As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Why would anyone want to be a US President?
emnmnme
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Something occurred to me back during the 2000 US Presidential election - the candidates were tripping over themselves to get votes and raise campaign funds and fought tooth and nail by the end to win Florida and the Supreme Court's backing.
Four years later, I read how the current DA in New York raised $30 million for his campaign. $20 million buys you a spacewalk with the Russians or a new hospital wing or something better than ad time and buttons with catchy slogans. Now I hear the total amount of funds raised by all candidates for this coming presidential election may exceed half a billion dollars and lord knows how many work hours.
So what's the reward after all that campaigning and smiling? A high stress job as a public servant with hate mail everyday and an intimidating mountain of problems to solve from fields you've barely heard of. To be an effective President, you'd have to educate yourself daily and keep an eye on current global events. And the stress! Look at photos of Bill Clinton after his term - the man aged twenty years while in office!
You do get you name in the history books and you get to here Hail to the Chief wherever you go, so those are perks, but really, why would anyone exhaust themselves physically, put their reputations under the closest of scrutinies, and waste all that campaign money to be a president? Are the candidates afraid all the others are morons and if the other guy wins, America loses? Don't tell me its duty or patriotism - campaigns in general would be run a lot more efficiently with less mudslinging if that were true.
Four years later, I read how the current DA in New York raised $30 million for his campaign. $20 million buys you a spacewalk with the Russians or a new hospital wing or something better than ad time and buttons with catchy slogans. Now I hear the total amount of funds raised by all candidates for this coming presidential election may exceed half a billion dollars and lord knows how many work hours.
So what's the reward after all that campaigning and smiling? A high stress job as a public servant with hate mail everyday and an intimidating mountain of problems to solve from fields you've barely heard of. To be an effective President, you'd have to educate yourself daily and keep an eye on current global events. And the stress! Look at photos of Bill Clinton after his term - the man aged twenty years while in office!
You do get you name in the history books and you get to here Hail to the Chief wherever you go, so those are perks, but really, why would anyone exhaust themselves physically, put their reputations under the closest of scrutinies, and waste all that campaign money to be a president? Are the candidates afraid all the others are morons and if the other guy wins, America loses? Don't tell me its duty or patriotism - campaigns in general would be run a lot more efficiently with less mudslinging if that were true.
emnmnme on
0
Posts
So the reason people become president is for the fruits of corruption, having a finger on The Button, and, according to The Simpsons, three secret murders per term.
People crave power and glory because that is what matters to them.
I was born in the wrong country, sigh.
The system is set against making huge strides except in a crisis situation. A successful, quality cantidate simply will not accomplish their stated goals.
Yeah, we do. The news.
Whether or not they're out and out corrupt, it's pretty hard to say with a straight face that any of them are truly "principled."
Being able to raise money is a sign of being unprincipled?
What makes you think the news tells the whole story?
I think it's a little naive to think any politician holding major office hasn't "compromised" along the way. I suppose you could work up a definition of "principled" that included being able to bend at necessary points, but that's obviously not the intent of the phrase as I was using it.
But ... Michael Moore added a little price tag over George W.'s head in 'Sicko.' You doubt Michael Moore?
And I'd say something about the old time stereotype of fat Louisiana governors in seersucker suits stealing nickels from the poor box but this isn't helping.
Living without power and glory =! asceticism.
Hair-splitting and exaggeration are fun, but I have the small feeling they're being taken seriously here.
I severely doubt that by juxtaposing power and glory and life he meant that they were not important at all. I took it quite clearly to mean that the desire for the ability to make decisions as opposed to the will to make beneficial decisions is bad. Likewise, the desire to earn glory through power instead of the desire to earn it through right action also bad.
Lobbyists =! evil incarnate.
Considering the wishes of lobbyists =! selling out the American people.
Lobbyists frequently represent groups of American people. Again, the ACLU uses lobbyists.
All professional politicians holding major office compromise their principles at one point or another in their career. I don't think that's even a particularly cynical thing to say, just a legitimate observation.
