What do you think about billionaires buying the presidency? - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-25-2019, 11:50 AM
Idaho Survivalist Idaho Survivalist is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,121
Thanks: 491
Thanked 2,026 Times in 1,020 Posts
Default What do you think about billionaires buying the presidency?



Advertise Here

Since Bloomberg, a multi-billionaire, announced he is running and will have spent $millions on advertising in 46 states, next week, and Tom Steyer, a low billionaire is already in the race, and we have another billionaire in the white house now, will it be in our future when candidates will just buy their way in? Is that good? Of these three, which ones are tied to the deep state? Or, since they are billionaires, are they all part of the deep state? Name recognition in any election is what wins. And vast amounts of money creates name recognition.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Idaho Survivalist For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 11:56 AM
real wowwee's Avatar
real wowwee real wowwee is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: N. Atlanta
Posts: 6,327
Thanks: 15,128
Thanked 12,932 Times in 4,188 Posts
Default

They still have to have voters. Clinton outspent Trump by a magnitude but still lost. Name recognition matters but what matters most is what you are selling. No saturation marketing campaign will make me crave B.S.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to real wowwee For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 12:04 PM
gungatim gungatim is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,234
Thanks: 482
Thanked 1,673 Times in 697 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho Survivalist View Post
Since Bloomberg, a multi-billionaire, announced he is running and will have spent $millions on advertising in 46 states, next week, and Tom Steyer, a low billionaire is already in the race, and we have another billionaire in the white house now, will it be in our future when candidates will just buy their way in? Is that good? Of these three, which ones are tied to the deep state? Or, since they are billionaires, are they all part of the deep state? Name recognition in any election is what wins. And vast amounts of money creates name recognition.
Wrong.

people vote for names they don't recognize all the time, and they win. One of the reasons we have a 2 party system.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-25-2019, 12:06 PM
ajole ajole is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,199
Thanks: 8,156
Thanked 23,472 Times in 7,361 Posts
Default

What do you "feel"..I mean, think, about people posting leading questions that ignore reality and aren't really asking for an answer, but are posted anyway because they are simply setups for spouting leftist concepts?

This sounds like a Quora question....
Quick reply to this message
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ajole For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 12:07 PM
loki81 loki81 is offline
Some guy on the internet
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: PNW
Posts: 3,283
Thanks: 4,080
Thanked 5,693 Times in 2,124 Posts
Default

meh, i think this is just more of an open way of how things have always been done.

no poor man has been president in my recollection, these people have always been funded by billionaires in backrooms, only difference is it's out in the open now.

from what i've seen the dems have very little chance regardless of who they run...my sources tend to be correct a vast majority of the time over the last 6-7 years.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-25-2019, 12:12 PM
Ghost863's Avatar
Ghost863 Ghost863 is online now
Slayer of Trolls
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,548
Thanks: 28,119
Thanked 11,967 Times in 3,538 Posts
Default

Oprah Winfrey bought and paid for both of Obama's campaigns, so I guess it is become the norm.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ghost863 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 12:13 PM
Loves_Chickens's Avatar
Loves_Chickens Loves_Chickens is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 863
Thanks: 248
Thanked 731 Times in 420 Posts
Default

I'm fine will billionaires becoming president. I'm just not fine with corporate interest propping up candidates.

I really like Andrew Yang's ideas on political funding.
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/democracydollars/
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-25-2019, 12:36 PM
Idaho Survivalist Idaho Survivalist is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,121
Thanks: 491
Thanked 2,026 Times in 1,020 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by real wowwee View Post
They still have to have voters. Clinton outspent Trump by a magnitude but still lost. Name recognition matters but what matters most is what you are selling. No saturation marketing campaign will make me crave B.S.
But Clinton was not a multi-billionaire like Bloomberg and he already has some name recognition having been the Mayor of New York. Unless Trump is also a multi-billionaire and can spend billions in advertising, Bloomberg could win.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Idaho Survivalist For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 12:36 PM
justin22885 justin22885 is offline
Awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 15,146
Thanks: 0
Thanked 23,876 Times in 7,883 Posts
Default

as opposed to what? foreign countries buying our elections like they tried to do with clinton?

and idaho.. you really need to pay attention to the world around you.. clinton outspent trump by a significant margin, and still lost and WAY more people recognize her name than they ever did bloomberg
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to justin22885 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 12:39 PM
Idaho Survivalist Idaho Survivalist is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,121
Thanks: 491
Thanked 2,026 Times in 1,020 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loves_Chickens View Post
I'm fine will billionaires becoming president. I'm just not fine with corporate interest propping up candidates.

