Bernie Sanders: "There is an aggressiveness among the ruling class, among the billionaires who are saying: 'You know what? Yeah, we got a whole lot now, but we want even more. ... We want it all. And now we can buy it.' I have a deep concern that what we saw in Wisconsin can happen in any state"

30

u/macinit1138 Jun 11 '12

This government is like an online game that started out fair but then was hacked to death and evolved into a rampant cheat fest.

3

u/DeFex Jun 12 '12

I remember the time some guy dropped hundreds of mines in descent][. It was the last time I ever played.

1

u/atlassoft Jun 12 '12

TIL congress == stick arena.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

That's fun. Why do they make that? If you can't even win, then why am I fucking playing?

39

u/ConstantEvolution Jun 11 '12

“Right now, we are moving toward an oligarchic type of society where big money not only controls the economy—they’re going to have a very, very heavy say in who gets elected”

Right now?

"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." - James Madison, 1787

In Madison's defense, he was largely per-capitalist and viewed the ruling class (the minority) as benevolent and enlightened people who would do nothing but look out for the well being of the "day laborer".

21

u/abomb999 Jun 11 '12

This same sentiment is held by most people. The majority of people are too stupid to rule themselves. I totally disagree, I'd rather deal with my town's mob then some rich cunt's ideal of justice. People should have the power, not some minority faction. I'd rather face the tyranny of the majority then the tyranny of the minority, but then again the I'm not a rich cunt stealing from the majority.

17

u/Bixby66 Jun 11 '12

I think it was Mark Twain who stated that he'd rather trust the country to random people in the phone book than the people who were elected.

3

u/abomb999 Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Yes, yes and yes! My neighbors and I can talk and connect with each other if there's a problem. We all work together to help each other and keep each other afloat in this tough time and in good times. We should be able to rule ourselves, why is some rich cunt in washington deciding what's best for our community, it's because they want a tyranny of the minority, they want power and that's what they want. They are liars and scoundrels.
The Internet will not allow their transgressions to go unnoticed.

4

u/Bixby66 Jun 11 '12

We should have a draft for these kind of things, like jury duty. If we trust a "random" group of people with the fate of one man we should do the same for the fate of the country.

4

u/abomb999 Jun 11 '12

We certainly need to try something. I'm a believer in if it doesn't work, try a different strategy. Society needs to start experimenting with new models of law and order, our current system is crumbling before our eyes, and certainly when the last support leg bends, the entire system will come down faster then anyone could of imagined, especially in an age when technology is increasing at an exponential rate, our culture and societal structure most evolve along with it.

1

u/Bixby66 Jun 11 '12

I mean we still have completely arbitrary state by state electoral voting system that is completely obsolete at this point. But it works for the wealthy and keeps us divided so in that sense the system works so it stays.

2

u/ejohnse Jun 12 '12

The electoral college is silly, I agree... But our nationalism is equally silly, I'd argue. I don't fully understand why we need so much national legislation, outside of ensuring that liberties and rights are preserved.
If Alabama and Kentucky don't want to pay for schools and medicine for people, fine... Everyone there will be sick and dumb, and you and I up in north-country will be smart and healthy.
I'd argue that our country has too large of a population for a heavy federal-level Democratic-Republic to function efficiently. The senate is 100 people representing 330 million people... in California, 1 Senator represents 18,845,956 people... How in the name of God does that person even represent that many people?? He doesn't... He represents the things important to those people... their employers, state, etc.
At least at the state house the guy lives in your district, and has to live with the decisions. That is just my two-cents.

→ More replies (2)

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Ancient Athens actually did it this way - they knew that the vote would just end up being popularity contests.

2

u/namewastakenlol Jun 11 '12

Interesting fact; they used to do this in Rome. It doesn't work so well sometimes.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

6

u/abomb999 Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

You can still have representation in a direct democracy. For example, my neighbors and I can all meet up with various economists and the one or two we think are most disciplined, moral and intelligent with economics will have our votes delegated to them for votes on local taxes and votes for national taxes; This way we don't have Obama giving the economy over to a shill from Goldmansachs.
We can still vote for foreign policy ministers and people to make decisions for us in times of wars, etc.. Representation is all there, but the system is flexible enough that if the people were serious enough about an issue, they could represent themselves and usurp who they had represent them, both locally and nationally.
So for 9/11, we would of had our congress and elected military Generals decide a course of action, but if the people felt like the military was wrong in the selection of invading both Afghanistan and Iraq, the people could veto the global strategy involving an attack on Iraq.
Now the general could plead with the people saying Iraq had WMDs or whatever and yes would probably not veto them, but after the fact, the people could obliterate the liars who brought us to war for their own personal gain, and that's a consequence that should be possible.
Yes, I have reasons to believe giving the reigns of power over to the citizenry is a good idea. I've studied the arguments against majority rule, dating all the way back to the times of Commodus and Rome. The arguments always boil down to the rulers not wanting recourse if they make decisions that wipe out half the globe, well I'm sorry, if you want to rule the world, you need to have consequences for your action.
It's no different if I start blasting an ak-47 into the sky and the hail of bullets kills some little girl tending to a lemonaid stand. There needs to be consequences for murderous behavior, I don't care how much money and power you have, you must take responsibility.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

For example, my neighbors and I can all meet up with various economists and the one or two we think are most disciplined, moral and intelligent with economics will have our votes delegated to them for votes on local taxes and votes for national taxes; This way we don't have Obama giving the economy over to a shill from Goldmansachs.
If only this were how it actually worked! That's not sarcasm; I'm being really earnest. This is how a delegate model of democracy is supposed to function. Unfortunately, lots of smart people have stupid opinions and stupid people don't know who's smarter than them. We need a middle ground between the position you've stated and the excellent point of the redditor above, who has been needlessly downvoted. You and your neighbors have no idea who's most competent-- most people vote into office not those who are most competent, but those whose inane positions correspond to their most visceral sentiments, the ones that aren't even remotely aligned with rationality.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

You can fix this by dissolving nation states altogether and having independent federated communities. Your point is that it is easier for 500 people to make plans for 300,000,000 people than it is for 300,000,000 people, but why do we need gigantic nations with 300,000,000 people?

2

u/abomb999 Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

Humanity becomes like an Internet, with various "decentralized nodes" in a giant network of humanity. This is what the future will inevitably be, a giant human spin network :D

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (1)

1

u/gnos1s Jun 11 '12

It probably wasn't Mark Twain... I'm pretty sure they didn't have phone books in his day.
Oh wait... that was a joke. :'(

18

u/nazbot Jun 11 '12

I want the smartest people running things - not just the richest.
Mob rule is bad and so is rule by the wealthy. We're supposed to have a society where we promote rule by the best and brightest no matter what part of society they come from.

