Hausse

How would restricting the amount allowed to spend violate the first amandment? And by the way there are quite a few law which restrict the first amandment. Just because it would restrict it does not make it impossible or illegal. Why would the spending limit not fly? As far as I know corporations are not legal to donate anyways but they are legal to tell their employees to who to donate (I might be off here).

Okey how about this: Every candidate is allowed to spend at maximum $x for the pre election and then $y for the election. Like that you would prevent slush money and you would make them start later (and even if they start earlier I don't care since they can't waste more money).

I still do not think that it is necessary to do such long elections. As far as I remember they started campaigning sometimes in September an the election will be in November so it's about 15 months... I think there should be at least some kind of regulation that restricts the candidates. I am sure they would be able to get a full program for the pre-elections done in about 3 months and then another 3 for the precidency. Additionally you could restrict the funds they are allowed to spend. As far as I know the whole campaigning started earlier this year than ever so I doubt that it is historically based. It would not restrict the freedom of speech, it would merely make it unprovable who donated what so the president would not be biased. I am sure there would be ways to get that done. I just don't think in this case it is worth to have to have the full freedom of speech seeing that you end up with a president who pretty much "has" to do what companies are dictating. (Yes I am aware that's exagerated but it is certainly true in a lot of cases).

I might not have been clear enough. Here what I meant: I think it's a huge waste to spend money on having 5 people travel through the US for 1.5 years to hold speeches and all other kind of crap. You could do 5 TV debates which would be enough so everybody could pick a guy to vote for and save the tons of money and use it for something that is actually useful. Additional to that I think that donations should be required to be made anonymous. To me as a person from a country in which I don't even know where the people are getting the money for campaigning because it's so little, it seems that the big corporations are doing a simple quid pro quo with the possible future president. Just doesn't seem right to have a kind of corruption legal. And by the way the question asked was how foreigners think about the election process. It seems kind of stupid to tell me to fuck of because I'm foreign in that context.

Welcome to Hillary Clinton's exact view on the election process and it's problems. She would make them 100% publically funded. If that's Hillary's view I have to agree with her. The money wasted for the election is just ridiculous.

I'm from Switzerland and I'm currently studying in the US. I personally think that the way the elections are held is simply ridiculous and retarded. It is humongously complicated and that everybody is voting at another day seems pretty wrong seeing that people who vote earlier have more power. I think the pre elections should be one day in August (the shorter the time between pre elections and elections the less money gets wasted on campaigning) and then the real elections in October. I also think it is completely wrong that intrest groups are allowed to donate money. No doubt the US elections are influencing the world, but I would say as a Swiss person living in Switzerland it would have mostly influenced me economically and maybe ecologically since war's do not really influence Switzerland in any other way. So I wouldn't say the US election is even close to the importance of things like Schengen, new decisions in the EU and so on.

To me Shiraz is one of the worst getting drunk grapes. My stomach gets really upset while drinking and it get's even worse the next day...

Most Yellow Tails are too fruity for me. I like the French and Italians wines usually more.

I don't know about that. If the cold war would have gone hot, I doubt that there would have been much more to protect than a steaming bunch of desert. The Nazis were fine with Switzerland being independent and it would be nearly impossible to really invade Switzerland (due to it's location). I don't think a lot of people would think it's worth losing that many men since the Swiss would probably just do what's in their own interest and so colaborate with whoever is in charge.

So you think America should be isolationist, and not care about what happens to our allies elsewhere in the world? Defend the homeland, but nothing else. Let Iran, N. Korea, Russia and China just run amok to their heart's content? Leave Israel and Taiwan to the wolves? I suppose with allies you mean oil rich country's and with defend you mean invade?

Hey yeah I know it was Russia too but I mostly added that so people don't get pissed about that they had to save the French's ass I am one of the fucking crazy guys too. I'm studying in the US at the moment and I think my next stop will be Russia

I go along with the people who say it's way too big. I believe that it is not necessary spending such a shit load of money (that, by the way, you do not have) on military. I am from Switzerland and we spend about 1% of our GDP annually on our military and I would say we have been doing way better with that then the US does. Here the simple secrets about not having to spend that much money: 1. Don't assume you are the world police (altough there are instances where help is appreciated like WWII) 2. Don't piss of everybody (a.k.a. Al Kaida, Iran and the rest of the world) I'm fairly sure by doing that you could decrease your spending significantly.

Sounds like you're the one whining, not me. I'm quite familiar with European fuel prices, having lived overseas since 1991. I'm living in the US at the moment and believe me I'm very glad I just pay $2.90 here since I made close to 20k miles this year...

Is just being awesome good enough to earn the cookies?

Got the beer open....but this granny just doesn't do cookies......not good for the figure You could bake me cookies. I need to watch my fall rate

Lol I thought you were rantig about it being unhealthy because it makes fat. I have to confess I would double dip if I felt like and I do not have the slightest problem eating out of the same bowl 10 people just stuck their finger in. There are greater dangers in life than double dipping...

I still think the worst thing that everybody either seems to cover up or just nobody cares about is that in the war in Iraq over 2 million people have died. Everybody just says those poor american soldiers (which is obviously sad, but if you compare the numbers it seems slightly rediculose)

I believe in reincarnation but I'm not the biggest fan of the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama is trying to do two jobs--free Tibet from the Communist Chinese, and serve as the world leader of Buddhism. The problem is that both jobs are full time jobs. By trying to play two different roles, he isn't doing either role especially well IMHO. The Dalai Lama should look to the example set by the late Pope John Paul II. John Paul led the RC church but he had the wisdom to leave freeing Poland from the Communists--another fulltime job--for the most part to Lech Walesa. I am absolutely not informed on what his politics are. I just saw him speak in Zürich and he seriously was amazing even when he wasn't speaking. The pope on the other hand wasn't such a blast I thought.

Nope. I think that the Dalai Lama is one of the most amazing people I have ever seen though.

You are aware of the fact that no oil companies were present in Iraq because you had an embargo on them? The reason for attacking them was that after an attack you could lift the embargo without losing your face so you could get the oil out. I don't doubt that the oil companies were behind it but it was still your choice to (re)elect the guy that was willing to do the whole war thing.

The problem with the US is that there are too many powerful interests that want to maintain the status quo. It slows new ideas and technology in many areas, and makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Yeah so how about electing a president who doesn't get millions from Exxon next time?

Yeah the Kiwi invaders attacking all the other countrys

Nudism!

Hehe okey a good argument. But if you don't know how much you pay I assume you don't whine around and as long as you don't do that I'm good with it.

We're good enough. Just too lazy to build everything up new again. *** Nobody talks about building everything up new again. Just improve your technology.