5 ms·

There has been no transition of power. Power is still in the hands of those who have bought it. All democracies are far from perfect, but the US have allowed th

There has been no transition of power. Power is still in the hands of those who have bought it. All democracies are far from perfect, but the US have allowed theirs to be dominated by money from the very foundation. Even quite corrupt democracies are more open to be changed by popular vote than the US, were not being bought and paid for beforehand means you don't have the means to successfully stand for election. Hell, even countries where political candidates regularly get murdered stand more chance of peaceful democratic change. The US political system is a effectively a convoluted equivalent of having a ballot with only one name on it. Only in this case it's a dollar sign. I would be very surprised if this could be overturned by peaceful means, but it will most certainly require extra-parliamentary action, because US democracy has been sold.

peterwwillis 14y ago
Power is still in the hands of those who have bought it. You're half right. Technically we tax payers only lease our elected officials, they aren't our property (that became illegal a few years ago) What's really funny is how people keep paying into a system they don't like and never do anything about it. According to popular practice, everyone thinks that Facebook and Twitter statuses will create change in Congress. Somebody should write a FAQ about that.
Cushman 14y ago
This goes for all of you: Bullshit. Learn some recent political history, starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#2010_election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#2010_electio... The Tea Party didn't sweep because they had money (although they did), but because they got people to vote. They were elected with a mandate to destroy the Federal government, and by God, they almost pulled it off. Whether you're progressive or libertarian, the reason the established parties keep winning is because their people vote, and our people don't. Gerrymandering is a huge problem. Voter suppression is a huge problem. Electoral fraud may be a huge problem. But these things have not succeeded in destroying our democracy, yet — the person who wins the election becomes the person in power, every time. Our system is working, we're just losing. So don't get involved if you like, sit back and be cynical if it makes you feel better(?), but don't pretend you're not part of the problem.
- onli 14y ago
  > the person who wins the election becomes the person in power, every time. That is a joke, isn't it?
  - Cushman 14y ago
    Well, almost every time. Shit does happen. But no, I would seem to be the shockingly uncommon American who has some measure of faith in the process of self-governance that has seen us through the last two hundred thirty years.
    - icelancer 14y ago
      Why are you so sure this concept of self-governance is what has kept the peace, and not, for example, some other forces involved? Why must we give all credit to the public sector?
    - arthurrr 14y ago
      Cushman, you sound like somebody who believes everything that you were taught in school, and you are unwilling to entertain an idea that has the possibility of destroying the foundation of your world view. Don't try to impose your world view on events as they occur, rather, observe the world and consider all possibilities. Things usually are not what they appear to be. The expert is not always right, even if he thinks he is.
      - Cushman 14y ago
        I am most certainly not an idealist, but I take it as a compliment to be called one.
        BCM43 14y ago
        I don't think arthurrr called you an idealist. Naive, maybe.
        14y ago
zanny 14y ago
I agree I don't like the peaceful transition wording. Republicans and democrats collude together, and are both paid off by almost every major company in the US to vote in their favor. Both are owned, both put forth candidates in each district that fit their ideology and interests, and people vote between two politicians groomed to uphold the party line. There isn't a choice. It is why I vote libertarian. But the root problems are deeper than that, mainly that you have individual citizens voting for too many people they have no empathy or commonality with, and that politics is a profession rather than civil service.
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago
  >Republicans and democrats collude together, and are both paid off by almost every major company in the US to vote in their favor. Not exactly. There are two things that win elections: Money and votes. And money only because it can be used to buy votes. When the major parties agree on an issue it's because that issue has a stable equilibrium: Either the parties both side with the electorate or the monied interests because the number of vote-equivalent dollars gained in changing positions is not greater than the number actual votes lost by doing so (or vice versa). So you don't see many politicians seriously advocating legalizing murder or drastically slashing the defense budget, respectively. But all you have to do to get them to change is to make the number of votes they lose by siding with corporations on a particular issue greater than the amount of money they get by doing so. You don't even have to get the parties to split -- most of the issues they're split on are intentionally wedge issues or detail-free hogwash like "small government" or the vague notion that rich people should pay more taxes. You can actually get them both to start siding with the interests of the people on a particular issue, you just have to make more noise than what the opposing interests are paying in dollars. It has happened before. The establishment of the EPA, the breakup of AT&T, the defeat of SOPA, it's a pretty long list. But it only happens if we make it happen. We have to make them understand that if they don't do what we want, they lose more votes than the money they're being paid can buy them back. Getting 100,000+ voters to sign a petition that brings the issue to the attention of lawmakers may not be sufficient to achieve that on its own, but it ain't a bad start.
  - 14y ago
brownbat 14y ago
> Power is still in the hands of those who have bought it. As former Presidents Steve Forbes, Nelson Rockefeller, Ross Perot, Donald Trump, John (Heinz) Kerry, and Mitt Romney clearly demonstrate, money is all that matters in politics.
- jussij 14y ago
  You have to look know futher than to the likes of Jack Abramoff to know US government is controlled by money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff Just one example from the link: > Abramoff and his law firm were paid at least $6.7 million by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) from 1995 to 2001, which made manufacture goods with the "Made in the USA" label but is not subject to U.S. labor and minimum wage laws. What’s good about that one is it went on for years and all the politicians knew about it.
  - nl 14y ago
    What’s good about that one is it went on for years and all the politicians knew about it. I think you are trying to make the point that money bought the all politicians. While that is somewhat true in some cases it isn't the full story. I suspect if you dig deeper what you will find is that no one cared enough to fix the problem. I'd note in particular that the bill designed to stop the abuses in CNMI was passed unanimously in the Senate, but then blocked by Tom DeLay in the house[1]. While is it easy to say that DeLay blocked the bill because of money, the truth is that DeLay is quite happy to block any bill that involves new labor laws. Abramoff found someone who's politics already aligned with what he wanted to happen and then made sure that person saw it as something important enough to do something about it. I'm not at all sure that is political corruption at all. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_CNMI_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_CNMI_scandal
- jimmaswell 14y ago
  Former president Mitt Romney?
  - 14y ago

peterwwillis 14y ago

Power is still in the hands of those who have bought it. You're half right. Technically we tax payers only lease our elected officials, they aren't our property (that became illegal a few years ago) What's really funny is how people keep paying into a system they don't like and never do anything about it. According to popular practice, everyone thinks that Facebook and Twitter statuses will create change in Congress. Somebody should write a FAQ about that.