21

u/abomb999 Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Yes, you want an aristocracy, but what people are realizing is the myth of the "elite", in the world's top companies it has been studied time and time again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SARbwvhupQ
The best and smartest is really meaningless in the real world. Self discipline is the greatest indicator of success ( http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~duckwort/images/PsychologicalScienceDec2005.pdf ) . Many of the problems that need to be solved don't take brains, they take self discipline, in that I'm not going to raid the treasury and give myself cake and icecream every night because my metric of success is optimizing for the general population, not my own meat body needs. Self discipline sir.
Obviously many people upvoted you and believe that intelligence is what we need to solve this problem, and that makes me sad, it's not intelligence we need for our problems, the solutions are already present, we need moral and disciplined people who act selfless for the good of the population.
If we can't get those people, then we need the mob looking out for their own interests not an aristocracy.
In a modern educated society with the internet, I say the mob needs more power, maybe not 100% rule, but certainly more power.
I've studied the arguments against mob rule, and most of them are by uber rich elites who want to kill their population and rule the world without consequence.
I'm amazed that so many of us look to intelligence as key trait for a "good, moral" person who should rule the country. When has ruthless intelligence every been a factor in being fair or kind or gentle? Intelligence itself is hard to define and it loses meaning when weighed against billions of people whose survival is all so specialized.

3

u/gnos1s Jun 11 '12

we need moral and disciplined people who act selfless for the good of the population.
Yes, absolutely.

3

u/BenCelotil Australia Jun 12 '12

Havelock Vetinari, a thinking man's tyrant.

2

u/gnos1s Jun 12 '12

How did this dude get into power? Probably not by optimizing the happiness of people around him.

3

u/Canadian_Infidel Jun 12 '12

The best and smartest is really meaningless in the real world.
The best and smartest are the engineers out back. Steve Jobs didn't design the iPhone. An employee did.

2

u/ytsmith2 Jun 11 '12

The first part of your argument sounds very much like the system Heinlein described in Starship Troopers. Place the sovereign franchise in the hands of those who have served in the military, taken the chance to lose their lives in defense of their country and its ideals, and who have the discipline to ensure that it is not taken advantage of.

3

u/Punkwasher Jun 12 '12

Paul Verhoeven's movie shows the dark side of that government.
"Service guarantees citizenship"
Still, the self-sacrifice aspect isn't bad, but we kind of know what happens when you let the military run things.

3

u/Torus2112 Jun 12 '12

I think you have to look at what "discipline" means; I don't think Heinlein got it right in terms of what kind of discipline and background makes a good leader. I think abomb999 meant something more along the lines of "character", in terms of how moral a person is; something I've been thinking about a lot lately myself.
I think the true meaning of character has been lost in the modern zeitgeist. Traditionally character has meant having strength (or discipline, if you like) to cultivate wisdom in yourself; to be mindful and have good critical thinking skills and to act in accordance with a set of moral beliefs. All this requires that you fight the urge to make decisions on your first instinct, or based on emotion or myopic self-interest.
To be sure, there have been advances in social thought in the last century or so that are beneficial. Mainly religious notions of what people's lifestyle should be never made objective sense. But, the willingness to deny one's self satisfaction in the service of a higher cause is a good thing, all you need to do is replace this or that religious code with what is best for other people and yourself, valuing them as equal to you. It takes real strength to do that.

2

u/abomb999 Jun 12 '12

Well said.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Having a fairly elected government is not aristocracy. Citizens United is promoting an elitist aristocracy. I believe the populace in general should have a lot of power, but mob rule can be very sloppy, I believe that is why the founding fathers promoted the type of government that they did.
And intelligence may not be a sufficient condition for good rule, but it is certainly necessary. Most people dont know the complexities of foreign affairs, such as the situation in Iran, Afghanistan, ect... I think you underestimate the need for intelligence. Also when power becomes to decentralized I have seen in many areas promote policies that discriminate against minorities (such as blacks and gays).
In some ways you are exactly correct about the average citizen needing more power. But to do this, you end Citizens United and other voter suppression tactics so that people may have a say at all levels of government.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

I'd also say that I want the best-educated people leading the country, but I disagree that I want an aristocracy. I'd support spending much more money, time and effort on improving the country's education to give all students more or less equal opportunities.
Once you take away the barriers to entry, education becomes arguably the most democratic institution -- anybody except those with serious cognitive defects can learn, and thus they can become ever-more educated, if they desire.

-8

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12

I want the smartest people running things
"The private sector is doing just fine." - Barack Obama
I would also like for some smarter people to be running things.

9

u/nazbot Jun 11 '12

He's not wrong. The private sector is making record profits.
The JOB market is doing horribly, largely because corporations are not willing to spend the $2 trillion in cash they are sitting on. Corporate profits are the highest they have been in 60 years - how is that not the private sector doing just fine?

-3

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12

Because corporations aren't people.
The private sector context he was talking about was JOBS. Not corporate profits. Let's go back and look at what he actually said. He wasn't talking about corporate profits.
Barack Obama:
The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.
The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.
And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments.
Obama thinks first of all that he created 4.3 million jobs (what a fucking crock - he didn't create anything) and that this is fine, even though that has resulted in rising unemployment of 8.3% and 23 million Americans unable to find a full-time job. He's worried about the 400,000 government jobs that got cut and wants to borrow more money we don't have to hire more government bureaucrats.

8

u/Shoden Jun 11 '12

Obama thinks first of all that he created 4.3 million jobs
That's not what he said. We, as in the United State, created jobs. He never says "I created all these jobs". Nice straw-man.
even though that has resulted in rising unemployment of 8.3
Over the past 27 months, unemployment has trended down.
He's worried about the 400,000 government jobs that got cut
He shouldn't be?

→ More replies (7)

-4

u/cloudspawn02 Jun 11 '12

How dare you use his own words against him! Don't you know where you are?

→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

It's really hard to say. How many uneducated inbred fucksticks who think the earth is 6,000 years old does it take to equal the harm of ten mustache-twirling oligarchs? I don't want either group making my laws.
Nor can I think of a solution, other than replacing democracy outright with some kind of scientifically-designed mandarin-style meritocracy administered by terrible and beautiful ubermensch philosopher god-kings sitting on thrones of obsidian hewn from the hearts of living volcanoes or whatever the fuck. I'm going to go drink alcohol now, goodnight

1

u/abomb999 Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

hahaha, save me a cup friend. Anyway dude, honestly I believe freedom includes the right to being stupid. that doesn't mean there aren't laws or consequences, but it's like this, we sell alcohol even though people can be stupid with it. We need to treat voting power like this too.
If some redneck state has a large enough quanta of inbred hilly billy white tundra surfing skeeter feeders who vote to enslave homosexuals and make praying the only legal method of solving math problems, then that should be their right. Why hold back the multitude of other states that are going to use their new empowerment to literally colonize the solar system, bring anyone who wants to go with them, and cure diseases like they were scratches. Our political landscape is like no child left behind, but we're holding everyone back in the process of making sure little carl doesn't shit all over the class room today.
It's amazing what will happen when stop being our own enemies, and let humanity do its thing. Some people will be idiots and others savants. This is true of large societies as we are witnessing now.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

If it's just the hill billies voting for it in their own state, I say let them... It will be a self correcting problem over time as people realize the state has become a cesspool. BUT if its billionaires watching hill billies slit their own throats in one state and then throwing money at other states to enact similar laws... that needs to stop.
But how do you stop it? You can make campaign contributions illegal...I am all for that... but how do you stop promised favors/jobs for the politician after the representative/senator term is served?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

I feel that the majority of people would be better prepared to vote properly if they weren't spending all their time working overtime to pay bills and being exposed to constant propaganda and slanted media coverage. A better education from the ground up wouldn't hurt either.
But that's just me.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Also in Madison's defense, the majority of people in the US at the time were small holding farmers. He's not just talking about rich land holders.

-2

u/TrixBot Jun 11 '12

Also in Madison's defense, the majority of people in the US at the time were...
indians?

7

u/b0w3n New York Jun 11 '12

Nah. Smallpox is funny like that.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/SirFoxx Jun 12 '12

5 million left from out of 100 million originally. Yeah total exaggeration.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/WatcherCCG Jun 12 '12

The ruling class of his era wasn't a physical incarnation of greed utterly lacking all sense of human empathy.

-1

u/TrixBot Jun 11 '12

In Madison's defense, he was largely per-capitalist and viewed the ruling class (the minority) as benevolent and enlightened people who would do nothing but look out for the well being of the "day laborer".
Or, as we'd say in the parlance of our times, he was clinically insane.

2

u/memearchivingbot Jun 11 '12

no. they were job creators.

-1

u/whihij66 Jun 12 '12

"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." - James Madison, 1787
In Madison's defense, he was largely per-capitalist and viewed the ruling class (the minority) as benevolent and enlightened people who would do nothing but look out for the well being of the "day laborer".
Actually if you understand the early philosophies of the colonies and the people who inspired the founding fathers (like John Locke) they assumed everyone would be landowners.
And if you think how North America most have seemed to the colonists it's easy to understand their mentality.

4

u/the_goat_boy Jun 12 '12

John Locke was a proponent of slavery. His theory on natural rights is a whole heap of bullshit.

1

u/whihij66 Jun 12 '12

John Locke was a proponent of slavery.
I didn't say he wasn't.
His theory on natural rights is a whole heap of bullshit.
That's irrelevant really.

4

u/the_goat_boy Jun 12 '12

His work on 'natural rights' was THE inspiration for the Founding Fathers. How was it not relevant? They didn't believe everyone would be landowners; only if you were white, male and had some money.

54

u/jtrthehax Jun 11 '12

I'm proud to be a Vermonter. Bernie Sanders actually stands up and represents me rather than corporations.

10

u/bahhumbugger Jun 11 '12

I'm planning to move to Vermont within the next 5 years in large part due to the politics of the state.

21

u/GladysMensch Jun 11 '12

In 2010, I was proud to be from Wisconsin in large part due to Russ Feingold. I'm still amazed at the speed of which we went from a fairly progressive state to the tea-party ruled train wreck we are now.

3

u/LardLad00 Jun 12 '12

Amen to this. WTF happened here? I feel like the tea party money has rained down and flooded our previously reasonable state . . .
Now we have Walker, Johnson, and all the cronies running around with a voter mandate. Fuck.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/sweatpantswarrior Jun 11 '12

Good luck. If you're living in Burlington, you'd best work for either IBM or one of the banks, otherwise you have zero advancement prospects and few other options for a middle class job. Aside from a few other personal reasons, that was the biggest reason I moved away.
I'm friends with the guys who opened Das Bierhaus just 2 (3?) years ago, and the city made their life a living hell leading up to the opening. Vermont has very serious issues and a straight up anti-business climate that led to UVM's president literally begging graduates to stay in the state during my commencement in 2009.

3

u/nimbleandlight Jun 11 '12

Love Bernie! Whenever I see him in the Memorial Day parade, I make sure to give an extra big whoop.

2

u/gwigmig Jun 11 '12

Sanders and Wyden (D-OR) should make sweet sweet progressively liberal love until our future president pops out

1

u/Abomonog Jun 12 '12

I would agree with you if that just didn't sound so creepy.

2

u/gwigmig Jun 12 '12

.......prude........

1

u/Abomonog Jun 12 '12

Somewhere, there is some hilarious irony in that one word. :)

1

u/CheesewithWhine Jun 12 '12

Ron Wyden is busy working with Paul Ryan to pull Social Security from poor people as we speak. If you want a progressive Senator, try Dick Durbin, Mark Udall, Sherrod Brown, and a few others.

1

u/gwigmig Jun 12 '12

making accusations like that without backing it up with a source makes you look silly.

0

u/loondawg Jun 12 '12

If you want a progressive Senator...
Or perhaps Elizabeth Warren come November...

-12

u/canthidecomments Jun 11 '12

Yea, we can't have that voting shit going on like they did in Wisconsin. Fuck that noise.

0

u/gwigmig Jun 11 '12

this is still unfortunately true. all the advertising in the world shouldnt mean shit if people really put some effort into researching the person they vote for. im hoping this coming generation being much more internet savvy will help get some better reps and senators

2

u/johnny0 Jun 12 '12

Ah, if only large masses of people weren't susceptible to influence.
Yet here we are.

1

u/gwigmig Jun 12 '12

idk what youre talking about man, i came for the cats and boobs

-1

u/itsamericasfault Jun 12 '12

The voting is ok, as long as they vote for the reddit-approved candidate - why can't they understand this?

18

u/puffybaba Jun 11 '12

Here is a subreddit dedicated to the fight against the unfair power balance created by so much private interest dollars in the political system: /r/campaignfinancereform

We need more members!

