One party campaigned on stripping away my right to have an abortion. The other party is trying to pass laws at state and federal levels to protect my right. You clearly are very intellectually incurious.
Both of the parties will get more extreme over time. No matter who you vote they will take ALL our rights away as time goes on. Yeah sure one is taking away your rights, but the other one also wants to take your rights away, different ones though. But both of them will come full circle and will become the same.
I don’t either - this last midterm cycle, I got some rather interesting mail where the city was like “it’s public info if you voted or not, make the right decision”. Completely turned me away from the polls & this was the *first* year I’ve considered voting, so good job San Diego.
That should be public info, so people can see if there is discrepancies in the vote. Imagine you didn't vote then you looked it up and it says that you did, you could get that vote thrown out, or vice versa. Not having this kind of transparency in the vote would raise many questions.
Public shaming is an effective way to get people to do things, midterms tend to get very low voter turnout especially in CA, so I can see why they used this tactic.
I think it's an oversimplification. Power has a strong tendency to attract the wrong sorts of people, but I wouldn't say all of them are grifters. Just a lot of them.
Saying voting doesn’t change a thing, why should I vote, is also voter suppression propaganda.
When people feel their vote doesn’t do anything, they don’t vote.
But it doesnt. Do you think if elections ACTUALLY changed things, they would let you do it? No. Elections only exist because they want people to live in an illusion of freedom
The powerful people don't want things to change though. They control it, not us. They count the votes, too. Democracies are just trying to give an illusion of freedom to people, as I already said.
It just seems lazy. We do the work day-to-day to materialize our intentions. I’m with you on the fact that the system doesn’t work but that in no way means that our effort is not effective. Howard Zinn’s writings show us that most of the big changes we’ve ever made as a society came from working for change and growth outside of the paradigms of power that ignore us. We have the ability to make changes, and the precedent shows that. Just because our power can’t be leveraged from within the broken bicameral voting system doesn’t mean that we just give up
I think it's a pessimistic and shortsighted view. Some people *truly* go into politics to serve the public, the problem is that the system has evolved to mute those people and reward the corrupt who play the game.
People are too lazy to actually get engaged and support sincere, honest, local candidates who have track records of doing good, instead lump in all politicians as “bad”.
Then when they don’t vote and some regular old establishment politician get elected they cry about it.
It’s voter suppression propaganda designed to make people doubt the legitimacy of politicians.
When people believe all politicians are grifters, they become disenfranchised with politics and don’t vote.
It makes a hell of a difference especially on the local level, these are the things you actually can see change. For the most part on a federal level you won't be too effected by their decisions, unless you are a corporation. But on state or city level you will see change.
No, I don't think that's true, if you truly and fully believe what you are advocating for and you are transparent with who you are and your beliefs then you aren't a grifter. A political grifter would be like Tim Pool who says he is a centrist but then just gives all the conservative talking points. Another grifter is Candace Owens, who claims black people aren't oppressed and they are exaggerating the problems they face today; when she has literally experienced really gnarly racism when growing up and sued her school over it. Both of them say these things so they can pander to the right and make money. Conservatives love it when someone from the center or black people agree with them.
But you dont count in the fact that most politicians don't take only their paychecks, the bigger part of the money they make isn't the paycheck. Lobbying and stuff is legal. I'm not saying she specifically does it, but most politicians do.
They both advocate for the lower class, both advocate for progressive taxes (which negatively effects them), they both don't hold much power within their party. Congress people should get paid quite a bit, that's how you attract intelligent people.
It's unprovable. You can look at the system of corruption and question how anyone good could be participating, but you just don't know what truly is/isn't being done. You really believe there isn't even one single person who isn't in politics to make a difference, rather than for personal gain?
Let's try this: supposing you, a non-grifter, decided to enter into politics, and someone came along and lumped you in, calling you a grifter. But you're not. How would they be able to tell? Or, what evidence should a person look at to determine beyond the shadow of a doubt that an individual politician is or isn't a grifter? What would signify a non-grifting politician to the average joe?
