By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

Also, campaign contributions are actually greatly overblown when it comes to getting elected.

The book Freakanomics basically shows that greater campaign contributions are an effect of electability... not a cause.

Its not thjat corporations give this guy a bunch of money because they want him to win.  They give him a bunch of money because he probably WILL win and they want him on their side.

 

I mean, if Bill Gates decided tommorrow he wanted to be president and he ran as an independent and decided to spend the bulk of his entire fortune on his election and way outdwarf the other candidates...

do you really think he'd win?

So it's bribery, no? IS that any better?

As for Bill Gates, well I like him, I'd vote for him.

Well yes.  Afterall, the polticians know they'd probably be elected anyway.  Put it this way.  John Johnson who is somewhat gun control worthy is going to get money from said corporation while Mike Mickleson who is in texas won't... because he probably won't win.  Or if he is given money, it will just be enough to be "credible" by people seeing adds so he doesn't fall into third party type status.

 

Though you seem to be missing the point.  Replace Bill Gates and say for fun he tries to get a murderer elected for president who got off only due to a technicallity.

Point is really, money isn't going to change your opinion on someone.

But the thing is, I think money does change some people's minds.  It's money going into the advertisements on tv, on billboards, on the internet, etc., it's money that pays for trips across the country so politicians can meet people.

I think I know where you are going though, in that it helps some, but you still need the proper person to be running, or they will only make it half way.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.