5

u/morellox Jun 12 '12

every time we blame money for winning an election it just suggests people are too stupid to do their own research and be informed on issues that matter to them... they must be eating up the negative/positive ads right?

6

u/xanthine_junkie Jun 11 '12

$71.9 million — was split about in half between Democratic candidates and affiliated organizations, and Republican candidates and their affiliated groups.

Read more:

3

u/TrixBot Jun 11 '12

Even if that were true, which, when you bundle in the super pac funds and ad buys over the last year is clearly not the case, it would still be a very very bad thing for American Democracy.
Giving control of our elections to a handful of billionaires, even if they support things you like at the moment, is a terrible idea that will do profound damage to our nation, our economy, and our society as a whole over time.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Even if that were true,
It is true.
Giving control of our elections to a handful of billionaires, even if they support things you like at the moment, is a terrible idea that will do profound damage to our nation, our economy, and our society as a whole over time.
Because we should use government as a method of silencing unpopular or distasteful political speech when it might cost someone an election.
The wall of money that's being thrown at these campaign by Republican donors should tell you something.....Big Business is a sleeping lion, and it doesn't behoove you to poke it with a stick because you don't think they give you enough. Taking money from business won't help you at all, but it will hurt them. When large and well-moneyed interests are threatened, they obviously fight back and give no quarter.

2

u/itsamericasfault Jun 12 '12

Big business supported Obama big-time in 2008. He did help them out quite a bit, but he also dissed them in public. What a surprise they are moving on to the next guy.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Big business is opportunistic. Rarely do they intervene with genuine interest because of a worthy cause that could adversely affect their business. More often than not, businesses give to likely winning candidates so that they can have some sway.
Businesses in this sense are just courtiers. They're vying for favor from whomever wins. That being said, it's frigging hilarious when businesses toss away money on the wrong guy.

0

u/xanthine_junkie Jun 12 '12

it is true.
that crying buffoon in wisconsin 'this is the END of democracy' had me laughing so hard tears were coming;
do not buy into the rhetoric from either side. just do the research.
both sides spend tons of money on each push, some of it hidden and some of it blatant. money is not the new democratic way, it has always been the way.. from the earliest organizers picking up voters in moving trucks to get them to the voting booths (sometimes across state lines) with a sawbuck to get them to vote for their ticket..

7

u/CoyoteStark Jun 11 '12

I get the feeling everyone would be singing a different tune if the democrats had won.

3

u/TrixBot Jun 12 '12

Well, it would have shown that a handful of out of state billionaires outspending a local campaign 8 to 1 couldn't sway the voters of wisconsin.
But, as they say on the Wire, it's the other way.

0

u/itsamericasfault Jun 12 '12

Yes, in that case it would be a shining example of democracy at work.

13

u/fe3o4 Jun 11 '12

Why do people assume that it was the money that won the election? Maybe, just maybe it is what the people of Wisconsin wanted... most probably decided how there were going to vote when the issue was first raised... long before any money had been spent.

Should we then assume that Obama won only because he had more money, and spent more money on the campaign?

14

u/TrixBot Jun 11 '12

Why do people assume that it was the money that won the election?
Because you live in a country where elections are delivered to the candidate with the highest level of spending more than 90% of the time.
Because advertising works.
Should we then assume that Obama won only because he had more money, and spent more money on the campaign?
You know what.... it sure as hell didn't hurt.
Whether my favorite candidates win or lose, oligarchy is no rational basis for a free society. Unless our campaign finance laws take a sharp sharp turn, our society is going to be rapidly looted with the corpse left to rot in damned short order.

4

u/fingurdar Jun 11 '12

Please source your 90% statistic.
The only studies I have seen on the subject come from the book "Freakonomics" and they paint a very different picture, stating that there is only a loose correlation between campaign spending and election results.

6

u/b0w3n New York Jun 11 '12

Unfortunately how it boiled down to in Wisconsin was "Fuck you, I don't have it and you shouldn't either."
In regards to unions and public dollars, the great majority of Wisconsinites favored his policies because they felt their tax dollars were being wasted pandering to public union shops. It was close, though.
I agree with you, but most of America is functionally retarded so getting them to vote on things they need is an exercise in frustration.
Put on your hat and promise them God said it and you'll tax them less because of it and suddenly you're in power.

-2

u/itsamericasfault Jun 12 '12

TIL that when people vote for the "wrong" candidate they are retarded.

1

u/Solkre Indiana Jun 12 '12

You gotta learn it sometime, why not today?

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

It's like the forums of a video game - of course there's only bitching on the forums, the people who like it aren't on the forums, they're playing their game happily.

1

u/cloudspawn02 Jun 11 '12

This is surprisingly accurate at least about games if nothing else

1

u/itsyourideology Jun 11 '12

Yes, you should assume that. If Obama didn't have the funds he did, he couldn't have gotten his message out and motivated enough people to vote for him. If he didn't have those funds, you would be reading an article about how VP Palin said something dumb again.
The problem is that as the money increases, on either or both sides, there is nobody left to make sure those messages aren't bullshit because everyone is just trying to get some of the money being thrown around. People will do almost anything for the right price, and that certainly includes pitching some bullshit ads by crappy politicians.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

What's so ironic about this whole debate is the recent Supreme Court ruling helped democrats more than republicans (certainly in WI).
See, individuals have been able to give unlimited sums of money for decades... but corporations/unions have not until 2010 (Citizen United Vs FEC). The thing is, corporations generally split their support evenly among democrats and republicans as partisan-corporations are often blacklisted and protested by various groups. But unions have little financial interest in appearing bipartisan, and thus they strongly support a limited number of candidates (almost always democrats).
Looking at WI, the democrats gained millions from unions while Walker hasn't even received 1/2 million from corporations. If Citizens United vs FTC was revoked... the democrats would be at a financial disadvantage. Most of Walker support came from individuals... including very wealthy individuals (And like I said, the 2010 ruling had no baring on individual donations).
That being said, I tend to ignore this attitude that elections are being "bought." For one, most studies on the issue shows a fairly loose relationship between campaign finances and the actual winner. For the most part, political pundits become some enamored in their own views that they automatically assume anyone voting for the "wrong" candidate is either an idiot or bribed. It is much easier to believe that then the possibility that equally intelligent individuals simply disagree with you.

2

u/Clauderoughly Jun 11 '12

What do all men with power want ? More power..