I really like Andrew Yang's ideas on political funding.
https://www.yang2020.com/policies/democracydollars/

It would be very unlikely if even lower rung billionaires are not part of the deep state of globalists who run this country.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Idaho Survivalist For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 12:40 PM
MattB4 MattB4 is offline
Closed for the Season.
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 15,773
Thanks: 22,099
Thanked 30,686 Times in 10,726 Posts
Default

I would be fine with billionaires buying the Presidency. We could use the money to pay off the National debt. Be more of a ceremonial thing sorta like the Queen is in England. No real power but lots of bragging rights.

Apropos of the contest; I happened to catch the new Bloomberg political ad on TV this morning. What formulaic tripe. Bloomberg wasted money. I have to say the Tom Steyer political ad is much better done with Mr. Steyer simply talking about his goals if he was elected. Comes off as much more likable. Too bad he is another far left, save the environment democrat. I at least don't want to upchuck after listening to his political ad.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MattB4 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 12:42 PM
Ghost863's Avatar
Ghost863 Ghost863 is online now
Slayer of Trolls
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,548
Thanks: 28,119
Thanked 11,967 Times in 3,538 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho Survivalist View Post
It would be very unlikely if even lower rung billionaires are not part of the deep state of globalists who run this country.
Personally I believe that if it was a bought and paid for Position, Hillary would have won in 2016. Even if she did not have the funds to do it herself, Soros would have aided in that endeavor. But then again, as I pointed out above, Winfrey did pay for both of Obama's campaigns. So I am not really sure if it can be done or not. The only way to know is if Tom Cruise runs and wins with Winfrey backing him as well.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ghost863 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 12:47 PM
puttster's Avatar
puttster puttster is offline
Golfer
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,391
Thanks: 1,715
Thanked 2,491 Times in 1,410 Posts
Default

Weren't Washington, Jefferson, Madison and those guys among the richest people in America? Seemed to work out okay.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to puttster For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 12:50 PM
TRyan's Avatar
TRyan TRyan is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: California
Posts: 8,383
Thanks: 6,332
Thanked 28,710 Times in 6,739 Posts
Default

How about we take all the money out of it. We have two debates were each get the same time to talk. Each candidate gets a crappy loaner bus to crisscross the country shaking hand and explaining their platform.

You do it that way and I might believe you want the job to serve the people.

Oh and while were at it, part time Congress.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to TRyan For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 12:52 PM
Ghost863's Avatar
Ghost863 Ghost863 is online now
Slayer of Trolls
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,548
Thanks: 28,119
Thanked 11,967 Times in 3,538 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRyan View Post
How about we take all the money out of it. We have two debates were each get the same time to talk. Each candidate gets a crappy loaner bus to crisscross the country shaking hand and explaining their platform.

You do it that way and I might believe you want the job to serve the people.

Oh and while were at it, part time Congress.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
we already have a part time congress, they only work when they want to and we pay them a full time salary.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Ghost863 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 12:52 PM
Idaho Survivalist Idaho Survivalist is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,121
Thanks: 491
Thanked 2,026 Times in 1,020 Posts
Default buying the presidency

Quote:
Originally Posted by justin22885 View Post
as opposed to what? foreign countries buying our elections like they tried to do with clinton?

and idaho.. you really need to pay attention to the world around you.. clinton outspent trump by a significant margin, and still lost and WAY more people recognize her name than they ever did bloomberg
Clintons were paupers compared to Bloomberg. And think of it this way" If you had a thousand dollars in front of you, it would take a thousand of those dollars to make a million and if you had a million dollars in front of you in a stack, it would take a thousand of those stacks to make a billion, and Bloomberg has more than 54 of those stacks of $1,000,000,000. And Hilary and Bill have a net worth of $240 million.

