‘We’re running a f—ing casino’: Politician tells all in manifesto

[Moiraine]

"Voters are incredibly ignorant. Its far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification . . ."

 

 

 

Isn't this honestly the root of the problem? I'll be the first to admit I don't follow global or domestic politics closely enough to be an informed voter. Yet there I am at the voting booth, pretending my opinion matters.

 

I see most everyone lament the fact that our next President is going to be Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump, yet we do nothing about it. And honestly it feels like there's not much we can do about it, doesn't it?

 

Maybe the system is rigged in such a way we can't do anything about it, or maybe we're just too ignorant to figure it out.

 

 

Some are ignorant, but for those who aren't, I don't think there's anything that can be done short of revolution. I've thought for years now that is the only chance at fixing things. I think we're inevitably going down the toilet. Anyone who actually tries to fight this system will just be labelled crazy by the two-party controlled media.

[Danny Bateman]

Alright, allow me to weigh in as a clear partisan for a second.

 

I'm as blue as they come, but I do think myself a bit of a fiscal conservative. This was a big reason that I just couldn't feel the Bern this cycle. I like the fact that he appears indebted to no one, and as we've said, is not really a true Democrat, so that'd be a step towards more than two dominant parties running things. But his numbers really, REALLY don't add up, and that was a deal breaker for me. He also appears to have little to no organizational support within Congress and there's reports that he's not really a team player, which worries me. But as far as a step in a different direction, he would've been ideal.

 

Regardless, if you want to get money out of politics, there's one clear step in the right direction. You've got to try to get rid of Citizens United. That brought a major influx of money into politics and probably cultivated or exacerbated the situation we have today.

Clinton has reason to hate the original ruling, as it was about a hatchet job film on her. Bernie clearly detests it. With his amount of influence on the platform, and her standing distaste for it, the Dems appear poised to actually try and do something about the ruling.

 

Trump loves to complain about money in politics, but he probably doesn't even know what Citizens United is, and I guarantee you he'd do nothing to remedy the current situation. He has no actual plans to do so and I doubt any are coming. He'll complain about it, sure, that rallies support. But actually do anything? Nah.

 

Voting third party is very viable this year. But if you don't, and this particular issue matters to you, vote blue.

[cm husker]

I don't know if "revolution" is necessary but a couple of constitutional amendments would be helpful.

 

I recommend removing the POTUS election from the popular vote. That "super bowl" of elections has become an easily monatized and polarized spectacle that mainly serves to distract from the actually meaningful electoral positions. I think we should go to congress selecting an article 2 executive by super majority.

 

Let the people focus on local/state elections (including congressional elections).

 

I'd also push for much higher congressional salaries in hopes of attracting better talent and diluting the incentive to be corrupt in any way (even discreet "innocuous" ways).

 

I'd like to create an incentive structure where we pay people more to govern less.

[cm husker]

Citizens United didn't bring money into politics. And that's a very misunderstood decision.

 

Personally, I think restrictions should be allowed under Rhenquist's basic reasoning (i.e., we created corporations, so we can regulate them however we want). But the wisdom of proposed restrictions themselves is much less clear when you dig a layer down.

 

If I'm part of a trade union and I give money for political activism, why shouldn't my Union be allowed to organize my and others' money to push a common agenda? Is the alternative that I keep my money and do the same thing? Am I not allowed to somehow coordinate with other like minded people?

 

"Corporate money in politics is the root of evil" is a fun catch phrase, but I think it's ultimately meaningless when trying to resolve the underlying supposed problem.

[Lil' Red]

I don't know if "revolution" is necessary but a couple of constitutional amendments would be helpful.

 

I recommend removing the POTUS election from the popular vote. That "super bowl" of elections has become an easily monatized and polarized spectacle that mainly serves to distract from the actually meaningful electoral positions. I think we should go to congress selecting an article 2 executive by super majority.

 

Let the people focus on local/state elections (including congressional elections).

 

I'd also push for much higher congressional salaries in hopes of attracting better talent and diluting the incentive to be corrupt in any way (even discreet "innocuous" ways).

 

I'd like to create an incentive structure where we pay people more to govern less.

 

None of that fixes the fundraising issue for congress. Maybe higher salaries would cause them to take less money under the table but they'd still need to raise funds for their elections.

[cm husker]

Then consider longer terms.

 

But in any event, if you are governing less than there's less incentive for companies to pay for your elections.

 

Real problem is that both parties have no desire to stop engineering economic outcomes rather than just setting up predictable, efficient systems.

