Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not really sure how true this recent news is, especially since we all know Trump knows how to get money out of others, but the big problem either way is how money is utterly corrupting the principles of democracy.
Perot had the same appeal, Schwarzenegger, now Trump...
"I don't need anyone's money, I've got my own."
On the one hand it is novel to think a politician is not beholden to other monied special interests to do their bidding, but does this mean that America must now count on the uber-wealthy to do an end-around the political process everyone else must contend with?
What can possibly be wrong with that scenario?
Fortunately the path to become POTUS is a grueling one that requires more than just money and hopefully the grilling these candidates must survive will somehow deliver a better leader than who simply has the most money to spend on their campaign, but more and more, it sure seems like money is making ALL the difference in who we get to choose as POTUS in the end.
If Trump didn't have so much money, for example, I seriously doubt we'd even know who he is let alone consider him as a serious candidate for office, any office let alone the most powerful in world...
First thought that came to mind was..Well..He had it..but was forced to pay it out to the Vet Charities..SO now he's temporarily out of cash flow LOL He did float a loan to his own campaign ( range of 34 million) which he could be law claw back from whatever donations do come in..So really, he won't be Broke at all..
There is one thing consistent about Trump..He knows how to bluster, claim things that are NOT actually true..Funding himself..NOPE..He actually Loaned his campaign which is all deductible for costs, and can still reclaim principle from the coffers of donated funds. Does anyone wonder why he's now doing Fund raisers?? Not me..
Ohh Yea..someone complaining about speaking fees by Hillary/Bill Clinton..Lets face it..All Politicians post stepping down from office is rampant on every side of the equation..Huckabee stint on Fox..Gingrich speaking fees and huge salaries for the likes of Sarah Palin in addition to her reality series.. Even the Duck Dynasty Boys make out like bandits ...
Once anyone gains recognition..voila~~ speaking fees~~Reality TV stints~~Pundit Gigs~~ Programs on certain Networks.. It's an actual Money machine for famous or infamous folks!!
Ohh well..Until Trump puts out his actual Tax Return..no one knows just who he donated to (BESIDES POLITICIANS that is)...willing to bet Vet's were not high on his priority list until he needed their backing
Oh for the love of you've just got to be kidding...
All logic and reason aside as clearly that's not your thing, pahleese take your six ways and beat your chest with it somewhere else. I doubt you could destroy a paper bag any better than you can spell, but I'll bet my bottom dollar those veins in your neck are popping out right now!
You've said a lot of words, even accused me of subpar logic and reason, yet you've provided no evidence of such. Please ellaborate. How are my statements about Cloney incorrect?
Or Democrats. Lord Cloney was pontificating about getting money out of politics while simultaneously holding a $350,000 per plate fundraiser for Clinton.
Yes, it's only wrong if R's do it...
Thank you for putting words in my mouth. I don't give gold stars to Democrats on the topic either. But the evaporation of campaign financing controls was brought about primarily by Republicans.
First thought that came to mind was..Well..He had it..but was forced to pay it out to the Vet Charities..SO now he's temporarily out of cash flow LOL He did float a loan to his own campaign ( range of 34 million) which he could be law claw back from whatever donations do come in..So really, he won't be Broke at all..
There is one thing consistent about Trump..He knows how to bluster, claim things that are NOT actually true..Funding himself..NOPE..He actually Loaned his campaign which is all deductible for costs, and can still reclaim principle from the coffers of donated funds. Does anyone wonder why he's now doing Fund raisers?? Not me..
Ohh Yea..someone complaining about speaking fees by Hillary/Bill Clinton..Lets face it..All Politicians post stepping down from office is rampant on every side of the equation..Huckabee stint on Fox..Gingrich speaking fees and huge salaries for the likes of Sarah Palin in addition to her reality series.. Even the Duck Dynasty Boys make out like bandits ...
Once anyone gains recognition..voila~~ speaking fees~~Reality TV stints~~Pundit Gigs~~ Programs on certain Networks.. It's an actual Money machine for famous or infamous folks!!
Ohh well..Until Trump puts out his actual Tax Return..no one knows just who he donated to (BESIDES POLITICIANS that is)...willing to bet Vet's were not high on his priority list until he needed their backing
Yes, the path to fame and fortune is non-partisan...
Kim Kardashian somehow also comes to mind.
After their parents divorced in 1991, her mother married again that year, to Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce), the 1976 Summer Olympics decathlon winner. Through their marriage, Kardashian gained step-brothers Burton "Burt", Brandon, and Brody; step-sister Casey; and half-sisters Kendall and Kylie Jenner.
As a teenager, she attended Marymount High School, a Roman Catholic all-girls school in Los Angeles. In 1994, her father represented football player O. J. Simpson during his murder trial. Simpson is Kim Kardashian's godfather.
I heard Kardashian is on the short list for Trump's VP spot...
You've said a lot of words, even accused me of subpar logic and reason, yet you've provided no evidence of such. Please ellaborate. How are my statements about Cloney incorrect?
My first objection to you and your comments is for missing the important point simply because you don't view Clooney as credible. Whether from Clooney, Obama, Sanders, Trump or even Donald Duck, the message is what is important, and all these folks are right to say what they do about this problem.
In particular, as related to Clooney specifically, I tried to also explain by way of that firefighter using fire to fight fire analogy...
Clooney is participating in the political game that simply requires a lot of money from those who choose to participate. People like him are always called upon to help raise money for obvious reasons, and why that money needs to be raised is also obvious. Understand all that, and the charge that Clooney is "hypocritical" becomes clearly inappropriate. Again, it is what Clooney and these people are saying about the problem, regardless who among them you like or dislike for whatever emotional reason(s), right?
What Clooney said...
“Yes, I think it’s an obscene amount of money,” Clooney responded. “You know we had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco — and they’re right to protest, they’re absolutely right, it’s an obscene amount of money.”
“The Sanders campaign, when they talk about it, is absolutely right, it’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics, I agree."
How is this remotely fair? Hillary is spending and raising more than anybody else combined! That's not fair. We should put a 90% tax rate on everything Hillary raises - like a rainfall tax.
Keep in mind that she didn't earn most of those money if any. On the other hand, poor people are struggling on minimum wage.
RNC and Trump have reached an agreement to raise about $ 1 billion for his campaign and the party.
I suspect both party's will raise and spend about $ 1 billion no different than 2012.
When you have donors willing to invest $100 million in a candidate/ party, they expect a return
Campaign finance reform is completely essential. I'd actually argue that there are things about our campaign system in general that aren't especially productive. But name recognition and money are the two things you need to be president anymore, not merit or good ideas. I honestly think Martin O'Malley lost simply because Hillary has been known for decades and most couldn't be bothered to Google who he was. They already knew her.
Regardless, money is too influential in politics and something needs to change. A system on merit, not status, would logically be a must in politics.
Democrats try to get our campaign finance under at least some kind of control, but republicans stop new campaign finance laws from passing.
How is this remotely fair? Hillary is spending and raising more than anybody else combined! That's not fair. We should put a 90% tax rate on everything Hillary raises - like a rainfall tax.
Keep in mind that she didn't earn most of those money if any. On the other hand, poor people are struggling on minimum wage.
So you want to redistribute the money the Democrats have raised to level the playing field for a Republican candidate.
Irony . . .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
