3 ms·

>I don't know why so many commenters are stubbornly refusing to understand a relatively simple point. It is not that people are stubbornly refusing to see it a

>I don't know why so many commenters are stubbornly refusing to understand a relatively simple point. It is not that people are stubbornly refusing to see it a certain way, against the more obvious interpretation, which you seem to think to be the case, but that you wrote your comment in such a way that the more natural interpretation is the way that people are responding to. Given the number of people that responded to this interpretation, it seems apparent that your intended meaning was not as clearly laid out as you seem to believe. >I didn't say anything about which of the two major political parties will win elections. In any election, both of the candidates are for sale. It doesn't matter that you didn't mention this specifically. When people generally think of political elections being for sale, the idea that comes to mind is the more connected candidate winning against the less connected opposition. In this case, what you wrote suggested that the outcome was a result of politics being for sale, which clashed with the reality of how the candidate with more donations actually lost. What you wrote is most naturally interpreted as concerning the election result, not any actions taken afterward, given the context of the article being about contributions towards the election result. Given the article context, if you are actually suggesting that no matter which candidate won, the effectively binary election result would be due to politics being for sale, then it appears that you are really saying nothing by negation, which is why your comment was not interpreted this way.

lapcat 2y ago
My original post received more upvotes than misguided replies, so the majority of people seemed to understand me. Moreover, the so-called "natural" interpretation ignores something I said: > Even the Supreme Court justices have been revealed to be on the take, lavished with "gifts" from the wealthy. This can't possibly be interpreted as a statement about campaign war chests and election outcomes. Supreme Court justices don't take campaign donations or stand for elections against other candidates. > When people generally think of political elections being for sale, the idea that comes to mind is the more connected candidate winning against the less connected opposition. My original post didn't say that elections are for sale. It said that our government is for sale. You, in your own mind, made it about election outcomes. > What you wrote is most naturally interpreted as concerning the election result, not any actions taken afterward, given the context of the article being about contributions towards the election result. This completely misunderstands the nature of political corruption. As I said already, it's transactional. The wealthy donors aren't simply cheerleaders who are satisfied that their chosen candidate wins. These donors want things in return for their donations. The actions taken by the candidates afterward are essential to the relationship. It should be noted that a candidate's campaign war chest doesn't consist entirely of donations from the wealthy. There are many small donors. So the question of which candidate has the larger overall campaign war chest is not directly related to the main issue, which is, as I said originally, "The two major political parties are simply competing factions of the upper class." The reason that the wealthy own the politicians, despite not funding their entire campaigns, is that the wealthy can achieve personal, transactional relationships with the politicians, in a way that smaller donors, or mere non-donating voters, cannot. A massive donation of millions of dollars brings the personal attention of the politician to the individual donor.

lapcat 2y ago

My original post received more upvotes than misguided replies, so the majority of people seemed to understand me. Moreover, the so-called "natural" interpretation ignores something I said: > Even the Supreme Court justices have been revealed to be on the take, lavished with "gifts" from the wealthy. This can't possibly be interpreted as a statement about campaign war chests and election outcomes. Supreme Court justices don't take campaign donations or stand for elections against other candidates. > When people generally think of political elections being for sale, the idea that comes to mind is the more connected candidate winning against the less connected opposition. My original post didn't say that elections are for sale. It said that our government is for sale. You, in your own mind, made it about election outcomes. > What you wrote is most naturally interpreted as concerning the election result, not any actions taken afterward, given the context of the article being about contributions towards the election result. This completely misunderstands the nature of political corruption. As I said already, it's transactional. The wealthy donors aren't simply cheerleaders who are satisfied that their chosen candidate wins. These donors want things in return for their donations. The actions taken by the candidates afterward are essential to the relationship. It should be noted that a candidate's campaign war chest doesn't consist entirely of donations from the wealthy. There are many small donors. So the question of which candidate has the larger overall campaign war chest is not directly related to the main issue, which is, as I said originally, "The two major political parties are simply competing factions of the upper class." The reason that the wealthy own the politicians, despite not funding their entire campaigns, is that the wealthy can achieve personal, transactional relationships with the politicians, in a way that smaller donors, or mere non-donating voters, cannot. A massive donation of millions of dollars brings the personal attention of the politician to the individual donor.