Well if the office is the President of the US, 1 or 2 is not enough.
Story from a few weeks ago:
Gingrich told ABC News Mitt Romney came out on top during the GOP primaries because “In the end, he had, I think, sixteen billionaires and we had one.”
“We’re in a situation where if you’re really rich, you have an enormous, and I think unfair, advantage,” the former House Speaker explained. “The trick is not to cripple the rich, the trick is to empower the middle class.”
Apparently Romney has 35 billionaires behind him now.
http://pinterest.com/pcactionfund/mitt- … e-backers/
Gee, ya think Newt's changing his spots?
Think he would be willing to stand up for repeal of Citizens United?
In answer to your question- It takes 2 billionaires! One to blindfold the public and another to send the absentee ballots to convicted felons.
This is so true and the electorate just sit back and sleep on the watch. The money is what is at the heart of these campaigns and the electorate think that the candidate that wins will do the job they were thought to be "elected" but really they wound up to be bought for. There is a big check the contributors are anxious to cash when their boy is elected and if you still think this is the "land of the free" just remember what free buys you.
I think we should change the electoral college system to where the person with the most billionaire backers wins the election.
We are a nation that lives and dies with name recognition and visibility. The common man with the best ideas in the world cannot garner the support necessary to seek the office of president. Those who desire "equality" might work on that one but let us not attack it until we collect all the money we can working on curing world hunger. Put 50 people in a room for 50 years and see what comes out of it. Only a handful at best can garner enough support to be elected to a leadership role in the room and the longer that room exists the worse the odds get because more and more in the room begin to expect more and more from the person which they are willing to elect. Eventually, anyone with a moral sense, drops out rather than lie in order to tell the rest what they "want to hear". Such is the case with what we have in the White House today. Far too many people want to hear something so badly that they imagine whatever is said must fulfill that wish. In doing so they ignore the costs and the burdens imposed on all individuals when those overzealous promises are made and kept. Eventually that road leads to only one place....destruction and distinction. WB
Utter poppycock and dystopian drivel, Wayne. As if a Romney wouldn't be ten times worse for this country while his plutocrats exploit even more of the middle class and drive yet more nails in America's coffin.
Mitt Romney Tax Plan Helps The Rich The Most: Analysis
* Romney tax plan cuts 20 percent for all income groups
* Those making over $1 million benefit most under plan
* Romney hasn't spelled out how to fund tax cuts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/0 … 27909.html
The fact is austerity hawks like yourself have just been proven to be all wrong about "government spending" and I'm not talking about Paul Krugman, but rather a conservative-leaning think tank The American enterprise Institute . . .
American Enterprise Institute: U.S. Austerity Measures Hurting Broader Economy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/3 … 19675.html
I just went to see how many billionaires Obama has this time around and apparently it stands at something like 30, according to the Washington Post.
And of course, Obama would never have got the Democratic Nomination without the billionaires who funded him 4 years ago.
So essentially, US citizens only get the chance to vote for candidates who have been selected by the very, very wealthy.
Is this anything like democracy?
According to Forbes, there are 400 people in America who own more of the wealth than the bottom 50% of the population. Those 400 people are worth 1.37 trillion dollars, while the bottom half of America is worth 1.26 trillion dollars. Put another way, those 400 people own more wealth than 150 million Americans. Anyone of them could buy and sell not only the president, but the whole government. Six members of the Walton Family alone are worth 89 billion dollars. According to the Citizens United ruling, money equates to free speech. That's a whole lot of freedom of speech!
Apologies, Will—you're right, of course, but in a billionaires' oligarchy or a plutocracy (take your pick) a democracy will always be subverted to do the bidding of the moneyed interests. The system was destined to collapse because it's out of balance and wobbling terribly ever since the GOP stacked the Supreme Court and bribed Congress into deregulating commerce. So I see your question as moot.
Republican dogma is weighted on the side of Darwinian capitalism and it wants government to collapse while the Love-Thy-Neighbor Democrats are trying to prevent it because government worked in the last Depression. Whether it can work again is the more salient question to my mind.
So it's come down to a war of slogans and soundbites—I'm sorry to say—but you can still address a slogan with a thoughtful rebuttal.
Beats critical thinking, and leaves more time for video games and catching up on some of that awesome reality TV.
by GA Anderson 3 years ago
Should a Congressman Only Stand For Moral and Sensible Actions... that benefit all U.S. citizens?Or should they stand for the desired actions of their electors?I think it is the latter.If they cannot, in good conscience, represent their electorate's desires, should they resign?I say yes.Of...
by Rod Martin Jr 5 years ago
A recent YouTube News report by WXIX Fox19's Ben Swann reveals something you're not like to find out about on the evening news. Obama is ignoring a federal court order regarding his actions under the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZjXHjkzMD4I supported...
by Beyond-Politics 8 years ago
With so much vocal an organizational opposition to President Obama and his policies (such as they are) after only 9 months in office, is such criticism warranted? Does the opposition reflect minority intolerance, or a fear of growing minority influence?
by Mom Kat 5 years ago
Alright, so I have a question & I would appreciate not being attacked. With the debates and election coming up, as usual, one of the big topics is the national deficit.My question is this: Who do we owe that much money to?It keeps going up, why? Where is all of this borrowed money...
by maddot 6 years ago
Romney or Obama? Is there really any decision to be made?
by phion 6 years ago
The title is misleading, because I have no answer as to why he does. Can those of you who plan to vote, or voted for Obama the first time give some valid reasons?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|