It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Democracy? Only if you've got the dough!

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   
This is a news article I've come across today:
www.csmonitor.com...

Snippet:


Meg Whitman has announced she's contributing another $20 million to her gubernatorial campaign. The California governor's race could become the priciest gubernatorial election in US history.


Meg Whitman, is the CEO of eBay, a very rich individual.
The only reason it is now speculated that she might take Arnolds part in governing the state of California, is because she spent millions of her own bucks to promote herself.

Now, this really got me thinking, and quite pissed off to tell you the truth.

What is democracy today?
If you are of the super-rich, a good speaker, and a good lier, you can get yourself elected for the right price.

Why do we never see the really smart people who want to get ellected?
Because they dont have enough money.

So, what kind of corruption can this cause?
Lets say I am running for governor, but dont really have a lot of money.
This really rich CEO of some corperation, offers to fund my campagin, and give me 60 milion dollars... (these things happen all the time - lobbying) with that money, If I am a good speaker and use it all to publicize myself, and say what the majority wants to hear, I am in good chance for getting elected.
Now, the guy who sponsored me did not invest 60 milion of his money for nothing right?
What does he want? He probably wants the state of california to authorize something they would not have otherwise.... basically he wants more power from -BEHIND THE SCENES!-

There is so much room for corruption here.

Todays democracy is ment to allow only those in power to maintain their power!


What should be done:

- We the people of this world, should change this!
There should be a law, preferably a constitutional unbreakable law, that every candidate of any kind of election to the goverment, should have a certine sum / air time to publicize himself.

Example: 5 American citizens want to run for governor, first I think, they should be people of certine background, unrelated to politics or buisness, such as Social Engineers or other fields that give knowledge on how to truly benefit a society.
Then, they should all receive -THE SAME- air time to publicize themselves, and this should be funded by the goverment, so even if they are not super-rich, they can make their voices be heard.
BTW, I also think they should have an IQ test, so people like bush dont take office.
They are obviously puppets.

This is the only way decent people can come into power.

If nothing is done, we will be ruled by the same douchbags with their own agendas, for the next thousand years.

True democracy may have died, but we can revive it!
We just need to make enough noise.
But I think these days people have bigger things on their minds, such as "Am I going to survive the next major earthquake?"
or
"What if Nuclear war breaks out?"

Well, you can keep wondering on those issues untill they happen, or you can try to change things.
Its obviously easier to hide and be scared for all of us.

But this should have happened a long time ago.

There should be a legislation that prevents people from using their own, or others wealth, to run for office.

People should have the same chance, giving they have adaquate background, to run for office. - THAT will be true democracy, or, TRUE REPUBLIC.
The best way in my opinion.

Democracy with an unbreakable constitution.
No such thing as Amendment.
THIS SHOULD NOT HAPPEN!


What do you think?

[edit on 6-4-2010 by freebourn]




posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 09:42 PM
link   
One more thing:

President Truman was famous for saying that he didn't care what the news said about him as long as they used his name often.

Money buys ads and the more ads the better chance the politician will win.


Should people like Arnold Schartzaneger really have a part in running the country?
What does he know about contributing to a soceity?

This is like one big joke, and we're all laughing.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by freebourn
 


Contributing to a certain campaign for whoever is an extension of the 1st Amendment. Do you really want to take that away?

Why shouldnt successful people run for office? If they are smart enough to run a business and succeed and make tons of DOUGH, then they stand a better chance of doing things the right way as opposed to some idiot who never had to meet a payroll or worry about labor cost...some like a community organizer who has no real world business experience.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by freebourn
 


Contributing to a certain campaign for whoever is an extension of the 1st Amendment. Do you really want to take that away?

Why shouldnt successful people run for office? If they are smart enough to run a business and succeed and make tons of DOUGH, then they stand a better chance of doing things the right way as opposed to some idiot who never had to meet a payroll or worry about labor cost...some like a community organizer who has no real world business experience.




Well, do you really want slimey buisness man running your country?

When a buisness man reaches a certain point in his career, (if he makes alot of money) where he becomes possesd by it.
Possesd by the feeling of power and the choice to do what he feels is right.

An good person who is not driven by money, will allways think of the good of the group.

And there should not be -ANY- amendments to the constitution in my view.

So your worries are that such people will have no experience in:


never had to meet a payroll or worry about labor cost...some like a community organizer who has no real world business experience.


Well, you can have people and advisors to explain things.
But you need a decent person the make the descion out of pure desire to better his society, not to fatten his pockets.


[edit on 6-4-2010 by freebourn]

[edit on 6-4-2010 by freebourn]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by freebourn
 


So you would do away with all amendments? No freedom of speech, no right to bear arms, no states rights, etc etc?

Seriously?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by freebourn
 


So you would do away with all amendments? No freedom of speech, no right to bear arms, no states rights, etc etc?

