Trump for President. Who's hopping on the bandwagon? Who's digging a bunker?

[Tugela]

You're the naive one.

If money doesn't influence politicians why do they (and our own Premier) fight so hard to keep the big donors happy and the money rolling in?

Ever watch House of Cards (American)? The few wield extraordinarypower and bend the others to do their bidding. Big donors only need a few of the influential in their pockets or the heads of committees to get their favours fulfilled.

Because you need a minimum amount of money to run a campaign. The money does not help you win, it just helps you run. If you don't understand that distinction, then I am afraid there is nothing that will help you. Obviously politicians will say whatever to get donations, and be all smiles and such, but at the end of the day if they do something their constituents don't like, they will lose the next election. And they are in the business of winning the next election. That is not to say that all politicians are above taking bribes, but campaign contributions are not bribes. All they do is get you time to make your case, they don't buy favors.

This whole thing about money determining what happens is a crock that is sold to rubes by the left and right wing in order to further their own agenda. It suits them for voters to think that money is unduly influencing politics, and, of course, they themselves are "pure" and trustworthy. Yes....just vote for them because they are unsullied (and you are stupid). The "money" argument is a way of convincing stupid people to vote for you.

 

[Tugela]

No need to bribe everyone, just the ones who run things.
Some members of Congress wield huge power, others might as well not even be there.

Right. Bills are passed in congress with one vote, even though the other six hundred or so congressmen/women voted against it.

 

[Tugela]

If you want to know how ridiculous these "money buying influence" theories are in a presidential campaign, here are the US federal campaign funding limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States

Presidential candidates are spending between $20-40 million A MONTH. That means that in a worst case scenario they are receiving donations for separate individuals/organizations amounting to at least 4000-8000 per month, and probably a lot more. Do you really think that candidates are beholden to each and every one of those donors, which probably total at least 50-100k individual donors by the end of the campaign???? Do you think that your $2700 is going to buy you some sort of special consideration that the other 100,000+ donors don't get???? If so, then I have some excellent bridges going for dirt cheap that you no doubt will be very interested in purchasing.

Seriously.

 

[PuntMeister]

Hi folks.

OP here.

Didn't really care about US political system analysis.

I Do care how perbites feel about it.

My bunker is getting sturdier by the day.

Got some nibblets and tuna to compliment my pork and beans.

Once the big screen and barcalounger are installed, I should be good to watch the shitstorm in privacy, security, and comfort.

God bless the United States of America for all the entertainment you have provided us Canadians.

Please just don't nuke the world, piss off people more bat-shit crazy than your leaders are, or summon the next great economic collapse. Keep Calm, and Vote if you can. All I can do is hug my beer and giggle.

-Punt.

 

[westwoody]

Does Trump really want to be President? Could he tolerate the scrutiny of his decisions? Fact checking every statement?
Presidents have to answer eventually for most decisions. He cannot survive on his usual strategy of ad hominem attacks and bluster instead of honesty.

I think he is enjoying the attention but doesn't care if he gets the job.

 

[John Dough]

The Plot to Murder Donald Trump

 

[Cock Throppled]

If you want to know how ridiculous these "money buying influence" theories are in a presidential campaign, here are the US federal campaign funding limits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States

Presidential candidates are spending between $20-40 million A MONTH. That means that in a worst case scenario they are receiving donations for separate individuals/organizations amounting to at least 4000-8000 per month, and probably a lot more. Do you really think that candidates are beholden to each and every one of those donors, which probably total at least 50-100k individual donors by the end of the campaign???? Do you think that your $2700 is going to buy you some sort of special consideration that the other 100,000+ donors don't get???? If so, then I have some excellent bridges going for dirt cheap that you no doubt will be very interested in purchasing.

Seriously.

What a ridiculous explanation.

Small donors aren't the issue, and that's why donations should be capped.

In your world, isn't it wonderful there are so many altruistsic millionaires and corporations who just want to donate large amounts of money to politicians because they're just so darn nice and never expect anything in return? Are you secretly Christy Clark?

 

[uncleg]

Hi folks.

OP here.

Didn't really care about US political system analysis.

I Do care how perbites feel about it.

My bunker is getting sturdier by the day.

Got some nibblets and tuna to compliment my pork and beans.

Once the big screen and barcalounger are installed, I should be good to watch the shitstorm in privacy, security, and comfort.

God bless the United States of America for all the entertainment you have provided us Canadians.

Please just don't nuke the world, piss off people more bat-shit crazy than your leaders are, or summon the next great economic collapse. Keep Calm, and Vote if you can. All I can do is hug my beer and giggle.

-Punt.

 

[Tugela]

What a ridiculous explanation.

Small donors aren't the issue, and that's why donations should be capped.

In your world, isn't it wonderful there are so many altruistsic millionaires and corporations who just want to donate large amounts of money to politicians because they're just so darn nice and never expect anything in return? Are you secretly Christy Clark?

Donations are capped. Stop drinking the cool aid. For individuals it is $2700. What is not capped are superPACs, but they are not allowed to have contact with campaigns by law. SuperPACs are run independently from the campaign by people who are not connected to the campaign. That was the reason why Bush delayed getting into the race for so long. As long as he did not declare himself a candidate, he could help superPACs raise money, but as soon as he declared he could have no contact with them without breaking the law.