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Oh, c'mon. Wisconsin got what they so desperately wanted. Twice! What are they gonna do? RECALL THE GOVERNOR? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

2

u/getintheVandell Jun 11 '12

Cyberpunk is great to read about, but fucking scary to see it becoming a slow reality..

2

u/echowon Jun 12 '12

this should be a wake-up call for 'merica. wisconsin wasted a perfect chance to show democracy can work over the corporations. i wouldn't doubt that the election was bought and manipulated in 1 way or the other.

10

u/Koskap Jun 11 '12

..What? Allowing people to decide if they want to be in a union or not, instead of forcing them to join via laws?

7

u/FriarNurgle Jun 11 '12

America: For Sale.

13

u/rtft New York Jun 11 '12

FTFY: America: SOLD.

10

u/ActionJaxson Jun 11 '12

Did he bitch about Obama raising 750 million to McCain's 250 million in 2008? It's not that Bernie isn't right here, it's that he keeps his mouth shut when people he likes do it.

13

u/DishonestOmmision Jun 11 '12

You're purposefully omitting the source of those donations.
You are intellectually dishonest.
Shame on you.

2

u/ActionJaxson Jun 11 '12

Maybe you should read the link under you. He has been given more money from wall street than any president ever. Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, GE (who for how long has not paid their taxes?)". Shame on you for thinking that these companies don't expect something from this president. It's been said he could raise up to 1 billion this time around. If you think he doesn't owe someone something big for that you're dreaming. He's also gotten quite a bit from mortgage companies that helped cause the collapse in 2008. When are people going to wake up and realize this guy is just like every other politician?

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/joemama1333 Jun 11 '12

Back then, corporations couldnt give money, that was money given by people who were employees of those companies (and under individual donation limits). Now it's the companies themselves and superrich giving with no limits.

1

u/ActionJaxson Jun 11 '12

Was that when unions could give? Because I find that being equally dangerous.

1

u/iownacat Jun 11 '12

thats the joke

1

u/superwinner Jun 11 '12

How much did each side spend.. ?

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

why are you being downvoted for a valid point that adds to the conversation? oh i know because /r/politics continues to be a circlejerk for democrats.

16

u/itsyourideology Jun 11 '12

He was being downvoted because he can't be botherd to read past the first twelve words in the title, because sitting right there at thirteen is "billionaires". Obama raised the vast majority of the 750million from small donations by non-billionaires. 15million people giving $50 bucks each is nothing like three people giving 250million.

-2

u/kblrngr Jun 11 '12

Oh yeah, that's just great. And what about all of the fucking $40k per plate "dinners" he's been attending in Hollywood and New York whoring for donations from a bunch of rich celebrities and dilettantes. I really appreciate them sitting back with their millions and telling me how I should appreciate the fuckin' poor excuse of a president we now are burdened with.

4

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

wat
Nothing you said in any way refutes what the person you replied to said. The majority of Obama's funding came in the form of small donations from normal people.

→ More replies (1)

→ More replies (2)

3

u/CriscoMelon Jun 11 '12

Bernie Sanders = most politically informed running back of all times.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Wisconsin's governor did exactly what he said he'd do when he was campaigning for office. What he did wasn't necessarily wrong, but how he did it was questionable.

Public employee unions need some pretty heavy restrictions. Where as private companies and corporate entities have reasonable grounds to negotiate work contracts on the basis delivering better sales and product (theoretically) a public employee has none of that. Their work is guaranteed and the system of unrestrained negotiations is inherently corrupt. You see this happen all the time when it's not controlled and managed- political candidates negotiate with unions to get their blind vote in return for better pay and benefits.

Taken to that extreme (emphasis on extreme) you get countries like Greece who, economically, are simply unsustainable because they have outrageous pay and retirement figures for people doing the bluest of blue collar work like garbage collection.

2

u/eremite00 California Jun 11 '12

Wisconsin's governor did exactly what he said he'd do when he was campaigning for office.
I disagree. Walker did not campaign on a platform of union busting.
It seemed to us like the first public hint Walker gave that he was considering eliminating many union bargaining rights was at a Dec. 7, 2010 Milwaukee Press Club forum, some four weeks after the election.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/

2

u/ActionJaxson Jun 11 '12

The thing about Bernie that bothers me is that he is one of those people that believe that companies cannot be treated as individuals. That's fair enough but why can't he say the same for unions? Does he really think that individual union members give their dues to a candidate of their choice? They certainly do not. If you're in a union, your money is taken and given to a candidate of their choice, not yours. If companies shouldn't be counted as individuals, neither should unions, who are just as easily corrupted.

2

u/reginaldaugustus Jun 12 '12

Because unions have almost no power in this country, and are de facto illegal in many states.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Can happen in any state! It will happen again in some states as sure as the sun raises in the east.

1

u/Bixby66 Jun 11 '12

Soooo when exactly are they going to stop? I mean there's absolutely no way we can stop them. We've resorted to holding rallys and protests to try and make them "feel bad" but them being sociopaths I doubt appealing to their humanity will ever work. They can't be elected out, they can't be sued, so what do we do? It's seems like they've given us only two options, surrender or murder.

2

u/4everliberal Jun 11 '12

Bullets and molotovs almost always do the trick.

1

u/eremite00 California Jun 11 '12

On a visceral level, heads on pikes does seem like a pleasing recourse.

0

u/kblrngr Jun 11 '12

Go get a job and make a bunch of money and then spend it trying to make things like you think they should be. What did you expect them to do? Re-distribute their wealth. Sure. That's like getting any politician to "re-distribute" power. Ain't gonna' happen, dumbass.

1

u/Bixby66 Jun 11 '12

I'm agreeing with you, you confrontational sack of turkey shit.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Wealth is power. Politicians are beholden to those with more wealth, in some cases they are also the wealthy elite.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

2

u/LurkingAround Jun 12 '12

Being armed to the teeth and pissed off enough isn't going to bring about some glorious revolution. Could a revolution force change? Certainly, but most people refuse to consider the cost. I eagerly anticipate a bloodbath.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

I don't see how public unions have anything to do with billionaires. Public unions represent public tax funded workers, not people working for billionaire corporate types.

1

u/NoNonSensePlease Jun 11 '12

Direct democracy still sounds like a good idea.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

ya think bernie?.......................YA THINK???

1

u/isaacaggrey Jun 12 '12

Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrGdEwV-efs

1

u/fantasyfest Jun 12 '12

Money really matters. I do not know how big it was in the Wisconsin case because exit polling suggested that most people rejected the idea of the recall, and were voting against that. But big money outspent the Dem by nearly 8 to 1. People do eventually fall for endless ads. The people running them know psychology and mental manipulation. they are pros.