Seriously?


Well, maybe I am abit ignorant to what is in the constitution (you will have to forgive me since I am not an American)

But I thought all those things are in the original document.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Alright, I've had a little look.

From the 16th amendments, I think the constitution only went down the drain and destoryed freedom rather then allowing it.
(minus a few things like : Federal recognition of women's suffrage)

[edit on 6-4-2010 by freebourn]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


Curious as to where that came from?

There has been discussions in the past about public funding of campaigns - it tends to even out the playing field. I constantly wonder why a person like Whitman would spend so much on a public office. So far she's in for $59 million. $20 million + the original $39 million. What's in it for her?



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Power.


BTW,
Excuse my ignorance regarding the constitution.
I thought things like "The patriot act"
is considered an Amendment.

I guess I was wrong.

But that is what I ment by "Amendment"
Since it obviously changed your god given rights.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Mountainmeg
 


Maybe long range she's going to go for the brass ring? By that I mean the presidency. Far crazier things have happened.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I think that effective campaigning could be achieved without the hundreds of millions of dollars that are funneled in to the current system.

Here are just a few ideas I have pondered as a possible alternative:

Candidates could espouse their platform on television and very little money would be needed to achieve that.

They could also voice their platform on the internet for free. Tens of millions of Americans currently have access to the internet. It would be a highly effective medium that politicians could use to espouse their ideology.

Radio could also be used as another cost effective measure for political candidates.

The political process, as it currently stands, only ensures that corruption and lobbying takes precedence over honesty and integrity.

The current political process ensures that corporations take precedence over the actual citizens of the USA.

Eliminate the kickbacks that politicians receive from corporate lobbyists, and you effectively eliminate the majority of corruption that currently infests the American political system.

Now you have political candidates that desire to serve the American people as opposed to multinational corporations.



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Don't you think Rome, would have fixed this a long time ago if it could be fixed?

Do you really think the men and women of this country aka, mob, populace, will ever join together to order our politicians to fix things in America..



so the cycle continues as it has.

not trying to troll just reply.... Sociology.

[edit on 6-4-2010 by Bicent76]



posted on Apr, 6 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by brainwrek
 


Hello, I'm not sure I follow you about the First Amendment, but I understand your sentiments. I don't see there is anything to prohibit a successful wealthy person from seeking public office. I can see the definite advantage to society for prohibiting wealth from have any place in the process. Politics is power. Take the profit out of the mix and perhaps we can get to the business of governance instead of the commerce of politics. Just my 2c.

gj



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by beezwaxes
 


Yes, but why? She's already incredibly rich. Why spend that much money and then the billion for the presidency? They're certainly not doing it for the common good.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
You mean kinda like George Soros bought Obamas Presidential election? That didn 't seem to bother you much!



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Mountainmeg
 


SCOTUS has ruled campaign contributions are political speech, and as such may not be limited by the federal government.

As for whats in it for her, and others like her....

It could be any number of things. It could be that she has the resources to try to get her belief system into power.

It could be they want another sense of accomplishment notch on their belt.

She could be a power hungry monster, only she knows her real motives.

Jesse Ventura is a perfect example that money doesnt always equal a win. He was outspent exponentially in the Minnesota governors race, yet he won by presenting ideas through bus tours and campaign stops.



posted on Apr, 7 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Mountainmeg
 


Power and the challenge would be the simple answer. Money just isn't enough for people like that.
On a more conspiratorial angle, she's almost certainly aligned with others with a lofty agenda. Exactly what that is, I don't know. sorry



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Everybody in politics has an agenda, being rich does not mean you can run a country it means you think you can, To be rich all you have to do is keep an eye out for were the people are going, and were there are a bunch of people that think alike, or want, or use something, all you have to do is get yourself reconized or at the head of the movement and the money will come to you. There are many reasons why people want to get in politics as many ideologys they represent=as many agendas they have. And you can be rich and not know anything abouth business, look at gw bush. The only thing you nead to know to do when your rich or the president is to hire other people to do the work for you, you dont nead to know how things work, you just nead to know who to hire to further your agendas. Sometimes those agendas are to make yourself and you sponsors richer, Sometimes its to further a cause like welfare, oil, computers tax laws, whatever alse. And sometimes its to healp people or comunites. But its all agendas



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
And democracy exits, it's just not the same democracy like they teach kids in school. Its more of a shopkeeper capitalist democracy, this is why county's like russia or china or rich middle eastern countrys wont invade if there was a going to be a war, they could just buy the system there is no reason to invade and take over when you can buy it. Its kind of like when rome wanted to take over judea, all they had to do is make a deal with there leaders the Pharisees for the price of the people. And this is why coruption is bad when something becomes big and its infostructure is not in sync, there will be chaos. Like a domino effect you push the one at the top, they all fall down.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join