What Sanders wants is to have donations capped at much lower levels, because it favors activist candidates like himself, who are funded by many small donations from motivated activists rather than fewer larger donations (the way most mainstream campaigns are financed). What that effectively does is make it almost impossible for anyone to run for high office if they are a mainstream candidate, because it is difficult to get mainstream citizens to donate in the numbers required. With his system what you would end up with is a choice between far left wing or far right wing candidates, and nothing inbetween. Sanders is well aware of this, that is why he and his supporters are pushing for such limits. They know that it will tilt the playing field in his favor. Right now it is relatively level, but he wants it biased towards people like him.

He wants to rig the system in his favor. That is what it is all about. Whenever you see a politician going on about electoral finance reform you can bet your bottom dollar that what they really mean is that they want the system set up to favor them. Sanders is no different.

Not that it matters anymore, because he got his butt kicked today.

 

[Tugela]

The large donors, as a group, are the gatekeepers. Their funding decisions determine who can afford to run and who cannot. Their goal is to prune the field of candidates that they would rather not be in power. As a group, they have done a pretty good job seeing that their general needs are met. Once in power, a politician who wants to be re-elected needs to either stay within the comfort zone of the large donors who supported the previous campaign or find new backers who are comfortable with the policies the politician wants to pursue.

As there are large donors from across the political spectrum, but their funds are finite, there is no certainty that funding will be available in a future campaign. So an elected politician cannot usually be wholly bought. Therefore the choice to fund a politician is more likely to include a lot of weighting for the historical values demonstrated by a candidate and the expectation by the donor that those innate values will guide future actions more certainly than any perceived debt or any threat of loss of future funding.

Because of the small size of the cap ($2700 might sound like a lot, but it is trivial relative to the amounts spent in a national campaign), the idea that it buys someone any sort of influence is ludicrous.

The big expenditures and giant donations are done by super PACs. But those are run outside of the campaign and are organized by interested parties who try to get someone who has the same world view as them elected. They are pretty much always motivated by ideological agendas however, they are not trying to get some sort of material benefit.

 

[Tugela]

It's not the donations for Campaign's that rule the govt it's the bags of money from lobbyists that get Congress to do the bidding of the corporate world. Congressmen all leave office with millions in wealth, they are paid off whores and give no shits when it comes to America.

They don't leave office with millions. What happens is that their stay in office results in them becoming very well connected, and it is those social connections that subsequently allows them to become financially successful AFTER they leave office.

In the world of business who you know is just as important as whatever skills you might have, more important in fact. I don't see why the rules that apply to everyone else would not also apply to a retired politician.

 

[Tugela]

Right. So, according to you, if a motion is proposed in congress, and representatives vote on it, it is evidence of their corruption :der:

 

[myselftheother]

Right. So, according to you, if a motion is proposed in congress, and representatives vote on it, it is evidence of their corruption :der:

May I just say that when someone makes a huge donation to your campaign, they expext certain returns on their investment... hence the cab companies donating $50000 to certain mayoral candidate to ensure there's no competition from Uber....or from certain real estate companies...etc.

 

[Cock Throppled]

A little Hillary & Bill History lesson...http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...roversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/

 

[Tugela]

May I just say that when someone makes a huge donation to your campaign, they expext certain returns on their investment... hence the cab companies donating $50000 to certain mayoral candidate to ensure there's no competition from Uber....or from certain real estate companies...etc.

It is illegal for corporations to donate money to political candidates.

 

[sofine]

I found Trump repugnant before the devastating events in Orlando this weekend. More so since. His response to the tragedy was sickening. This is a great read on that. http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trumps-exploitation-of-orlando

The thought of a Trump presidency is appalling. I do think/hope Hillary will win in a landslide but time will tell.

God help the US should that maniac win.

 

[87112]

There has never been a worse round of US President candidates as is the case for 2016. I heard a rumor the owner of the Dallas Mavericks wanted to put in his name to be vice president. Who is next Dennis Rodman ? Eddie Murphy?

 

[badbadboy]

I found Trump repugnant before the devastating events in Orlando this weekend. More so since. His response to the tragedy was sickening. This is a great read on that. http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/donald-trumps-exploitation-of-orlando

The thought of a Trump presidency is appalling. I do think/hope Hillary will win in a landslide but time will tell.

God help the US should that maniac win.

Thing that bothers me more than what he says is how the disenfranchised buy into his BS.

I've been checking into factcheck.org daily to sort out what's real, what's a grey area claim and what's total BS during this election. Sure these politicians embellish their claims but this repugnant candidate out and out lies daily. Not on factcheck.org but published on the news wire today was Trump's claim that he got "tens of thousands of tweets in support of his stance about what happened in Orlando".

In fact, he got four as in four singular posts of support.

http://www.factcheck.org

 

[badbadboy]

I'm guessing people are not posting about all the daily weirdness from the election because it really has become a train wreck. It's like you have to watch to see how friken bizarre this election has become.

My bet in Sunday's election debate; Bill Clinton's past and Train Wreck Trump's latest comments about females are not even mentioned. If Trump goes down that path, it will be a messy debate.

 

[uncleg]

My bet in Sunday's election debate; Bill Clinton's past and Train Wreck Trump's latest comments about females are not even mentioned. If Trump goes down that path, it will be a messy debate.

Remember it's a town hall "debate"...questions come from the audience... I think it'll come up....schadenfreude... He has a lot more to lose then Hillary on that front.... She the long suffering wife staying true to her wedding vows...him trading in wives like some people trade cars, hell even taking the new model for a test drive before getting rid of the old one.