3 ms·

How? Both viable candidates are guilty. We can’t elect a third party candidate. And if you don’t vote, your opinion doesn’t count.

wpietri 6y ago
This is only true if you think there's absolutely no difference between any candidate in their stance on, say, campaign finance reform. That seems like an extreme claim.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > This is only true if you think there's absolutely no difference between any candidate in their stance on, say, campaign finance reform. No, thats irrelevant. The relevant factor is which viable candidates have accepted contributions. And the answer is “all of them.” The part where one of the guys accepting bribes tells you “I’m opposed to bribes” is marketing.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    That's definitely not true. Some politicians have worked very hard and have expended significant political capital on campaign finance reform. Setting an impossible standard and then decrying anybody who doesn't meet it is more about you than the system. Politics is the art of the possible.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > Some politicians have worked very hard and have expended significant political capital on campaign finance reform. They’ve no doubt received campaign contributions and remember those when they propose changes to the law. > Setting an impossible standard and then decrying anybody who doesn't meet it is more about you than the system. Politics is the art of the possible. I think the fact that you agree its impossible to elect someone who hasn’t already been bribed makes my point. I don’t trust people to take bribes and then betray the briber.
      - wpietri 6y ago
        I think you have a very cartoonish view of things, one that, like many purists, leads you to in effect support the system you claim to decry. That may preserve your feelings of purity, but it doesn't do a thing to actually solve the problem. The truth is that many politicians don't like the fact that they have to spend so much time fundraising to pursue their actual goals. They don't like the influence fundraising has on politics. They would rather focus on solving issues. It's possible to make progress on this issue, just like has been done before. You may be a person who slavishly follows their economic incentives, in which case I'm sorry for you. But don't make the mistake of thinking everybody works like that.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > I think you have a very cartoonish view of things, one that, like many purists, leads you to in effect support the system you claim to decry. That may preserve your feelings of purity, but it doesn't do a thing to actually solve the problem. I’m tracking that you don’t agree but it might be more helpful for you to consider why I might feel that way instead of dismissing my perspective as cartoonish. > The truth is that many politicians don't like the fact that they have to spend so much time fundraising to pursue their actual goals. Sure, maybe. They’d probably prefer to get the same money with less effort. > They don't like the influence fundraising has on politics. They would rather focus on solving issues. It's possible to make progress on this issue, just like has been done before. I’m not sure how. Campaign finance already has the unintended consquence of inhibiting the free speech of citizens by limiting their ability to purchase advertisements prior to an election. And they politicians still get bribed. What solution do you envision? Further restrictions on political speech? Prohibiting people from donating to causes they support? > You may be a person who slavishly follows their economic incentives, in which case I'm sorry for you. But don't make the mistake of thinking everybody works like that. People who don’t follow economic incentives starve to death or die of exposure. I’m pretty sure the politicians who collect a six figure annual salary from the treasury in addition to their laundered campaign contributions are quite attuned to financial incentives. The part where they claim otherwise is just marketing and its quite naive to take that at face value.
- 29083011397778 6y ago
  And assumes that you're a single-issue voter, and that this is the issue that decides your vote. Not abortion, women's rights, gun rights, tax policy, crime (and punishment for crime) policies, environmental policies, fiscal and economical policies, and more.

wpietri 6y ago

This is only true if you think there's absolutely no difference between any candidate in their stance on, say, campaign finance reform. That seems like an extreme claim.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> This is only true if you think there's absolutely no difference between any candidate in their stance on, say, campaign finance reform. No, thats irrelevant. The relevant factor is which viable candidates have accepted contributions. And the answer is “all of them.” The part where one of the guys accepting bribes tells you “I’m opposed to bribes” is marketing.
- wpietri 6y ago
  That's definitely not true. Some politicians have worked very hard and have expended significant political capital on campaign finance reform. Setting an impossible standard and then decrying anybody who doesn't meet it is more about you than the system. Politics is the art of the possible.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > Some politicians have worked very hard and have expended significant political capital on campaign finance reform. They’ve no doubt received campaign contributions and remember those when they propose changes to the law. > Setting an impossible standard and then decrying anybody who doesn't meet it is more about you than the system. Politics is the art of the possible. I think the fact that you agree its impossible to elect someone who hasn’t already been bribed makes my point. I don’t trust people to take bribes and then betray the briber.
    - wpietri 6y ago
      I think you have a very cartoonish view of things, one that, like many purists, leads you to in effect support the system you claim to decry. That may preserve your feelings of purity, but it doesn't do a thing to actually solve the problem. The truth is that many politicians don't like the fact that they have to spend so much time fundraising to pursue their actual goals. They don't like the influence fundraising has on politics. They would rather focus on solving issues. It's possible to make progress on this issue, just like has been done before. You may be a person who slavishly follows their economic incentives, in which case I'm sorry for you. But don't make the mistake of thinking everybody works like that.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > I think you have a very cartoonish view of things, one that, like many purists, leads you to in effect support the system you claim to decry. That may preserve your feelings of purity, but it doesn't do a thing to actually solve the problem. I’m tracking that you don’t agree but it might be more helpful for you to consider why I might feel that way instead of dismissing my perspective as cartoonish. > The truth is that many politicians don't like the fact that they have to spend so much time fundraising to pursue their actual goals. Sure, maybe. They’d probably prefer to get the same money with less effort. > They don't like the influence fundraising has on politics. They would rather focus on solving issues. It's possible to make progress on this issue, just like has been done before. I’m not sure how. Campaign finance already has the unintended consquence of inhibiting the free speech of citizens by limiting their ability to purchase advertisements prior to an election. And they politicians still get bribed. What solution do you envision? Further restrictions on political speech? Prohibiting people from donating to causes they support? > You may be a person who slavishly follows their economic incentives, in which case I'm sorry for you. But don't make the mistake of thinking everybody works like that. People who don’t follow economic incentives starve to death or die of exposure. I’m pretty sure the politicians who collect a six figure annual salary from the treasury in addition to their laundered campaign contributions are quite attuned to financial incentives. The part where they claim otherwise is just marketing and its quite naive to take that at face value.
29083011397778 6y ago
And assumes that you're a single-issue voter, and that this is the issue that decides your vote. Not abortion, women's rights, gun rights, tax policy, crime (and punishment for crime) policies, environmental policies, fiscal and economical policies, and more.