Hillary gave 1 million to charity when she "discovered" that the donor was a criminal. One million dollars is more than most people will see in their life time.
I'm not just picking on Hillary, it's all candidates. What has happened to our country when candidates have to spend that much money to even run for an office? Then they complain about poverty, healthcare, and hunger. Sounds very hypocritical to me.
2007-08-30 03:35:01 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Keith Preston once said: "Democracy: an institution in which the 'whole' is equal to the 'scum' of the parts."
Philo Vance once said: "The democratic theory is that if you accumulate enough ignorance at the polls, you produce intelligence."
What's 'wrong with this picture' is that politics has become a bloated, corrupt monopoly that excludes "we the people" from participating. The Bilderberg Conference 'selects' the next President long before voters 'elect' him [or her].
Candidates 'spend' that much money because they know they will see massive returns from their 'investments'. We are governed by wealthy elitists, industrialists, political power brokers, influence peddlers, lobbyists, and - of course - corporate interests. They complain about poverty, health care and hunger because it all makes for very compelling thirty-second sound bytes on the network news. Once they're 'elected', they bow to their masters and forget about 'the people' they're supposed to serve. -RKO- 08/30/07
2007-08-30 03:47:57 · answer #1 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's all a money game. For the person who complained about how much money Hollywood drops on the Democrats, go take a look at how much money the National Rifle Association and drug companies drop on the Republicans. It's the same thing, just different donors.
Historical fact: Under the US Constitution, the public was never supposed to vote for President. It was SUPPOSED to go like this:
(A) The people in each congressional district would select a person whose opinion they trusted to act as a Presidential Elector for their district.
(B) The government of each state would choose two people whose opinion they trusted to act as Presidential Electors for the state.
(C) All the Electors would get together and choose someone whom they thought was wise, dedicated, and honest to act as President, and the person who got the second-highest number of votes in the E.C. would be the Vice-President.
This went by the wayside pretty quickly, as political parties grew and established rules by which they could garner more support for their parties. For example, in most states today, the Electors for each district and state are chosen by the political party whose Presidential candidate won the state's popular vote for President. One two states, Maine and Nevada, still allocate their E.C. seats by who won in the district.
Do any of you know the name of the person who acted as the Presidential Elector for your congressional district in 2004?
2007-08-30 07:21:15 · answer #2 · answered by Chredon 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have a chat with Hollywood who likes to drop big sums of money on candidates of their choice. They tell everyone else how to live and then get in their private jets to go stay in one of their many houses. Now we're talking hypocrites.
Oprah lives in a community near me and is dropping millions to have a fundraiser for Obama at her house in a couple weeks. All of Hollywood is planning on showing up. I work at the airport see all the private jets showing up. Environmentalists (snort). I'm working on restoring the wetlands on the airport as part of my job, driving a hybrid, recycling, using green materials in my home and am doing more than those idiots to save the environment. Oh and I'm a Republican.
2007-08-30 03:46:22 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Obama claims she has shady ties with 4 other shady lobbyists so while you are picking on all candidates you are being unfair. Most of the candidates aren't trying to do what she's doing.
2007-08-30 03:43:50 · answer #4 · answered by Brianne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, it's not true. She gave the $23,000 the donor had given to her campaign to charity.
Yes, it takes a lot of money to run for national office now, but Republicans resist limits on campaign spending saying they would be violations of free speech. They also resist free air time for candidates, saying that would take property (ad revenue) away from business. So we're left with the system we have.
2007-08-30 03:42:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Welcome to the Clinton way of life. Her husband did the same thing. he collected money from shady donors. He even sent Gore to China to collect shady money. Unfortunately it happens is a lot of candidate's elections.
2007-08-30 03:49:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