Cushman 14y ago

This goes for all of you: Bullshit. Learn some recent political history, starting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#2010_election http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#2010_electio... The Tea Party didn't sweep because they had money (although they did), but because they got people to vote. They were elected with a mandate to destroy the Federal government, and by God, they almost pulled it off. Whether you're progressive or libertarian, the reason the established parties keep winning is because their people vote, and our people don't. Gerrymandering is a huge problem. Voter suppression is a huge problem. Electoral fraud may be a huge problem. But these things have not succeeded in destroying our democracy, yet — the person who wins the election becomes the person in power, every time. Our system is working, we're just losing. So don't get involved if you like, sit back and be cynical if it makes you feel better(?), but don't pretend you're not part of the problem.

onli 14y ago
> the person who wins the election becomes the person in power, every time. That is a joke, isn't it?
- Cushman 14y ago
  Well, almost every time. Shit does happen. But no, I would seem to be the shockingly uncommon American who has some measure of faith in the process of self-governance that has seen us through the last two hundred thirty years.
  - icelancer 14y ago
    Why are you so sure this concept of self-governance is what has kept the peace, and not, for example, some other forces involved? Why must we give all credit to the public sector?
  - arthurrr 14y ago
    Cushman, you sound like somebody who believes everything that you were taught in school, and you are unwilling to entertain an idea that has the possibility of destroying the foundation of your world view. Don't try to impose your world view on events as they occur, rather, observe the world and consider all possibilities. Things usually are not what they appear to be. The expert is not always right, even if he thinks he is.
    - Cushman 14y ago
      I am most certainly not an idealist, but I take it as a compliment to be called one.
      - BCM43 14y ago
        I don't think arthurrr called you an idealist. Naive, maybe.
        14y ago

zanny 14y ago

I agree I don't like the peaceful transition wording. Republicans and democrats collude together, and are both paid off by almost every major company in the US to vote in their favor. Both are owned, both put forth candidates in each district that fit their ideology and interests, and people vote between two politicians groomed to uphold the party line. There isn't a choice. It is why I vote libertarian. But the root problems are deeper than that, mainly that you have individual citizens voting for too many people they have no empathy or commonality with, and that politics is a profession rather than civil service.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
>Republicans and democrats collude together, and are both paid off by almost every major company in the US to vote in their favor. Not exactly. There are two things that win elections: Money and votes. And money only because it can be used to buy votes. When the major parties agree on an issue it's because that issue has a stable equilibrium: Either the parties both side with the electorate or the monied interests because the number of vote-equivalent dollars gained in changing positions is not greater than the number actual votes lost by doing so (or vice versa). So you don't see many politicians seriously advocating legalizing murder or drastically slashing the defense budget, respectively. But all you have to do to get them to change is to make the number of votes they lose by siding with corporations on a particular issue greater than the amount of money they get by doing so. You don't even have to get the parties to split -- most of the issues they're split on are intentionally wedge issues or detail-free hogwash like "small government" or the vague notion that rich people should pay more taxes. You can actually get them both to start siding with the interests of the people on a particular issue, you just have to make more noise than what the opposing interests are paying in dollars. It has happened before. The establishment of the EPA, the breakup of AT&T, the defeat of SOPA, it's a pretty long list. But it only happens if we make it happen. We have to make them understand that if they don't do what we want, they lose more votes than the money they're being paid can buy them back. Getting 100,000+ voters to sign a petition that brings the issue to the attention of lawmakers may not be sufficient to achieve that on its own, but it ain't a bad start.
- 14y ago

brownbat 14y ago

> Power is still in the hands of those who have bought it. As former Presidents Steve Forbes, Nelson Rockefeller, Ross Perot, Donald Trump, John (Heinz) Kerry, and Mitt Romney clearly demonstrate, money is all that matters in politics.

jussij 14y ago
You have to look know futher than to the likes of Jack Abramoff to know US government is controlled by money: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff Just one example from the link: > Abramoff and his law firm were paid at least $6.7 million by the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) from 1995 to 2001, which made manufacture goods with the "Made in the USA" label but is not subject to U.S. labor and minimum wage laws. What’s good about that one is it went on for years and all the politicians knew about it.
- nl 14y ago
  What’s good about that one is it went on for years and all the politicians knew about it. I think you are trying to make the point that money bought the all politicians. While that is somewhat true in some cases it isn't the full story. I suspect if you dig deeper what you will find is that no one cared enough to fix the problem. I'd note in particular that the bill designed to stop the abuses in CNMI was passed unanimously in the Senate, but then blocked by Tom DeLay in the house[1]. While is it easy to say that DeLay blocked the bill because of money, the truth is that DeLay is quite happy to block any bill that involves new labor laws. Abramoff found someone who's politics already aligned with what he wanted to happen and then made sure that person saw it as something important enough to do something about it. I'm not at all sure that is political corruption at all. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_CNMI_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff_CNMI_scandal
jimmaswell 14y ago
Former president Mitt Romney?
- 14y ago