Clintons--$240,000,000

Steyer--$1,200,000,000

Trump---? $billion

Bloomberg---54,100,000,000

So who can outspend who?

And who, most likely is rich enough and powerful enough to be part of and favored by the Globalists, controlling this country?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Idaho Survivalist For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 12:58 PM
real wowwee's Avatar
real wowwee real wowwee is online now
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: N. Atlanta
Posts: 6,327
Thanks: 15,128
Thanked 12,932 Times in 4,188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRyan View Post
How about we take all the money out of it. We have two debates were each get the same time to talk. Each candidate gets a crappy loaner bus to crisscross the country shaking hand and explaining their platform.

You do it that way and I might believe you want the job to serve the people.

Oh and while were at it, part time Congress.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Already been tried. For years candidates accepted federal money that had caps and restrictions. Jeopardy quiz time. Which presidential candidate was the first to not opt for these federal rules? Alex that would be Barak Hussein Obama. For bonus points why? It would restrict the amount of donations and money he could collect.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to real wowwee For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 12:58 PM
justin22885 justin22885 is offline
Awesome
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 15,146
Thanks: 0
Thanked 23,876 Times in 7,883 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho Survivalist View Post
Clintons were paupers compared to Bloomberg. And think of it this way" If you had a thousand dollars in front of you, it would take a thousand of those dollars to make a million and if you had a million dollars in front of you in a stack, it would take a thousand of those stacks to make a billion, and Bloomberg has more than 54 of those stacks of $1,000,000,000. And Hilary and Bill have a net worth of $240 million.

Clintons--$240,000,000

Steyer--$1,200,000,000

Trump---? $billion

Bloomberg---54,100,000,000

So who can outspend who?

And who, most likely is rich enough and powerful enough to be part of and favored by the Globalists, controlling this country?
it doesnt matter how much they had or their net worth, but how much they actually spent on an election, and still lost, money isnt everything
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to justin22885 For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 01:04 PM
Florida Jean Florida Jean is online now
Hunter
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,386
Thanks: 1,881
Thanked 3,266 Times in 1,049 Posts
Default

Clinton and company spent 3 or 4 dollars more than Trump and company in FLA and Trump won.

Campaigns cost money. It has to come from somewhere. Trump is actually pretty good at getting the small donations. Lots of them.

*************

Historically. Hmmmm, a rich white landowner male runs for an office. Has big parties with lots of free drinks on election day for other white landowner males to get them to vote for him. That was how it was done even pre-1776.

The landowner rule was dropped -- drinking parties on voting days still happened.

Fast forward to the later 1900's on....politicians promise all sorts of benefits for poor, non-landowning, generally black voters.

Do I see any difference? Well, the white voters had an extremely short term benefit. While the blacks seemed to hold out for regular monthly doles. Neither was exceptionally smart.

*************

I'd rather see someone spend their own money than money from other sources who will expect a payback at a later date [normal standard mostly now].

**************

Is a voter any more stupid if they like slick ads [most of whom don't watch much television anymore] or a drink fest, or cheap rent when they vote?

Is a voter any more stupid if they vote for someone because some celebraty on twitter tells them? Or a media analyst tells them? Or they want to vote for the 'winner'?

Is a voter any more stupid if they vote for someone because the candidate is the same sex, race, ethnic group as the voter? Or this

Is a voter any smarter if they judge future potential compared to past actions of a candidate? Or the candidate's past experience and skills? Or just voting against a really worse case candidate.

***************

Now, should these multi-billionaire candidates start sending checks in the mail for our votes, then they are buying them. Otherwise they are just 'presenting' themselves. Perhaps better than the other candidates, but maybe not.

We need term limits. Not limits on how much a candidate is 'worth'.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Florida Jean For This Useful Post:
Old 11-25-2019, 01:14 PM
ajole ajole is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 10,199
Thanks: 8,156
Thanked 23,472 Times in 7,361 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho Survivalist View Post
Clintons were paupers compared to Bloomberg. ......Hilary and Bill have a net worth of $240 million.
So what? It's not about what's in your wallet.

It's about who's on your speed dial, who wants what political influence and favor, and how much are they willing to pay to get you installed so they can start collecting on their investment.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ajole For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net