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.

 

If A Billionare Ran For President Again Using His Own Money?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Hmmmm.... I just had a wild thought.

Ross Perot couldn't win because he was never one of the big two parties that run this country. so there was no way he could've win. But he did spend his own money to run for the Presidency. While there is nothing in the constitution or in any legislature that you must be one of the two big parties to run for president. there is such a schism in this country to where you can only win if you are either a Democrat or a Republican. I really wish it weren't that way though.

So, if a billionaire ran for the presidency, spent his own money and didn't ask for any donations of any sort, how popular would that make him, especially is he say ran as a democrat?




posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I don't think you give billionaires enough credit, they would never waste they're money on something as over hyped as being president.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 

Before all this economic malaise of the last 10 years of so, I remember seeing a figure of $350 million dollars being spent on the presidential trail. I think that was just one of the larger candidate's costs, not the whole shebang.

I think people would (wrongly imho) view it as a private attempt to run for president solely for financial or political gain instead of what you have now, a bunch of privately (albeit through parties, donations, whatever) funded individuals backed by a particular party....for financial or political gain.

I don't think many billionaires, or at least the ones I am aware of, are nice enough to do anyone a service except their own selfish interests. Gates, Buffet, that Mexican guy with all the mobile stuff and Telco's in Mexico are nothing but dirty parasites that need a good course of anti-parasitic drugs. They like to form a "Charitable Institution" *cough cough* where they purport to "give away" all their wealth. Yeah right!
Gates still has 50-60 billion and is now inserting himself into the role of health advisor and vaccine program sponsor and god knows what else.

edit on 31/5/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Typo



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


I don't think many billionaires, or at least the ones I am aware of, are nice enough to do anyone a service except their own selfish interests. Gates, Buffet, that Mexican guy with all the mobile stuff and Telco's in Mexico are nothing but dirty parasites that need a good course of anti-parasitic drugs. They like to form a "Charitable Institution" *cough cough* where they purport to "give away" all their wealth. Yeah right!
Gates still has 50-60 billion and is now inserting himself into the role of health advisor and vaccine program sponsor and god knows what else.


Woah hold on a minute. They say, Billionaires are not in politics for the exact opposite you reason you state. They meaning the billionaires themselves. Billionaires provide jobs, they make corporations, they provide your salaries. Sure, they can get corrupt in the process, but Steve Jobs was beloved around the world when he died, and he had child labor laws which he didnt care about and green tax incentives where Apple didn't pay any taxes... Imagine what politics would do to that fragile man. He wouldn't be able to maintain himself, and stay out of the spotlight. Like he did in Apple.

They say, Billionaires don't do politics, because, then they can't help as much as they do in their own industry. It doesn't matter the industry. If you are a CEO you provide jobs to people all across the country sometimes. Especially if you are a billionaire.
edit on 31-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
How do you explain Ross Perot then?

He ran on his own money.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter whether I was 100% correct. Corporations generally make the laws (lobbying) and get their "ends" at the expense of all others so the outcome is pretty much the same whether it was Steve Jobs or George Bush who got to be president.

Providing basic employment is hardly an altruistic move on "their" part. In return they get to make a fortune over the backs of everyone else, not to mention having global effects on populations and their possibilities.

Just my 2 cents.


edit on 31/5/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Clarification



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
How do you explain Ross Perot then?


Simple, Americans did not agree with him on many of his own issues and I bet the poster lightspeeddriver up there might have something against him too. It's the same stigma which is against Romney. For some reason, people like government/political figures better than everyday business man. They say they want one running, and then, when they do run. They don't get elected. Hopefully Romney changes the stigma.
edit on 31-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
 


First, IMO the chances of another Billionaire that would run like Ross Perot is about as likely as you or I becoming a Billionaire by tomorrow morning. Unless, they TRULY have a desire to better this country for the MIDDLE class it isn't going to happen. Why would they? Most likely most Billionaire are already associated with the special interests groups and the corporate lobbyist, hence they already dictate our laws.

edit on 31-5-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
How do you explain Ross Perot then?


Simple, Americans did not agree with him on many of his own issues and I bet the poster lightspeeddriver up there might have something against him too. It's the same stigma which is against Romney. For some reason, people like government/political figures better than everyday business man. They say they want one running, and then, when they do run. They don't get elected. Hopefully Romney changes the stigma.
edit on 31-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)


How can Romney change the stigma when he is the stigma. He has a History of flip-flopping , going against party ideals (Bailouts,increasing gov't involvement,implemented socialized health care,telling people what they want to hear.etc) How is he not portraying a politician stigma? Regardless if you agree with him or not, the only candidate that breaks the mold is Ron Paul.

Back on topic: A billionaire would have to risk most of his fortune in order to create his own infomercials. Look at all the MSM news sources the real advertisement does not occur during the commercial breaks. The real marketing for the special interest groups and lobbyist occurs during the actual programming. The MSM are covert infomercials for the special interest groups and lobbyist. So I'm not sure that a Billionaire could even afford to go against the MSM infomercials.






edit on 31-5-2012 by interupt42 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by interupt42

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
How do you explain Ross Perot then?


Simple, Americans did not agree with him on many of his own issues and I bet the poster lightspeeddriver up there might have something against him too. It's the same stigma which is against Romney. For some reason, people like government/political figures better than everyday business man. They say they want one running, and then, when they do run. They don't get elected. Hopefully Romney changes the stigma.
edit on 31-5-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)


How can Romney change the stigma when he is the stigma.

Back on topic: A billionaire would have to risk most of his fortune in order to create his own infomercials. Look at all the MSM news sources the real advertisement does not occur during the commercial breaks. The real marketing for the special interest groups and lobbyist occurs during the actual programming. The MSM are covert infomercials for the special interest groups and lobbyist. So I'm not sure that a Billionaire could even afford to go against the MSM infomercials.



Romney will change the stigma just by winning the election if he does. Remember Kennedy was super wealthy. He won and was the most admired President in recent times maybe even higher than Reagan. But the good thing about our country is that we can help our favorite people win by donating to them. And what, do you think the Billionaires will just sit back and let their friends get destroyed in politics? NO! Their Billionaire friends will help them raise the cash. Ron Paul has a Billionaire friend as did everyone!

So until there is a mandate banning the use of super pacs or third party donations. Which how can you actually prove it? Then, Billionaires will always help out their friends, just like how poor people help out their friends. It's simple human nature and no legislation will never stop that.




top topics



 
1

log in

join