Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 9 of 11

Thread: Presidential Candidates

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default Presidential Candidates

    I asked this question on the other site and no one responded.

    Is it a good thing from a voter's point of view when a Presidential Candidate raises a lot of money for his campaign?

    The media trumpets that as a very good thing. My thinking, though, is that this Candidate with a lot of dough probably has corporations and businesses lined up waiting to exploit him if he/she wins.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default

    I dont like the fact that it costs so much money to run for the presidency. I really think the congress should pass legislation that puts a cap on the amount of money any candidate can spend on a campaign. I also think that candidates should take advatage of the internet more and that the big TV studios should give free airtime to the candidates in an equal manor and the time given would have some tax benefits. We have to get the lobbyist out of washington.

  3. #3
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    On the forums
    Posts
    8,345

    Default

    Ahh, so you have a little bit of socialism in you as well.

    The thing is I think the media likes it so much because those Candidates with a lot of money can spend more money for commercials on TV and advertisements in newspapers.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default

    I would say I do have some socialist thoughts and ideas. I think that some socialism would be great if it worked with capitalism side by side. THe point is that politicians spend all of their time in office trying to raise money to get re-elected, instead of focusing on the issues. We need to set a level playing feild for all candidates anremove the influence the lobbyist have over politicians. If we did this our congressman and state officials could focus on important things, like actualy reading a bill before they vote on it.

  5. #5

    Default

    Trying to remove money from politics is like trying to remove money from life. It's impossible to do, and you might as well not worry too much about it.

  6. #6

    Default

    i agree flop. I believe that when mccain and feingold had the legislation going for a cap on campaign money they added a bunch of tack-ons to further ensure that it would not pass. Then they turned around and said they worked on campaign finance reforms and would continue to fight for it

  7. #7
    Ancient Arachnid Spider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    5,424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UGLY View Post
    I dont like the fact that it costs so much money to run for the presidency. I really think the congress should pass legislation that puts a cap on the amount of money any candidate can spend on a campaign. I also think that candidates should take advatage of the internet more and that the big TV studios should give free airtime to the candidates in an equal manor and the time given would have some tax benefits. We have to get the lobbyist out of washington.
    I agree with this post, but I don't think it is socialist. It just creates a more level playing field for elections. Ideally, elections should be decided by which candiate's platform is more appealing to the voters, and not by how many voters he or she can afford to reach, and certainly not by how poorly he can portray his opponent. I admit that the days of such idealism are long dead (or never even lived), but the reforms outlined by Ugly are a step in the right direction.

  8. #8
    Super Moderator UGLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Littleton, CO
    Posts
    4,934

    Default

    You know there was a time when people just thought they would always be ruled by a King. There was a time when we thought Black people would have no rights in this country. There was a time we thought everything was impossible to fix. I think that if more people paid attention to politics and took an active role we could change things. If we could write bills ourselves and get petitions there could be change. If we didnt just vote for those who get the TV time we could change things.

  9. #9
    Olympic Champ
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    It's a long way from East Colorado
    Posts
    3,740

    Default

    You know there was a time when people just thought they would always be ruled by a King. There was a time when we thought Black people would have no rights in this country. There was a time we thought everything was impossible to fix. I think that if more people paid attention to politics and took an active role we could change things.

    Totally agree. However, think about this the next you see someone protesting (taking an active role) and you don't like it. The civil rights movement was carried on largely through protest.

    If we could write bills ourselves and get petitions there could be change. If we didnt just vote for those who get the TV time we could change things.

    I don't know if I said this on this thread or another, but those with TV time are holding a lot of cards (power). They hold nearly a full deck: they own the table, and they control the venue (which often includes plying us with drinks and favors). We voters have none of this except that we do hold the trump card--the vote. Will we play it?
    Last edited by matclone; 04-04-2007 at 11:25 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •