Step... Step 1 I Supose...

Well first off you gotta get yourself a letter with a postage paid response/donation envelope of the desired party. For some reason, the poor confused folks over at the Democratic National Committee felt the urge to ask for my support. Considering I'm not even old enough to vote, and the voting members of my family are registered Republicans, I found this quite odd. Anyways, I was about to throw it out when I recalled a scheme to irritate junk mail (send them back there stuff in the pre-paid envelopes). Hmm.. fiendish...

So anyways, get yourself a letter, and crack it open, and grab a pen.

Step 2: Step Numero Deux

Right, go through the letter from the candidate. If it's from Obsama, it'll be filled with grammatical errors, point these out. If from McCain... doodle on it!

After you have finished graffiting all over it, sign anonymously.

Step 3: El Stepo Tres

Now grab that little donation thingy. Write in the current price of First class postage, with a big whoppin' minus sign in front of it. See according to what I've been told, you don't have to pay for pre-paid envelopes until they've been used, so you just cost them $(insert price of varying postage)

Step 4: Phore

Slip all of this into that lovely prepaid envelope, seal with a dampness other than your tounge (leave no evidence!!), and pop into a mailbox many miles from your home. In a week or two, somebody's gonna open it, read it, maybe laugh about it, then throw it away. See? You just cost them time and money! Feel good about yourself! Throw a party! Drink Red Bull! Fix our country! Down with Big Brother!! whoops wrong cheer...

As stated, this same technique can be used on other junk mail, or any political party's money mongering.

Live long and prosper, which means when the Secret Service turns up at your door, run...



    • Oil Contest

      Oil Contest
    • Woodworking Contest

      Woodworking Contest
    • Make it Move Contest

      Make it Move Contest

    We have a be nice policy.
    Please be positive and constructive.




    So now it is 2014 and we have this guy still in office. I wonder if any feeling have changed?

    by alot too! lol i was so happy

    Anonymous?! They're going to trace you straight back to Arlen, Rusty!

    Salary of retired US Presidents ............$180,000 FOR LIFE
    Salary of House/Senate .......................$174,000 FOR LIFE
    Salary of Speaker of the House ............$223,500 FOR LIFE
    Salary of Majority/Minority Leaders......$193,400 FOR LIFE
    Average Salary of a teacher................ $40,065
    Average Salary of Soldier DEPLOYED IN AFGHANISTAN........$38,000
    I think we found where the cuts should be made!


    Great idea made greater there Loup. Wish I'd known of it sooner.
    Never ceases to amaze me...politicians spend millions to get jobs paying thousands and other than the feeding of their overly inflated egos people still don't seem to get that they're almost all in it for the pocket stuffing that they get to do.
    Ya gotta love that in the midst of the greatest Keynesian debacle since...well Bush actually, we see a ruler whose peeples are bragging up his tens of millions in campaign contributions (gathered from an ever more rapidly imploding economy) that will ultimately serve no purpose greater than to further pollute our airways and under performing mail stream with more lies and drivel aimed at keeping him in power. Kind'a like the Stimulus that was paid to his handlers on Wall Street. Even though I fault the entire premise as elemental stupidity,if that money had been "re-distributed" among the tax payers who bear this burden it would have amounted to something like $17,000 to each of us. ya think that might have avoided a few "toxic assets" or provided a few more jobs than the reality of what it ended up doing; stimulating the sale of vacation homes on Martha's Vineyard to the ruling class.

    Yeay for anarchy! Nothing will change until the walls completely fall in on the money changers temple. I think I'll try slapping one of those on a couple of blocks of government cheese. Ought'a smell real good by the time it arrives.

    Wonderful idea! I actually started doing this with the McGovern campaign in 1972. And to get even more bang for their buck... glue the post paid envelope to something heavy, a brick, a piece of scrap metal, heck, even an old car door if you have one lying around. Imagine the negative contribution of 20 or 30 pounds of first class postage! Nice job.

    Starting sentences with conjunctions is not a grammatical error. It is just a stylistic choice. But good try! (see what I did there?)

    10 replies

    Actually, it is a Grammatical error, unless you use a comma or something.

    For example, you should have said
    It is just a stylistic choice, but good try.

    Actually it's not, at least not if you think that wide usage by a variety of well-regarded authors (Shakespeare, Joyce Carol Oates, Virginia Woolf, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens) is evidence enough.

    Sorry if this sounds rude, but it's a major pet peeve of mine when people espouse overtly strict grammatical rules to the great detriment of nascent writers everywhere. English is a stylistically flexible language and shouldn't be restricted arbitrarily like this.

    I don't go by how wide something is used. Christianity is widely spread; Doesn't make it correct.

    Erm... what do you go by then? There is no other possible rational standard for grammatical rules. One of which, by the way, is not to capitalize after a semicolon.

    There is no other possible rational standard for Grammatical rules... Really? What about the set grammatical rules, like the ones in my textbooks?

    textbooks contain a lot of inaccuracies due to the fact that the humans that write them are prone to viewing their own opinions as fact. and they ALWAYS have grammatical errors. textbooks don't define the rules of anything; they talk about "rules" as understood by one person or a small group of people. in addition to these inadequacies, they are added to and subtracted from to meet arbitrary standards created by a handful of state legislators who are not necessarily educated in the subject they are controlling.
    in short, textbooks are, at best, a loose reference to what some may consider acceptable presentation of a subject matter. at worst, they are a misleading mish-mash of worthless pseudo knowledge.
    i'm with nollidge on this one. the english language is plastic. if the meaning of a phrase can be precisely understood by a reader, then it is as grammatically correct as anything. even formal writing's "rules" are more flexible than some people would have you think.

    I'd have to agree with both of you, to some extent. There should be some things that aren't changed due to common usage, such as words like shocker being termed in the dictionary for their slang meaning. If you're going to list its slang meaning, do so on and leave it out of my textbooks. That way, the pointless abridged versions of the dictionary that my parents get me for Christmas aren't useless because words have one definition that isn't appropriate for children under 12. Two years ago, when I was thirteen, my parents gave me an abridged dictionary as a stocking-stuffer and didn't realize that I understood what a vagina was. They, apparently, didn't realize that i understood what a sextant was and that it had nothing to do with the female body (unless a female is touching one). Not all grammar rules should be flexible, but all of them should be able to conform to new word usages. Contractions shouldn't be made when the words they serve to shorten contain the same number of syllables as said contractions themselves do. Ain't ain't a word (even though the Instructables validates it as a word) and I ain't gonna' say it. (That's the only sentence I ever say ain't in, other than when I'm explaining the word and its pointlessness.

    Actually, Ain't is a word, it is a contraction that can be used in place of; am not, is not, are not, has not, and have not. Hence why Instructables validates it as a word.

    Excuse me; I forgot to put an ending parenthesis on that last sentence.

    I'm with nollidge on this one. All languages are flexible and constantly evolving. Textbooks don't always keep up with common usage. If it's obsolete, or being moded out, a grammar rule serves no purpose and should be tossed.