Donating money, lobbying. No, not by any means naturally bad.
You could donate money in thanks or celebration for a certain law being passed. That sort of donation is great.
You could argue your case on the floor of the senate for or against any sort of decision. You could base your argument on science, and attempt to convince lawmakers to make a certain decision which may or may not be for the good of the people. Maybe you just don't know, you only feel.
But donating money on the grounds that the law makers make a certain decision, full well knowing they're only making that decision because you donated that money. I can't imagine a scenario where that's good. Not that there isn't. Just right now I can't think of one.
First, it depends on the politician. I generally doubt it will be 100% with the ACLU because, for one, the politician and/or his constituents may not agree with the entirety of the ACLU's platform. For two, there are a myriad of other groups commanding attention who may have agendas at odds with the ACLU.
I don't think that the "compromising of one's principles" necessarily should be associated with some notion of a politician being somehow "tainted". The nature of the system (lots of people and interests being involved) necessitates compromise as a means of getting things done.
The politician who doesn't compromise is a useless politician, and I would suggest that that's generally the worst kind of all (unless the current political situation is completely ideal).
So yeah -- maybe they cynically think that their actions are "right," but that doesn't make them so.
Do you think most police officers think their actions are right?
Although, to actually answer the question. Sure, most politicians perhaps do think they're doing the right thing. But not all the time. I'd be surprised to think that even most politicians always thought the were doing the right thing. And actually, I'll even revoke that. I don't have numbers in front of me.
An example, restoring habeas corpus. (Not about lobbying, but about political interests) Not a single democrat voted against it, and only 6 republicans voted for it. Now, my first problem was that such an important issue was arbitrarily half-assed into a military spending bill, but whatever. I think if it was serious, it would have it's own separate law/vote.
I find it hard to believe there weren't at least some democrats who wanted to vote against it, but didn't because of politics. Vice versa for the republicans.
Here, I think party interests drove a lot of their voting. Similarly, I think money and vacations can do the same. Perhaps even more often.
Because it isn't a huge portion of their funding.
Hillary Clinton:
Individual Contributions - $52,538,649
PAC Contributions Total- $532,946
Barrack Obama:
IndCon - $58,605,160
PAC - $4,975
John Edwards:
IndCon - $23,059,192
PAC - $20
Bill Richardson:
IndCon - $13,133,145
PAC - $127,100
And it isn't any different on the other side.
Maybe you should check out the power of the purse. You know, keeping parliamentary bodies relevant and helping them curb the power of the executive since the Tudor monarchs.
I don't think the above-board direct-to-campaign contributions are a good way to measure the influence of PACs on campaigns.
By law individuals can only contribute $2100 per election. That 52 million Hillary has in contributions? It came from 25,000+ people.
Edit: wait, after reading your post again I don't understand it. No one is giving $60 million of their own money. I'm not sure what you are talking about.
I know that. What I mean is their campaign war chests are out of control. How much would you really need to get your basic message across to the American people? Without trying to shout over the other candidates' messages, wouldn't you only need a fraction of that $60 million? I figure the rest is just icing on the cake to distract voters away from the other candidates. Who in their right mind would spend millions on icing?
You don't understand bro, people gave that money so their candidates can use it to promote themselves and hopefully get elected. If candidates stopped using all of the money like you said, people will feel that donating is a waste of time and will donate less. Fuck man, theres nothing wrong with all those donations, and the war chests are not OUT OF CONTROLZ
Hah.
It costs about $500,000 to run a national 30 second ad.
My guess is that it costs about $3,000,000 to have a campaign operating in a state out of one headquarters for four or five months - and in most states you would need three or four headquarters.
And if you think about it, all this money being raised is just to compete in the four or five earliest states. Imagine what it will cost when we have a single national primary in all fifty states. You would need $200 million dollars just to be in that primary.
Didn't Ross Perot create a 30 minute ad for national TV back in 1996?
You mean like all the candidates currently at less than 5% in the polls are doing?