[C N Red]

Probably the least surprising thing ive heard in awhile. Our gov't is corrupt? Come on, really? No sh#t!

[HuskerShark]

"Voters are incredibly ignorant. Its far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification . . ."

 

 

 

Isn't this honestly the root of the problem? I'll be the first to admit I don't follow global or domestic politics closely enough to be an informed voter. Yet there I am at the voting booth, pretending my opinion matters.

 

I see most everyone lament the fact that our next President is going to be Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump, yet we do nothing about it. And honestly it feels like there's not much we can do about it, doesn't it?

 

Maybe the system is rigged in such a way we can't do anything about it, or maybe we're just too ignorant to figure it out.

The system you speak of is doing everything in its power to try and throw Trump under the bus, which is yet another reason to really behind him.

 

There are probably a lot shadier things going on in our government than politicians simply saying whatever to get re-elected. We already knew that.

[The Dude]

I think the fact Trump has made it this far only underscores the fact that voters are incredibly ignorant.

[ZRod]

I think the fact Trump has made it this far only underscores the fact that voters are incredibly ignorant.

What a time to be alive!

[Sargon]

I think the fact Trump has made it this far only underscores the fact that voters are incredibly ignorant.

It's the opposite of what you said.

 

To be anti-political-class is exactly the TOP thing that is on the mind of voters who know what's really going on.

Whether you want more or less government you would know you want different people doing it rather than the incompetents and thieves in the game today.

Ted Cruz and Carson ran on that.

Trump support is mostly coming from the anti-political establishment crowd (and stop the drugs and return private sector jobs to Americans voters).

Hillary can't and isn't trying to run on that.

Sanders is running against large for profit business. He has no answers for DC corruptions and certainly not largess. DC needs to shrink Sanders says it needs to grow. Sanders has only a sliver of correct focus that being on some (far from all) of the purchasers of DC's favor. Most of the huge money donations are from and to Dems. All the the left coast money, Buffet, and half the NY money is D. Plus lawyers and union money. Plus the free media they've gotten since the 60's and it continues today.

 

You do not correct/improve large groups of problem people (DC today) by hiring more of them and giving them more power.

I don't listen to Bernie much but I haven't once heard him talk about huge problems OF the government. Lawlessness. No transparency. Overpaid. Underqualified. Etc. Anything possible to be wrong with the Fed is wrong with it.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm extremely skeptical that a congressman actually was involved with this.

 

As for the Trump supporters....etc. Fact is, most people are sick and tired of business as usual in politics. However, it's sad that so many people have taken that feeling and latched onto the candidate they have latched onto.

[Danny Bateman]

That's where I sit on that particular crowd as well BRB.

 

I totally understand feeling like status quo isn't working and wanting to be anti-establishment. But I'm nothing short of astonished that they've chosen to hitch their wagon to Donald Trump.

 

I suppose we're all settling to some degree.

[HuskerShark]

That's where I sit on that particular crowd as well BRB.

 

I totally understand feeling like status quo isn't working and wanting to be anti-establishment. But I'm nothing short of astonished that they've chosen to hitch their wagon to Donald Trump.

 

I suppose we're all settling to some degree.

 

To be fair, even if I weren't a fan of Trump... For people wanting to vote for anti-establishment candidates, Trump is the most viable candidate. Sanders is also anti-establishment, but is also a self-proclaimed socialist. Sorry, but socialism is thievery, and his policies would be the final nail in the coffin of what was once the greatest country on the planet.

[Danny Bateman]

 

That's where I sit on that particular crowd as well BRB.

 

I totally understand feeling like status quo isn't working and wanting to be anti-establishment. But I'm nothing short of astonished that they've chosen to hitch their wagon to Donald Trump.

 

I suppose we're all settling to some degree.

 

To be fair, even if I weren't a fan of Trump... For people wanting to vote for anti-establishment candidates, Trump is the most viable candidate. Sanders is also anti-establishment, but is also a self-proclaimed socialist. Sorry, but socialism is thievery, and his policies would be the final nail in the coffin of what was once the greatest country on the planet.

 

 

I felt like Sanders' platform, while it appeals strongly to his base, who view it as common sense, would've been somewhat damning in the general.

 

Americans don't want to hear you're going to raise their taxes. Period. Regardless how altruistic the justification.

 

If you can successfully paint the person who wants to raise your taxes as a socialist, I can't imagine that going over well in a general election. Bernie's proposing more tax increases than any candidate in my lifetime.

 

I think that would've been a much more interesting match-up than Clinton vs. Trump, though.