-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Romney vs. Obama
- Thread starter OutofDate1980
- Start date
- Status
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
No wonder Adelson is giving Romney so much money, bribes to keep him out of the big house. Note to Romney: Adelson is offering pocket change, you want all his $25 billion and you will make the investigation go away, plus you'll give him a job as the King's jester.
Sheldon Adelson, Other Super PAC Donors Have Corporate Bribery Issues
"Adelson and his family have already contributed $21.5 million to a super PAC that supported Newt Gingrich's presidential bid, $10 million to the pro-Romney super PAC and $5 million to a super PAC with close ties to House Republican leadership. A recent Huffington Post report found that he had given or promised to give $71 million to both super PACs and nonprofits spending money in the 2012 election.
The billionaire's business, Las Vegas Sands Inc., faces three FCPA investigations into casino operations in Macau, China.
Sheldon Adelson, Other Super PAC Donors Have Corporate Bribery Issues
"Adelson and his family have already contributed $21.5 million to a super PAC that supported Newt Gingrich's presidential bid, $10 million to the pro-Romney super PAC and $5 million to a super PAC with close ties to House Republican leadership. A recent Huffington Post report found that he had given or promised to give $71 million to both super PACs and nonprofits spending money in the 2012 election.
The billionaire's business, Las Vegas Sands Inc., faces three FCPA investigations into casino operations in Macau, China.
T
TxGoat
Guest
What's sad is when they donate to both sides to hedge their bets. I think BP contributed to both Obama and McCain in 2008. That needs to be outlawed.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
Not really, consumption taxes hurt lower incomes disproportionately more, while I agree with them, they have to be balanced out by providing services and taxing those better off more. Also I think federal and local governments should stay out of sales tax, its very confusing.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
How so? Shouldn't it be legal for people to spend their money on whomever they wish?
T
TxGoat
Guest
But, contributing to BOTH parties, that's like saying, "I'm going to give you an exuberant amount of money because I know that will buy me my own seat at the table if you win but I'm also going to give your opponent a lot of money as well just in case he/she wins. I guess what I'm trying to say is it's bad enough that money plays such a big role in our politics, why let these large multi-billion dollar companies have influence on both sides? It's like going to Vegas and betting on every possible outcome and still winning big.
Android311
Android Enthusiast
I agree, it's his money, he can do what he wants with it
T
TxGoat
Guest
It's not about the large corporation's freedom to spend money, it's spending equally large amounts on BOTH candidates knowing that regardless of who wins, you're going to have access either way. The answer of course is to get rid of how money influences our politics. But what happens is people check "no" on the little box that asks if you want $3.00 of your tax return to go to the Presidential Election Campaign fund. For some reason people think it'll add to the amount of income tax they pay, but what it does is it provides money for Presidential campaign funds that would otherwise be funded by big businesses and other entities that mean to influence policy that would serve their special interests.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I agree with you that it's corrupt as hell. I still think it should be legal as long as laws require enough transparency that everyone knows it's going on.
Android311
Android Enthusiast
If I were bp I wouldn't contribute one penny to Obama, Obama is against drilling so why donate?
T
TxGoat
Guest
Now imagine if Obama didn't receive MORE campaign funds from BP than McCain received, do you think Obama's administration would've been harder on BP for the spill?
Android311
Android Enthusiast
Yes and no honestly, I get what your saying and it could have been possible. I'm just tired of hearing that off shore drilling is bad and bp is a bad company, If the EPA hates and regulates off shore drilling so much why dissent the epa come out with a better solution? All they do is complain and make things more difficult
T
TxGoat
Guest
Considering BP's emergency plan for maintaining the spill was outdated and ineffective, I'd say forcing them to stop so they could re-establish correct, up to date guidelines for another spill, I can't see how you can fault them for putting a momentary halt on drilling.
ElasticNinja
Android Expert
That's the whole point of Environmental Agencies - complain and provide solutions.
In this case there are important ecosystems which would be devastated so the solution is to use better power sources, and less power in general.
There's a very simple solution - end the use of Oil in electrical power generation, and make US vehicles twice as efficient, and move city vehicles to electric.
Not only would that mean you would only use oil produced in the Union, it would also have the effect of drastically reducing American greenhouse gas emissions.
This is actually one of the few areas where the US comes out better than other countries environmentaly, Canada has disgraced itself with the Tar Sands debacle.
T
TxGoat
Guest
But, large oil companies have manipulated the facts and have lobbied successfully to have us think the opposite needs to happen. Lessening oil restrictions and allowing more offshore drilling has been married with "job creation" so now everyone that drinks the oil industry's brand of Kool-aid has been lead to believe that weening us off of this limited resource is a job killer. I think the amount of jobs created by going the other direction would offset any real big losses in the oil industry, and hell lets face it the oil industry isn't exactly hurting financially right now.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
There is a big loophole to avoid transparency. If the IRS even thinks of cracking down on these "nonprofits" they'll find Congress will cut funding for any type of investigation. Money is power.
Analysis: Most Outside Spending in Politics Comes from Unknown Sources - US News and World Report
"Current campaign finance law allows Super PACs to raise and spend unlimited sums of money for political causes as long as they disclose the sources of their donations. However, nonprofits organized under 501(c) of the tax code, so-called "social welfare" groups and other nonprofits, can raise and spend unlimited sums on politics without revealing their donors
T
TxGoat
Guest
The Obama administration changing its mind on same-sex marriage and recent policy on children of illegal immigrants, is he trying to pander to voters and/or is this in response to the GOP not wanting to work on anything because of it being an election year? You don't stop because it's an election year, and you don't implement policy because it's an election year. I personally think all politicians need to be voted out for treason against this country. You don't put your politics ahead of the country.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
Meh. You'll never get ahead in politics with that kind of attitude.
T
TxGoat
Guest
Believe it or not, some of us are actually old enough to remember when the country came before politics.
OutofDate1980
Android Expert
At least in the far past organized corruption was somewhat fettered by transportation and communication infrastructure.
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
I'm reminded of Burr shooting Hamilton way back in 1804. Burr was the sitting VP at the time and he put his political differences with Hamilton above the country. Then there was the Civil War where Gen. McClellan ran against Lincoln. Again, a case of someone putting their political differences ahead of a country in the middle of a civil war. This is hardly something new.
It is a myth they want you to believe. The leaders of the revolution pursued their own financial goals and ambitions.
- Status