4 ms·
You're assuming that those non-wealthy people have objectively studied both candidates, weighed their platforms, and chosen the one they have determined will ma
by fallinghawks 2y ago
You're assuming that those non-wealthy people have objectively studied both candidates, weighed their platforms, and chosen the one they have determined will make their lives better. As opposed to, say, the one who promises to hurt they people they want to see hurt, or the one who claims they will protect them from whatever out-group they consider dangerous.
- saghm 2y agoHow am I assuming that? If those non-wealthy people haven't objectively studied both candidates, how does that make it less likely that the wealthy are able to exert outsized influence on government policy (either by directly taking part or lobbying)? Trying to distract people by redirecting their unhappiness towards convenient targets that are unrelated to wealth is pretty much exactly what I'd expect from someone wanting to enact a pro-wealthy agenda that doesn't actually help the average voter at all.