Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jmancube]

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that there are some great people out there who are trying to help by being politicians. It just seems that a lot of politicians (especially ones with a good amount of power) seem to be only in politics for the image and power. I don't really like a plutocratic system where only the rich can significantly influence government (i.e. lobbying from corporations).

[DJ]

Honest people don't get very far in politics, since it's 90% bribing people and accepting bribes.

[Grakelin]

Technically, being a politician in a Democratic society is 100% about bribing the constituents with awesome things that will improve their lives.

[Retro]

Wow. This is a really cynical thread, heh. Does everyone here really think we only have an "illusion of choice," or just the people who chose to respond to this topic?

I'm definitely one for believing in the illusion of choice :\ While it's kind of depressing that I feel that way, my understanding of politics supports the idea completely. I'm not one to say that all politicians are and have always been corrupt, but I very much think that the system does pretty much nothing to deter new politicians from slowly becoming more corrupt, even if they were once a hero of the people fighting for more rights and support for their constituency. The way I see it, the sad downturn towards accepting bribes and focusing only on re-election is practically inevitable.

[Puck]

We got elections over here real soon.

We got exactly ONE party which doesnt have a negative campaign. Furthermore they are the only guys who don't concentrate on the other parties in their slogans.

Guess who I'll be voting for this time

[Nikov]

Technically, being a politician in a Democrat district is 100% about bribing the constituents with awesome things that will improve their lives.

Fix'd.

[Leafsnail]

Fix'd.

If you're already in a safe democrat district, what does it matter anyway?

[Nikov]

Fix'd.

If you're already in a safe democrat district, what does it matter anyway?

Primaries.

[nenjin]

Technically, being a politician in a Democrat congressional district is 100% about bribing the constituents with awesome things that will improve their lives.

Fix'd.

Re-fix'd, now with 50% more intellectual honesty.

[Karlito]

Especially now that the Supreme Court ruled that corporation have the same free speech right as human and can spend as much as they want for campaign. :p

That's not true. Campaign spending limits are still in place.

[Virex]

Wow. This is a really cynical thread, heh. Does everyone here really think we only have an "illusion of choice," or just the people who chose to respond to this topic?

Everyone has a choice, but only a few really use it. As long as you think that voting is anything more then a way to induce relatively modest changes you're not getting anywhere.

[Aqizzar]

Technically, being a politician in a Democrat district is 100% about bribing the constituents with awesome things that will improve their lives.

Fix'd.

Fuck me if that's not the definition of good governance.  Actually, you find "bribing the constituents" is most common in states with sharply contested elections, not the solid ones; some gobbledygook called the "Ranney Index".  In places like Pennsylvania, you'll find Republicans doing the same thing, or in states like Massachusetts, Democrats voting against welfare because they know they won't lose anyway.

Especially now that the Supreme Court ruled that corporation have the same free speech right as human and can spend as much as they want for campaign. :p

That's not true. Campaign spending limits are still in place.

You're hilarious.  Spending by candidates and their campaigns is still limited; private citizens, including corporations, can spend as much money advertising a candidate as they want, on their own behalf.

[Sheb]

Especially now that the Supreme Court ruled that corporation have the same free speech right as human and can spend as much as they want for campaign. :p

That's not true. Campaign spending limits are still in place.

I should find that article again. I think they cannot give unlimited amount of money, but can use money for their own ads helping a candidate.

[nenjin]

The rules on campaign finance have always been insane. Doubly so when applied to media. As it stands, all candidates must get an equal share of air time allotted to them, then I believe they can purchase more as long as the other side gets their "due" amount. (The insignificant amount of public dollars that go toward re-election campaigns works this way too. They each get x from public dollars, the rest comes from the campaign.)

This included stuff like, actors running for office and the movies they were in, and corporation funded political spots. PACs were kind of a way around that. It was all relevant since the big media giants own so many corporations, their political leanings have a significant trickle down effect.

Now, corporation sponsored political spots are in the same group as PACs. They're entities with a right to advertise their political opinions without their support getting lumped into the candidate's overall campaign spending.