Levent From France, joined Sep 2004, 1718 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1378 times:
That´s what it´s all about, OYRJA, the president of the United States is not chosen as a comprehensive personality who is capable of being a world leader. He´s just a puppet who will do what he is told by the companies and groups who got him in the White House in the first place.
LHSebi From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 1049 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1370 times:
All they're going to say (ok, some of them will, and we all know who!) is that we shouldn't care, since it's their election, and their country, so we should stay out of it. Right Commander_Raab...oohh oops!...
I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
Hamfist From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 614 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1363 times:
First off, I'll concede it's quite sad that it costs that much.
However, my sarcastic half would say:
Sounds like our international friends are probably bothered that most of that money is spent within the U.S. If that money was being used to buy a BMW, a boomerang, or an decorative matador cape, the guys above would be smiling.
It beats spending that money on people who are too lazy to work!
Ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13510 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1348 times:
The $4 Billion is for all major elections in the USA, from the Presidential race, senate, congressional and all the way down to state legisgative elections. This also includes non-canidate and non-party spending by interest groups.
The saddest point is that most of this money is spent on TV ads where the only ones that make money are the already rich owners of the local stations or the network stockholders of some major market stations.
The conflict here is that the 1st Amendment makes it impossible - and correctly so - to regulate or limit in most ways political speech spending. The need for so much money means that those who donate with others, PAC spending and the like controls the politicans. This means that generally, those who want more regulation of business, pollution, health care, trade, and so on, are excluded from access to the canidates. We all need to put pressure on the big contributors to publicize there legal bribery and shame them into putting that which is spent on campaign contibutions to more toward charity social programs and organizations.
Lets say we shift $2-3 billion toward programs to improve education, health care, disease research, help abused children and women, and so on - it would be a better investment for the public than into a politican.