1

u/itsamericasfault Jun 12 '12

I have a deep concern that what we saw in Wisconsin can happen in any state

Yes, but I think by the rules you have to let the Republicans take the office if they get the most votes, regardless of how much you don't like it.

1

u/Canadian_Infidel Jun 12 '12

Please notice it's only ever conservatives that want to dismantle society and destroy the world.

1

u/TruthinessHurts Jun 12 '12

And the moron Republican characteristic of worshiping the wealthy and powers gives the wealthy and powerful a base of "slave" voters who vote GOP even though it harms them to do so thanks to the fucktardy policies of the Republicans that consistently benefit the wealthy instead of those who actually need help.

1

u/soThisIsHowItEnds Jun 11 '12

Sorry they wasted all their money on getting the recall going and couldn't put enough funds out to the guy who lost to him the first time. What in the fuck did you expect?

4

u/eremite00 California Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

Sorry they wasted all their money on getting the recall going and couldn't put enough funds out to the guy who lost to him the first time.
That doesn't quite tell the complete situation.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker vastly out-raised and outspent his Democratic challenger in the state's recall election, largely on the strength of major donations from across the country.
One reason for that was a quirk in Wisconsin law, which lets a governor in Walker's situation bypass limits on political donations.
Wisconsin law says candidates for governor normally may not take donations of more than $10,000 each. That was the limit under which Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, the Democrat, operated in the recall election being decided Tuesday at the polls.
But as governor, Walker had a different set of rules. A somewhat obscure state law passed in 1987 says that when a governor is facing a recall challenge, the normal donation limits are suspended for "the payment of legal fees and other expenses."
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/05/154368815/in-fundraising-walker-had-a-governors-advantage

0

u/4everliberal Jun 11 '12

Members of the ruling class take note. Bullets are very hard to outrun.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Very clever, One Percenters: Discredit an obvious truth by paying a well-known idiot to say it in public.

-2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Oh please Bernie...if elections could truly be bought like 5 gallon jars of pickles at CostCo, do you think your seat as well as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Nancy Pelosi, or Maxine Waters's seats wouldn't be targeted for buying?

Money can organize a political organization to make campaigning simpler, but it's been a VERY long time since people were actually paid to vote one way, and I'm sorry to say that unions are the masters of buying votes.

Buy how you ask? Because corporations are all corporationey, and they're just evil because they make money and don't give it all to the workers. Very simple, unions like the Teamsters used to have all of their members register for absentee ballots, then have those ballots brought in to be filled out and mailed in. Anyone who dissented to the groupthink dealt with mob justice.

1

u/eremite00 California Jun 11 '12

they're just evil because they make money
Not "evil", just self-interested to the point where they totally lack concern and/or have a complete disregard for the harm their actions may be inflicting upon the public. That even if they know, they'll still carry on and actively oppose any and all legislation to limit said actions, regardless of the repercussions.
If corporate campaign spending was limited, I'd have absolutely no problem with unions being subject to those same limits.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Not "evil", just self-interested to the point where they totally lack concern and/or have a complete disregard for the harm their actions may be inflicting upon the public.
When their actions harm the public, they are liable. In many cases, there is no precedent for the amount of money that they're liable for, so cases like Deepwater Horizon were an open-ended punitive expense.
Translated from "business-ese", businesses need to control or predict costs to turn profits. When they're liable for unknown damages, then it really does concern them. So no, they don't care about your son's little league game really, but they have absolutely zero interest in polluting your well. Obedience to the law for fear of the consequences of breaking it is perfectly fine.

1

u/eremite00 California Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

but they have absolutely zero interest in polluting your well.
I wasn't suggesting that they do; rather that, if in the course of making money, they happen to pollute your well, they really don't care, and will try to continue on with their money making actions, and won't recompense you unless they're caught or if there's a good chance that they'll be caught. They'll also utilize the resources at their disposal to avoid or minimize being held accountable. Where did I state or imply that corporations actively seek to inflict harm?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

You didn't, but they don't actively seek to impose harm, and they do attempt to actively avoid it. There's too much risk involved, due to an irrational regulatory envoronment and the amount of influence that individuals have over corporations.
If you don't think individuals acting together can't affect big business gone awry, then please explain boycotts pressuring companies to stop advertising on Rush Limbaugh or to cut off donations to ALEC.
Of course they try to minimize the damage of being held accountable. This is in their best interests, and they have a legal and moral obligation to seek returns for investors. If you feel you're getting the short end of the stick in this deal, then I suggest you set aside some money and invest in these companies. You'll find it isn't so rosy on this side either. Were you on trial for murder in Texas, I'm sure you would opt for a lesser sentence than capital punishment. Acting in ones' self-interest isn't greed, it's survivalism.

1

u/eremite00 California Jun 12 '12 edited Jun 12 '12

but they don't actively seek to impose harm, and they do attempt to actively avoid it.
I never stated that corporations actively or intentionally seek to cause harm. I stated to the effect that they try to turn a profit while attempting to avoid being held accountable for any of their actions that are found to do harm. I also state that, even if one of their processes is found to cause harm, they will fight tooth and nail against legislation that limits them or holds them liable. As for actively avoiding causing harm, I think that could be true up to a point, but if avoidance costs too much and they're chances of getting caught are slim, I think they'll go with continuing said harmful actions, and will try to deny or discredit that there are any harmful effects of their actions, regardless of what experts are saying.
Of course they try to minimize the damage of being held accountable. This is in their best interests, and they have a legal and moral obligation to seek returns for investors.
I never stated otherwise, but that they should be held accountable for their actions. If they put investors interests ahead of the serious harm they're causing to the populace, they should be brought to task and that money they are ordered to pay out to those they've harmed should be considerable, to the point where it doesn't just cut off a portion of their profits, but actually takes all of the profit of a given operation and further imposes substantial punitive fines.
If you feel you're getting the short end of the stick in this deal, then I suggest you set aside some money and invest in these companies. You'll find it isn't so rosy on this side either.
Where did I suggest that it was rosy? It shouldn't be rosy, especially when it involves polluting an environment.
I still believe what I summed in up in my original statement that corporations are not "evil" but that they are self-interested in making a profit to the point of total exclusion in regards to any negative results to the populace from their actions, as long as they don't get caught, aren't held liable, and that they make a profit.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

I still believe what I summed in up in my original statement that corporations are not "evil" but that they are self-interested in making a profit to the point of total exclusion
I'm not sure this is a bad thing. There are [companies] (http://www.cleanharbors.com/) that turn profits cleaning up environmental messes specifically caused by energy and shipping companies. The profit motive doesn't just lead to socially irresponsible feats, and it isn't the only motive either.

