Clinton thread
Clinton thread
Out of context: Reply #103
- Started
- Last post
- 442 Responses
- ********0
You know what would be awesome, ukit? That it all got as clear as water; it would be awesome that a candidate (in US or Europe, doesn't matter - although in Europe there's presently more fake ideological partisanship that can be related to pressure groups) would say:
"These and that people gave me this amount of money. They support what I want to do with business and my ideas and expect some feedback, and influence, and power - and they gave me money so that I could buy clever advertising and a powerful marketing campaign to tell you this." (US straight-forwardness style)
"But do I need their money now that I'm speaking the truth to you, fellow citizens?" (EU style)
"No. I just need you to believe me." (Obama style)
That is the problem.
- I mean, either you believe in a system or you go for an unknown guy. Question is: how far is that guy from the system?********
- It's not as bad as you think. You can actually look up who got what - it's all publicly available. Plus, there a limits on how much people can donate. Limited to only a few thousand per person.ukit
- much people can donate - a few thousand per person.ukit
- well now that's good.********
- Not as simple as that of course...people try to buy influence by holding fundraisers and organizing donations from their friends, but still, it's not a black holeukit
- donations from friends....but still, there is at least some transparency and limits placed on the systemukit
- but why do uninterested people donate? Just for Country's sake? If so that is beautiful.********
- Don't get me wrong: I appreciate that interests and expected influences r clear. That kind of transp is a lesson we should learn around here.********
- many countries should take.********
- I mean, either you believe in a system or you go for an unknown guy. Question is: how far is that guy from the system?