3 ms·

With the way districts are Gerrymandered, the electoral college and the amount of money required to even come to the fight: This is an oligarchy. More people D

by jachee 9y ago

With the way districts are Gerrymandered, the electoral college and the amount of money required to even come to the fight: This is an oligarchy. More people DID vote for Hillary. Fat lot of good it's doing us.

djsumdog 9y ago
Even if she won, she was still the Secretary of State that gave us more predator drones, more bombing and served under a president that spent every day at work (the first president in history). I feel like people don't realize the corruption is pretty equal between both candidates/parties, they just toss a few pandering policies here and there to get people angry, or spin things differently.
- gaadd33 9y ago
  > and served under a president that spent every day at work (the first president in history). ...That's a negative? Also I didn't think that Obama spent every day at work, at least not from what the news reported.
  - libraryatnight 9y ago
    Some dudes I work with went nuts over Obama being a tax burden when he stopped in Hawaii and it was reported he was stoked to have a plate lunch. To be fair though, they kept talking about Hawaii like they didn't realize it's a state.
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  I think it doesn't matter which side you see it from, democracy in the US is completely broken. In most states your vote doesn't matter. Both parties ended up with candidates that were disliked by more people than liked. Trump keeps bringing up Hillary because she probably is the only candidate who makes him even remotely look good to anyone meanwhile even most Democrats didn't want her. Both parties had to fight off what in essence were third party candidates because it's more viable to hijack one of the big two than running as a third party. And that's completely ignoring that once in office completely unpopular measures get pushed through my either site. It's completely broken!
  - djsumdog 9y ago
    Sorry, that should have read "every day at war"
- root_axis 9y ago
  > I feel like people don't realize the corruption is pretty equal between both candidates/parties So what? Even if one accepts the unimaginative premise that all politicians are equally corrupt, there are very clear differences in the policies they enact, so it is a rational decision to make discerning choices between them; the implied suggestion that it's all a wash is very obviously incorrect.
  - wallace_f 9y ago
    If you look at the primary abuses of the plutocracy in the States (ie War Complex, Wall Street & Central Bankkng, psrticulsr kinds of constitutional abuses) there is little difference. For example, Goldman Sachs wins with unelected powerful positions after every election(1). Obama was anti war and said he would protect whistle blowers, but prosecuted more whistle blowers than any president in history, and dropped over 25,000 bombs, primarily targeting Muslims. He also didn't stand up to the healthcare lobbies, or use any seriois political capital to end unconstitutional Guantanamo. So you can't tell me any rhetoric coming from our last presidents has much of anything to do with what really matters in the world. All the huffing and puffing is just targeted at people's emotions to keep them occupied with political battles other than going after the plutocracy.
    - root_axis 9y ago
      > You can't tell me any rhetoric coming from our last presidents has much of anything to do with what really matters in the world Without delving into the subjective can of worms that underpins "what really matters in the world", none of what you said refutes the fact that it is still rational to make choices since those choices have consequences that matter to citizens. There are other things going on in the world besides whatever it is you believe "really matters", but you're free to abstain from the political process until the time comes when nations stop fighting wars.
      - wallace_f 9y ago
        Just to make it abundantly clear, by "what matters" I'm referring to the topics I addressed in my post such as (1) who gets killed? (2) who does the killing? (3) who ends up with the money? (4) who has constitutional rights?
jrs95 9y ago
And if people were asked about immigration policy instead of told, we both wouldn’t have had a candidate as vulgar as Trump getting the GOP nomination, and we wouldn’t have had the demographic shift that probably resulted in more Democratic votes than Hillary won the popular vote by. Oligarchic forces aren’t just tipping the scales in one direction.
abawany 9y ago
I have been thinking about how to work around the gerrymandering/gigantic 'war chests' that the incumbents have and the following idea comes to mind: run against these incumbents locally in the party primaries to help drain their truckloads of 'campaign contributions' and help give the election candidate a fighting chance to upset this stinking pile of evil.

by jachee 9y ago

djsumdog 9y ago

Even if she won, she was still the Secretary of State that gave us more predator drones, more bombing and served under a president that spent every day at work (the first president in history). I feel like people don't realize the corruption is pretty equal between both candidates/parties, they just toss a few pandering policies here and there to get people angry, or spin things differently.

gaadd33 9y ago
> and served under a president that spent every day at work (the first president in history). ...That's a negative? Also I didn't think that Obama spent every day at work, at least not from what the news reported.
- libraryatnight 9y ago
  Some dudes I work with went nuts over Obama being a tax burden when he stopped in Hawaii and it was reported he was stoked to have a plate lunch. To be fair though, they kept talking about Hawaii like they didn't realize it's a state.
ajmurmann 9y ago
I think it doesn't matter which side you see it from, democracy in the US is completely broken. In most states your vote doesn't matter. Both parties ended up with candidates that were disliked by more people than liked. Trump keeps bringing up Hillary because she probably is the only candidate who makes him even remotely look good to anyone meanwhile even most Democrats didn't want her. Both parties had to fight off what in essence were third party candidates because it's more viable to hijack one of the big two than running as a third party. And that's completely ignoring that once in office completely unpopular measures get pushed through my either site. It's completely broken!
- djsumdog 9y ago
  Sorry, that should have read "every day at war"
root_axis 9y ago
> I feel like people don't realize the corruption is pretty equal between both candidates/parties So what? Even if one accepts the unimaginative premise that all politicians are equally corrupt, there are very clear differences in the policies they enact, so it is a rational decision to make discerning choices between them; the implied suggestion that it's all a wash is very obviously incorrect.
- wallace_f 9y ago
  If you look at the primary abuses of the plutocracy in the States (ie War Complex, Wall Street & Central Bankkng, psrticulsr kinds of constitutional abuses) there is little difference. For example, Goldman Sachs wins with unelected powerful positions after every election(1). Obama was anti war and said he would protect whistle blowers, but prosecuted more whistle blowers than any president in history, and dropped over 25,000 bombs, primarily targeting Muslims. He also didn't stand up to the healthcare lobbies, or use any seriois political capital to end unconstitutional Guantanamo. So you can't tell me any rhetoric coming from our last presidents has much of anything to do with what really matters in the world. All the huffing and puffing is just targeted at people's emotions to keep them occupied with political battles other than going after the plutocracy.
  - root_axis 9y ago
    > You can't tell me any rhetoric coming from our last presidents has much of anything to do with what really matters in the world Without delving into the subjective can of worms that underpins "what really matters in the world", none of what you said refutes the fact that it is still rational to make choices since those choices have consequences that matter to citizens. There are other things going on in the world besides whatever it is you believe "really matters", but you're free to abstain from the political process until the time comes when nations stop fighting wars.
    - wallace_f 9y ago
      Just to make it abundantly clear, by "what matters" I'm referring to the topics I addressed in my post such as (1) who gets killed? (2) who does the killing? (3) who ends up with the money? (4) who has constitutional rights?

jrs95 9y ago

And if people were asked about immigration policy instead of told, we both wouldn’t have had a candidate as vulgar as Trump getting the GOP nomination, and we wouldn’t have had the demographic shift that probably resulted in more Democratic votes than Hillary won the popular vote by. Oligarchic forces aren’t just tipping the scales in one direction.

abawany 9y ago

I have been thinking about how to work around the gerrymandering/gigantic 'war chests' that the incumbents have and the following idea comes to mind: run against these incumbents locally in the party primaries to help drain their truckloads of 'campaign contributions' and help give the election candidate a fighting chance to upset this stinking pile of evil.