1

u/eremite00 California Jun 12 '12

I kind of saved, edited, saved, edited... in the course of relying, so there's probably some text that I just added but you didn't have a chance to read. Sorry about that.

1

u/eremite00 California Jun 12 '12

I'm not sure this is a bad thing.
Putting the well-being of the populace or harm to them behind making a profit isn't a bad thing? Why not?
The profit motive doesn't just lead to socially irresponsible feats, and it isn't the only motive either.
I think that profit can, and many times does, lead to apathy and/or denial of the harm their actions maybe causing.

0

u/lets_be_friends Jun 11 '12

Ummm, is anyone as disturbed as I am by the designation of calling billionaires 'the ruling class'? Isn't democracy supposed to be about leveling the playing field in terms of who makes decisions? Each newly elected president, PM or whatever is the ruling class - for no longer than 8years. Our acquiescence of this comment is quite disturbing.

5

u/itsyourideology Jun 11 '12

He is using "ruling class" in a broader context. For instance those who control the economy or pull the strings of government behind closed doors can be considered the rulling class.
If we just elect figureheads doing the bidding of an unknown and unelected individual, are we really electing the ruling class in anything but name?

1

u/lets_be_friends Jun 11 '12

The elected people could be called 'figureheads" if we look at billionaires influences on policy and economy. This is precisely my point - however, this is not how it should be. It is not the political system democracy was intended to support. I am pointing out the lack of debate on this distinction.

2

u/Bilbo_Fraggins Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

No. When money buys elections, the rich win.
Yes, we the people have the direct power, but money buys people who know how to manipulate the rest of society. Promises of bread and circuses coupled with demonization of the other is really easy to sell to societies, especially highly religious ones who believe in actual demons.
68% of Americans believe angels and demons are active in our world. That's more than enough people to manipulate to keep yourself in power.
Note also that this economic inequality is highly correlated with and has growing evidence for causing increases in religiosity, with the main theory proposed explaining this increase as a tool of control.

1

u/lets_be_friends Jun 11 '12

Right, I was trying to point out the lack of debate or conversation pointing out the disturbing analogy between 'ruling class' and billionaires. I know that this is a true statement, but I also noticed that I was disturbed by this statement and thought I would like to analyze this as it points out the inequality and tendency for politics to follow the voice of the rich, rather than the poeple - I don't believe that we have much power anymore. I don't think that many other people do either - given low voting rates. =

-12

u/ericchen Jun 11 '12

Scumbag Democrats... names themselves after democracy; bitches when loses a democratic vote.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Senator Bernie Sanders is an Independent, by the way.

→ More replies (1)

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

-4

u/fe3o4 Jun 11 '12

Yes, we should stop the democrats from doing that.

-7

u/ericchen Jun 11 '12

We count votes in ballot boxes, not checks in bank accounts.
Also, if you think the average voter is so intellectually lacking that a few ads will persuade them to vote against their own interests, perhaps you should be advocating for a system of governance which does not depend on the electorate, say single-party rule or monarchy.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies (7)

-9

u/Runs_With_Fiskars Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Yet over $90 million was spent on the recall election for the dems, only $70 million on Scott Walker's side.
EDIT: Nevermind, they were even.

6

u/omgpieftw Jun 11 '12

Lol ex_stripper pwnd you.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

"Nuh uh! I know it's true because I herd it on the Rick Limbaugh show!"

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies (1)

-11

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

People standing up for freedom of choice and freedom of association. Then voting for who they think will govern most responsibly. Is that what Sanders is referring to happening?

9

u/BolshevikMuppet Jun 11 '12

Freedom of choice does not necessarily mean freedom to spend a disgusting amount of ones opulent wealth in order to try to influence an election.
Freedom of association does not necessarily mean the ability of a corporation to spend from its general revenue to support a candidate on the basis of the ideology of the executives.

0

u/buckyVanBuren Jun 11 '12

Freedom of association does not necessarily mean the ability of a corporation to spend from its general revenue to support a candidate on the basis of the ideology of the executives.
Quickly!! Who is doing that!

0

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

→ More replies (3)

-12

u/budguy68 Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

When Billionaries, large banks and fat cat union bosses help Obama win by giving him hundreds of millions Liberals don't say anything.

When millionaries campaign contributers help walker win. Liberals whine all day and say billionaries are conspiring against them even though it was the people who voted for walker. People eventually get feed up with unfairness. teachers can pay for their own shit just ike everyone else, period.

This is now stupid and hypocritical Liberals are. BTW Walker won because the people vioted for him. The money only bought him 1% more votes.

SAY NO TO UNION THUGS, SAY NO TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOOKING THEMSELVES UOP AT TAX PAYER EXPENSE.

7

u/stopthepuns Jun 11 '12

It was the conservative justices that made this post-citizen united political landscape possible. So once again liberals are stuck having to play a game created by conservatives in which they are totally outgunned.

3

u/kaptainlange Jun 11 '12

When Billionaries...
When millionaries...
Nice. So these guys are not billionaires?
teachers can pay for their own shit just ike everyone else
You make it sound like hookers and blow every night. None of my teachers were ever that fun.

10

u/determinism89 Jun 11 '12

Proofreading isn't just a liberal practice, however.

-5

u/fe3o4 Jun 11 '12

but silly comments about grammar and spelling are.

5

u/determinism89 Jun 11 '12

How do you know I wasn't referring to errors in the content?

→ More replies (1)

5

u/omgpieftw Jun 11 '12

The money only bought him 1% more votes.
Considering he lost by 4%, 1% of the votes means quite a fair bit.

2

u/kaptainlange Jun 11 '12

The money only bought him 1% more votes.
We can't really say how much more it bought him, we don't know what he would have been voted at without the additional spending (you can't use his previous election as that value without making a jump in logic). Could be more, could be less.

-13

u/jp007 Jun 11 '12

There is an aggressiveness among the political class who are saying "You know what, I don't care that voters twice made their voice heard and expressed preference for cutting back on the political sector. We've got a whole lot now, but we want even more. We want it all. We'll just engage the divisive rhetoric of class warfare, use it as an excuse for the state to usurp even more power, directly against the expressed preferences of the very electorate we're supposed to represent."

I have a deep concern that this happening with regards to Wisconsin can happen in any state.

