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

Forums - General - Why don't we just let people do what they want in life?

Baalzamon on 26 March 2011
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.

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 27 March 2011
Baalzamon said:
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.

Yeah, more or less.  You need money to run for president... but once you get to the people who are candidates, money isn't really that important. 



sapphi_snake on 27 March 2011
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.

You underestimate the power of PR. Most people don't have the habit of thinking critically often enough to not be influenced.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

oldschoolfool on 27 March 2011

well if the person is terminally ill and there's no sign of recovery,then yes let them die if they wish. If it's just some healthy depressed person,then no.Sucide is not the answer. Why,because think of how it will effect there loved ones. If one kills themselves,it just doesn't effect them,the people they love will never be the same. There's always hope and sucide a permant solution to a tempary problem. Instead of the OP,just saying let them doing,I'd thing you'd want to reach out to them. What if it was your best freind? what if it was one of your loved ones? what you still have the same outlook? The only exception to this is if a person had terminal cancer are something else like that and there was no way in the world that the person was going to pull through,then I would have to agree in that regard.



Kasz216 on 27 March 2011
sapphi_snake said:
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.

You underestimate the power of PR. Most people don't have the habit of thinking critically often enough to not be influenced.

Actually, I don't.  As I'm basing this off an actual study done by economists.

Also, I studied consumer psychology, so I very much know the power of PR... (political campaigns are a big employer for consumer psychology.)

The very first rule is.  You can't make anyone buy something they aren't inclined to buy in the first place.



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 27 March 2011
Kasz216 said:
sapphi_snake said:
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.

You underestimate the power of PR. Most people don't have the habit of thinking critically often enough to not be influenced.

Actually, I don't.  As I'm basing this off an actual study done by economists.

Also, I studied consumer psychology, so I very much know the power of PR... (political campaigns are a big employer for consumer psychology.)

The very first rule is.  You can't make anyone buy something they aren't inclined to buy in the first place.

Well I'm actually glad to hear that. It would;ve been somewhat terrible otherwise.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)