This graphic raises lots of interesting questions. If we ask the corporations nicely for permission, I wonder if they'd let us discuss this.
Getting Money Out of Politics
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
I agree with this, citizen United was terrible, but also keep unions money out of politics.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Keep voting for the two-in-one-corporate-owned party system and you'll always have the same thing.
I heard someone the other day refer to the duopoly as our "political cartel." Sounds about right.
I always find it odd that people try to "prove" the US needs to change its laws to match that of some tiny country in Europe. Norway has 5 million people. LA county alone has almost 10 million. Why would anyone think the behavior/results of social policy from of a small, largely homogeneous Germanic population would be the same in the US?
The truth is this is just another attempt from the left to stifle free speech. Anyone with a pulse knows what government funded elections means - it means government controlled. And as much as certain progressives love to label the wealthy as the boogeyman - the truth of the matter is they will never be able to impose the oppression on a populace that a centrally-controlled authoritarian government can. History has taught us this lesson over and over again.
The truth is this is just another attempt from the left to stifle free speech. Anyone with a pulse knows what government funded elections means - it means government controlled. And as much as certain progressives love to label the wealthy as the boogeyman - the truth of the matter is they will never be able to impose the oppression on a populace that a centrally-controlled authoritarian government can. History has taught us this lesson over and over again.
Isn't this the basic philosophy behind federalism? I thought Rs loved federalism. What happened to the "laboratories of democracy" meme? Iowa has less than 5 million people, maybe we should just adopt the rules here, then in Nebraska, do you think it would work in Minnesota? You haven't even made a real argument MA.
Americans prefer ownership by the wealthy. They always have, as a whole. This board even illustrates that vividly. You guys incessantly argue left and right. You revel in it. Even when you exhibit that you KNOW it's rigged (I assume that's what you're referring to in starting this thread) against you, you continue to engage in the ruse and thus perpetuating the control and ownership. Calling, or referring to one another, as Cons or Libs is vital to maintaining the corporate/wealthy-owned governmental system.
The wealthy creates this illusion of a difference in two parties, they create distraction issues to keep people on their respective "sides" and the legislation and activity that really affects them financially, and even culturally, continuously goes in the favor of the wealthy. Some Americans openly admit being more closely-aligned with 3rd parties in almost all elective offices, and yet they will still vote for the D or R they feel is the LEAST dangerous. It's a rigged game that the majority of average citizens refuse to even try to change.
There is always going to be a small group of elites/decision makers who have undue influence over the agenda/resources in any organized country. Can you come up with any advanced country/civilization where this isn't true?
If you are a person who wants to limit undue influence the most self-defeating thing you can do is push for more and more power/control in Washington DC. And that's what I find ironic - the folks who complain the most about corporate influence (liberal progressives) are the ones most responsible for making it easy for power brokers to control the agenda. They keep voting for more regulation and control in DC thereby almost guaranteeing the elites will uniformly control the agenda. Federalism and separation of powers work so well because power/control is distributed and much more difficult for the elites to control all aspects.
This post was edited on 3/15 2:25 PM by Metuo Accipiter
If that's the case, then our participation is at a token level on it's best day.
The influence could be incredibly diminished if the average citizen weren't so indoctrinated and apathetic. With the advent of the Internet, the possibility to become more influential, coordinated and successful is greater than ever. As someone who was very active in Ron Paul's 2008 & 12 campaigns, I can attest that the spontaneity, effect, magnitude, increase in numbers, and sharing of ideas (in a politically-motivated sense) was unprecedented. Lots of average people became above average and turned-out in huge numbers and it grew and grew and grew. It was one of the most enlightening periods of my life. But, I was never someone that bought into this left/right illusion anyway.
Similar threads