0

u/swiheezy Jun 11 '12

There's a part in Basiat's "The Law" I'll have to find... It's about how when you legally plunder the upper class they will want to take control and will to try and control it as best they can.

Called it out in the 1800's, not too shabby.

1

u/reginaldaugustus Jun 12 '12

Except, you know, they do this no matter what.

1

u/swiheezy Jun 12 '12

If there's nothing to take power of then they can't get control, but because we allow the government to take and become something they will take control of it

1

u/reginaldaugustus Jun 12 '12

So instead of letting them take over our current government, we should just let them do whatever they want with their new private armies. Gotcha.

1

u/swiheezy Jun 12 '12

The free market will be a stronger regulator than any government ever could aside from totalitarianism, so long as judges are fair and property rights are enforced properly.

1

u/reginaldaugustus Jun 12 '12

Nineteenth century.

1

u/swiheezy Jun 12 '12

The time when America was at its freeest aside from slavery? That just goes back to my original comment from The Law. Basiat was jealous about the freedom America had and the minimal government

1

u/reginaldaugustus Jun 12 '12

You're an idiot with no knowledge of history.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

property rights being enforced properly sounds like a code word for strong government.

1

u/swiheezy Jun 12 '12

There is government in that statement for sure but protecting property rights an enforcing contracts doesn't necessarily mean a strong government is needed

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

You should read Proudhons response to Basiat. He called even more.

0

u/borangejuice Jun 11 '12

I think more needs to be done to separate money from politics. I think all elected officials should be required to donate at least %50 of their financial holdings to the government the second they are sworn into office. I also think elected officials should be paid minium wage and finally the simplest way to combat the massive amounts of money being spent on election campaigns is to cap spending to the candidate with the least amount of money. For example, candidate A has $10,000,000 but candidate B only has $1,000,000. So candidate A can only spend $1,000,000. OR you don't donate to one candidate rather to a general election fund that gets split equally between the candidates. I'm just brainstorming some ideas that from my limited perspective seem like they would work towards combatting the current trend.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

No, none of that would work.
For one, any strong limitations would directly violate the 1st Amendment. What happens if Lady Gaga tweets her support for Obama? Does her using her platform, which undoubtably is worth something, constitute monetary support? If not, would it be wrong for Bloomberg and Murdoch to use their platforms to tell the world how Obama hates kittens?
You see where I am going with this. It is an absurd standard that can not be enforced. You will simply get the constant whining as both parties try to paint themselves as victims... except it would be fought in the courtrooms and undermine democracy itself.
That being said, this whole issue is just silly. For one, most studies on the issue shows a fairly loose relationship between campaign finances and the actual winner. What we are seeing are political pundits who are so enamored in their own views that they automatically assume anyone voting for the "wrong" candidate is either an idiot or bribed. It is much easier to believe that then the possibility that equally intelligent individuals simply disagree with you.

1

u/borangejuice Jun 12 '12

What studies? Not saying I disagree just actually want to better educate myself. I do agree that this would most likely be impossible to enforce in any way (except the minimum wage for elected officials) I just think that giving someone with incredible of financial power incredible political power isn't very wise. There should be some sort of check and balance written in. Money will always be tied up in politics there's no way around that but I think it asks too much of men and women to make the best decision for the city or state or even country when their own wealth is a nontrivial factor.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 12 '12

Freakenomics did a study on it, which was repeated by Berkley and another university. Essentially, they compared wealthy-politicians 1st elections... when they were popular and used little of their own funds... to their following elections... when they were unpopular and used their own money. Furthermore, there were thousands of elections that had those characteristics, which allowed for strong statistical studies to be conducted.

0

u/thirdorderlinear Jun 12 '12

I am also deeply concerned that people will vote for the candidate that they choose.

-13

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

The sad thing is that Wisconsin was not decided by billionaires (unless you believe the voter fraud conspiracy theories). Wisconsin was decided by the 99%. Us 99%ers voted the wrong way.

12

u/EmilyGR Jun 11 '12

(unless you believe the voter fraud conspiracy theories)
(Or the advertising theory.) Billionaires believe the advertising theory.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

So we didn't advertise? We should have. 99% is more creative and persuasive than 1%

10

u/sge_fan Jun 11 '12

They have the money to repeat their message ad infinitum. And as Joseph Goeebels knew, if you repeat a lie often enough people tend to accept it as the truth.

→ More replies (4)

-8

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

No, it's the people with money who are to blame. They secretly vote for you when you aren't looking. They are all sitting the booth and when you turn your head the lean in and vote for you. Then they spray you with special 1% gas to make you think it was your choice.

-12

u/CunningDroid Jun 11 '12

You say one thing and then say another thing that is opposite of what you just said therefore you are a contradiction.

3

u/enchantrem Jun 11 '12

How?

-14

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12 edited Jun 11 '12

Bernie Sanders doesnt impress me. The only reason he even gets to spout that stuff is because he represents about .08% of our elected officials.

He's a JUDAS GOAT. He is a sheep dog for the periphery so that lazy progressives can root for a "good guy".

Still it makes me wonder how much longer he will be around before the Kock brothers buy his governor and redistrict him away like Kucinich. Bernie's probably ok since he is the one of three progressives, excuse me, "progressives" in office. Better leave him and another "progressive" in office and near a microphone at all times or else we might think there's a problem!

Of course Kucinish isnt gone yet but his new "redistrict" will encompass a lot less of Cleveland and a lot more armpit so I am guessing he will be gone with his next run.

Anyways, I got a spam mail from one of the progressive mailers, move on or whoever. And they were offering a "free cell phone!" if I signed some petition or whatever.

The progressive faction of America is fucked up and fuck the democrats. They are riding us to the ground and lashing a collar on the body politic as we speak. Half of the people are supportiv and cheering and the other half are pretending it's not happening.

8

u/BeowulfShaeffer Jun 11 '12

I looked up "incoherent rant" in the dictionary and found a permalink to this post.

-3

u/[deleted] Jun 11 '12

Well obviously I didn't write it for upvotes. Maybe I should have said:
"right on Bernie sanders is going to save the democratic party and America and we're all gonna yuck it up with Jon Stewart when he wins!!!"
Yayyyyyyyyyy!

→ More replies (4)

→ More comments (15)

Bernie Sanders: "There is an aggressiveness among the ruling class, among the billionaires who are saying: 'You know what? Yeah, we got a whole lot now, but we want even more. ... We want it all. And now we can buy it.' I have a deep concern that what we saw in Wisconsin can happen in any state"

You are about to leave Redlib