For Sale: One US Presidential position

Discussion in 'Politics' started by S.A.M., Aug 7, 2012.

  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    "Forbes has confirmed that billionaire Sheldon Adelson, along with his wife Miriam, has donated $10 million to the leading Super PAC supporting presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney–and that’s just the tip of the iceberg. A well-placed source in the Adelson camp with direct knowledge of the casino billionaire’s thinking says that further donations will be “limitless.”"

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenb...y-donations-will-be-limitless-could-top-100m/

    The lobby has now become blatant. Does this mean it no longer matters who is buying the President of the US? Will this work? Does money determine who gets to be President of the US?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    462
    Since when has the United States NOT been a plutocracy? Seriously. This isn't news.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    Note the word "blatant" - Before Walt and Mearsheimer we were pretending the President was a People's Choice. Now its blatantly obvious that the position is for sale to the highest bidder. Is that good or bad?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    462
    It's good. The more obvious it becomes that American "democracy" is a sham, the more people will want to do something about it.
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,824
    It could also mean that the people's opinion is no longer relevant
     
  9. RedStar The Comrade! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    462
    It's never been that relevant. I don't understand this idea that the United States was "founded on freedom". It was founded by aristocratic slave owners; for nearly the first century, only white property-owning males could vote, and full enfranchisement as we know it today wasn't achieved until the 26th amendment during the Vietnam War.

    This country has always been a plutocracy. You get a vote; that doesn't mean your vote actually matters in the end.
     
  10. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738
    You can't polish a turd.
     
  11. Sock puppet path GRRRRRRRRRRRR Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,112
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Sheldon Adelson, is also the subject of a number of federal investigations including money laundering and violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and stands to lose billions and his freedom if charged and convicted.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/04/las-vegas-sands-target-of_n_1741855.html

    So his investment in this election, his investment in Romney could pay off for him should his candidates win the election this fall. Money certainly does play a big role in US elections. And now that our partisan Republican Supreme Court has opened up our elections to this kind of money in unlimited amounts, we need all the prayers the world has to offer. Additionally, Republican state governments across the land have been passing a series of voter suppression laws, laws intended to prevent certain people (non-Republicans) from voting this fall. Democrats are trying to turn lemons dumped on them by Republicans into lemonade. Only time will tell how successful the Dems will be this fall.

    Given Adelson’s legal/criminal problems, one could also say that the American system of justice is on sale this fall as well.
     
  13. Crunchy Cat F-in' *meow* baby!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,423
    It's not something unique to the U.S. presidency. All elected members of the U.S. government are purchased by special interests (domestic and foreign). It could be casinos, the NRA, mexican rights groups, Israel, the labor union, the NAACP, etc. You name it. Once an elected member is purchased they work for the interests of their sponsor(s)... not the people. This pattern of U.S. politics has roots as early as the 1960s and it is becoming more and more blatant because the majority of the people (you know the one's the U.S. government is supposed to be working for) don't have the knowledge to understand what is happening so there is no risk in the blatancy. Sure the American people have a gut feeling that something is wrong and that's what started the "Occupy" movement, but that was a bit of a failure because they utterly failed to hone in on the root problem.
     
  14. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    I'm not seeing how the fact of some dude making a large donation to a candidate implies that there won't be an election, or that said candidate's position as President has been "bought" or otherwise secured. Frankly, I'm just not seeing what the implication is supposed to be here.

    If (when) Romney fails to get elected, what implication will that have for your interpretation here?

    Is your interest in this specific guy and his donations motivated by any actual concerns about American campaign finance, or is it simply the fact that he's apparently some kind of rapacious Zionista and so your conspiracy worldview demands that he's some kind of malign puppet-master controlling US politics?
     
  15. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    It's still the opinion of the people that matters. They are buying advertising. And the opposing side is outspending Romney.
     
  16. Cavalier Knight of the Opinion Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    157
    The implicit belief is that money spent on ads will lead to votes (and ultimately electoral college support as a result). So the implication if Romney loses will be that ads have less of an impact on undecided voters and/or are less motivating as a tool to get people to their polling places, as is assumed.

    That said, the existence of one donor is meaningless, are we certain that Romney has a edge in super pac money (I had heard he has an edge in direct contributions, but as 501(c)(4) organizations do not need to reveal their donors or funds on hand, I'm not sure anyone really knows who has the edge in total cash).
     
  17. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    From Politco:

    Interesting - what does it say about 'Democracy' when all that matters is how much airtime you can buy? In Science a single fact can blow away an entire field. Here facts just do not matter. That said, I'd like to know if the money aligned well with demagoguery? Does the person who is spending the most also promising the most? It's interesting to think one could run on a platform of "You ain't gittin nutten from the State cus wez broke' and STILL get elected. While it may be factually true, no one is gong to vote for that person. So, if we accept it's really about the public's demand for 'free stuff' then perhaps the person with the most face time wins not because he/she has the better argument but simply because people get the message they're going to be given X, Y, and Z from that candidate and at the end of the day - that's all that really matters, then it all makes good sense.
     
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Obviously money is not a substitute for competency. It is certainly possible to mismanage the money and the campaign. The beneficiary of all this campaign money can certainly squander it.

    Meaningless unless that individual donor (i.e. Sharon Adelson) has the ability and stated desire to individually more than double the amount of money collected (if needed) by both sides in a single election for the benefit of a particular candidate and party (i.e. Romney).
     
  19. R1D2 many leagues under the sea. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,321
    This is the Republic of the United States we are talking about here. There is a system of checks an balances. An it don't matter who has money now, it matters who can make what money they have, last to the end. An of course they are not bought think of what you bought recently. they are not owned. They are politicians witch means they are liars period. They will lie to get any money. They can, to get to the November race. But the president can't just do all of what he wants because of the checks an balances.
     
  20. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Actually you can, mythbusters proved it
     
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You are obviously pretty naive. Money buys a lot of influence in this country. Why do you think there is a whole industry in Washington and statehouses around the country solely devoted to peddling special interest legislation? Why do you think our tax code is so complicated and riddled with loopholes? Why do you think Medicare Part D was passed prohibiting the government from using a competitive bid process or negotiate drug prices with drug manufacturers? Why do you think billions are spent lobbying our elected officials? Why do you think lobbyists like Grover Norquist can keep an entire party in fear of being “primaried”?


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States
     
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    So long as the Federal Government has so much influence over our lives money will be there to buy it. There's nothing, absolutely nothing that's going to change that. The same is true in Communist China - where money buys influence because of the power wielded by the Central Authorities. In the past people even sold/married off their daughter to kings and queens to gain influence.

    The solution is to reduce the role that the Federal Government plays in our lives thus making little incentive to buy them off. This was figured out 200 years ago... with the founding of the USA. Too bad we could move there and live :S
     
  23. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Polished Turd

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Mitt Romney, POTUS

    I stand corrected.
     

Share This Page