3 ms·

Advertising is necessary to sell a product. Campaign money is necessary to buy you a stage. But if you don't like the product, you aren't going to buy it. > Co

Advertising is necessary to sell a product. Campaign money is necessary to buy you a stage. But if you don't like the product, you aren't going to buy it. > Congress is stacked by wealthy people, in no small part because the salary for congress is not commensurate with the responsibility it has. LOL, it seems they get wealthy after they get elected to Congress. (I wonder how that happens!) > rudely dismissive comments that insinuate committing a crime is the only way money and wealth can influence I don't know where you got that from. I don't recall ever voting for someone because they spent more money on their campaign. If elections are being bought, it's not by the campaign money, it's by the taxpayer money. I.e. the "chicken in every pot" promise to give people free stuff. > I’ll refer you to the research showing the general popularity of a proposal is irrelevant to it getting passed. I don't doubt that, but we're talking about an election, not passing legislation. The only election poll that matters is the final vote (note that a lot of people do not bother to vote).

vlovich123 11mo ago
You have such an exceedingly narrow definition of what it means when people say that money buys elections that I’m realizing it’s pointless to try to have a conversation. > LOL, it seems they get wealthy after they get elected to Congress. (I wonder how that happens!) Some yes. Insider trading is a problem. But I think you’d be surprised how many people who are already rich then enter politics. They may grow their wealth even more after but they start of supremely wealthy to begin with, not least of which because that also implies a network of rich people who will help you. > If elections are being bought, it's not by the campaign money, it's by the taxpayer money. I.e. the "chicken in every pot" promise to give people free stuff. So money selecting which candidates you can vote on isn’t money buying elections, but policy arguments over how to spend the public purse is buying the public? That’s like having the position that a toddler has a choice when you ask them would they like broccoli or celery - you’ve predefined their choices for them and given them the illusion of choice. > I don't know where you got that from. “No one bought my vote, how about you” is dismissive and rude, not least of which because I’m sure you know buying votes is a crime. It’s not the effective rhetorical device you think it is. It’s also horribly undermined precisely because politics has gotten so messed up Republicans are bold enough to literally trying this strategy now. > I don't doubt that, but we're talking about an election, not passing legislation Actually, no. This conversation started with your bold claim: “Can you show us how the wealthy are battling the poor?”. You’re now trying to shift the goal posts claiming it’s only about elections.
- WalterBright 11mo ago
  > You have such an exceedingly narrow definition of what it means when people say that money buys elections that I’m realizing it’s pointless to try to have a conversation. The definition of "buy" according to google: "obtain in exchange for payment." I accept the standard definition of words, not made up definitions. It's not possible to have a debate when words are redefined. > “No one bought my vote, how about you” is dismissive and rude, not least of which because I’m sure you know buying votes is a crime. Do you know of anyone who was paid for their vote? or anyone who was offered payment for their vote?
  - vlovich123 11mo ago
    However you call it, Musk is certainly getting as close as he can to the line of paying people to vote a certain way. https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/01/politics/elon-musk-million-dollar-checks-campaign-finance-what-matters https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/01/politics/elon-musk-million-do... He’s had to repeatedly tweak the wording of the payment to stay away from a textbook definition of vote buying, but it’s certainly violating the spirit of the law. > The definition of "buy" according to google: "obtain in exchange for payment." I accept the standard definition of words, not made up definitions. It's not possible to have a debate when words are redefined. Only if you treat the English language as something that you can understand the meaning by combining the meaning of individual words and that words only ever have one possible meaning. For example, if I say “you’re a horse’s ass” am I claiming that you are literally the rear end of a horse? Or am I claiming that you’re a donkey owned by a horse? Or am I using a euphemism to describe obnoxious behavior? But anyway. This is getting way off the mark. You’ve hyper focused on one thing (election outcomes) ignoring the larger point about whether there is a class war going on (raising Obamacare which was a compromise from Medicare for all and has been repeatedly gutted but also ignoring the defunding of SNAP and various other programs this year that are disproportionately hitting the poor while wealthy are getting a huge tax break on inheritance taxes due to Trump’s bill this year - how again are the wealthy not getting what they want at the expense of everyone else?)
    - WalterBright 11mo ago

vlovich123 11mo ago

You have such an exceedingly narrow definition of what it means when people say that money buys elections that I’m realizing it’s pointless to try to have a conversation. > LOL, it seems they get wealthy after they get elected to Congress. (I wonder how that happens!) Some yes. Insider trading is a problem. But I think you’d be surprised how many people who are already rich then enter politics. They may grow their wealth even more after but they start of supremely wealthy to begin with, not least of which because that also implies a network of rich people who will help you. > If elections are being bought, it's not by the campaign money, it's by the taxpayer money. I.e. the "chicken in every pot" promise to give people free stuff. So money selecting which candidates you can vote on isn’t money buying elections, but policy arguments over how to spend the public purse is buying the public? That’s like having the position that a toddler has a choice when you ask them would they like broccoli or celery - you’ve predefined their choices for them and given them the illusion of choice. > I don't know where you got that from. “No one bought my vote, how about you” is dismissive and rude, not least of which because I’m sure you know buying votes is a crime. It’s not the effective rhetorical device you think it is. It’s also horribly undermined precisely because politics has gotten so messed up Republicans are bold enough to literally trying this strategy now. > I don't doubt that, but we're talking about an election, not passing legislation Actually, no. This conversation started with your bold claim: “Can you show us how the wealthy are battling the poor?”. You’re now trying to shift the goal posts claiming it’s only about elections.

WalterBright 11mo ago
> You have such an exceedingly narrow definition of what it means when people say that money buys elections that I’m realizing it’s pointless to try to have a conversation. The definition of "buy" according to google: "obtain in exchange for payment." I accept the standard definition of words, not made up definitions. It's not possible to have a debate when words are redefined. > “No one bought my vote, how about you” is dismissive and rude, not least of which because I’m sure you know buying votes is a crime. Do you know of anyone who was paid for their vote? or anyone who was offered payment for their vote?
- vlovich123 11mo ago
  However you call it, Musk is certainly getting as close as he can to the line of paying people to vote a certain way. https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/01/politics/elon-musk-million-dollar-checks-campaign-finance-what-matters https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/01/politics/elon-musk-million-do... He’s had to repeatedly tweak the wording of the payment to stay away from a textbook definition of vote buying, but it’s certainly violating the spirit of the law. > The definition of "buy" according to google: "obtain in exchange for payment." I accept the standard definition of words, not made up definitions. It's not possible to have a debate when words are redefined. Only if you treat the English language as something that you can understand the meaning by combining the meaning of individual words and that words only ever have one possible meaning. For example, if I say “you’re a horse’s ass” am I claiming that you are literally the rear end of a horse? Or am I claiming that you’re a donkey owned by a horse? Or am I using a euphemism to describe obnoxious behavior? But anyway. This is getting way off the mark. You’ve hyper focused on one thing (election outcomes) ignoring the larger point about whether there is a class war going on (raising Obamacare which was a compromise from Medicare for all and has been repeatedly gutted but also ignoring the defunding of SNAP and various other programs this year that are disproportionately hitting the poor while wealthy are getting a huge tax break on inheritance taxes due to Trump’s bill this year - how again are the wealthy not getting what they want at the expense of everyone else?)
  - WalterBright 11mo ago