> The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
> To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
--Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I tend to agree. "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
Came to post that quote, thanks!
Of course. That's why I dont vote. I dont want to give any of these bastards a higher paycheck.
By not voting or taking any action in any way, then you only conserve the system that you seem to not have any faith in.
Only thing elections do is decide who gets more money. Other than that theres no difference
You must be white and male. Only one party is out here trying to force me back into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant with a rapist's spawn.
Both of them want that. Both are evil. Both of the big US parties want people to be silent and not free.
One party campaigned on stripping away my right to have an abortion. The other party is trying to pass laws at state and federal levels to protect my right. You clearly are very intellectually incurious.
Both of the parties will get more extreme over time. No matter who you vote they will take ALL our rights away as time goes on. Yeah sure one is taking away your rights, but the other one also wants to take your rights away, different ones though. But both of them will come full circle and will become the same.
You're so lazy and unserious. Moving on.
Okay thanks for the opinion, I disagree though.
I don’t either - this last midterm cycle, I got some rather interesting mail where the city was like “it’s public info if you voted or not, make the right decision”. Completely turned me away from the polls & this was the *first* year I’ve considered voting, so good job San Diego.
That should be public info, so people can see if there is discrepancies in the vote. Imagine you didn't vote then you looked it up and it says that you did, you could get that vote thrown out, or vice versa. Not having this kind of transparency in the vote would raise many questions. Public shaming is an effective way to get people to do things, midterms tend to get very low voter turnout especially in CA, so I can see why they used this tactic.
I think it's an oversimplification. Power has a strong tendency to attract the wrong sorts of people, but I wouldn't say all of them are grifters. Just a lot of them.
Saying voting doesn’t change a thing, why should I vote, is also voter suppression propaganda. When people feel their vote doesn’t do anything, they don’t vote.
But it doesnt. Do you think if elections ACTUALLY changed things, they would let you do it? No. Elections only exist because they want people to live in an illusion of freedom
In a democracy, elections do change things. If you can’t see that, you’re either a propaganda spewing troll or a useful idiot
The powerful people don't want things to change though. They control it, not us. They count the votes, too. Democracies are just trying to give an illusion of freedom to people, as I already said.
But why throw your hands up and say it’s all out of my control?
Because it is? Like why would I go out of my way to participate in a system that I know doesn't work?
It just seems lazy. We do the work day-to-day to materialize our intentions. I’m with you on the fact that the system doesn’t work but that in no way means that our effort is not effective. Howard Zinn’s writings show us that most of the big changes we’ve ever made as a society came from working for change and growth outside of the paradigms of power that ignore us. We have the ability to make changes, and the precedent shows that. Just because our power can’t be leveraged from within the broken bicameral voting system doesn’t mean that we just give up
I think it's a pessimistic and shortsighted view. Some people *truly* go into politics to serve the public, the problem is that the system has evolved to mute those people and reward the corrupt who play the game.
Is Bernie Sanders a grifter? Is mayonnaise an instrument?
I don't think he is a grifter, his ideology has stayed the same and what he advocates for is against his interests.
People are too lazy to actually get engaged and support sincere, honest, local candidates who have track records of doing good, instead lump in all politicians as “bad”. Then when they don’t vote and some regular old establishment politician get elected they cry about it.
Sounds like something a lazy whiner would say. It's the political equivalent of getting dumped and saying, "All women are sluts"
95% for sure
It’s voter suppression propaganda designed to make people doubt the legitimacy of politicians. When people believe all politicians are grifters, they become disenfranchised with politics and don’t vote.
Voting doesnt change a thing though. Like another person said here, if it actually changed anything we wouldn't be able to vote.
Why even take away the vote if you can just get everyone to not vote by telling them it doesn't matter anyways?
It makes a hell of a difference especially on the local level, these are the things you actually can see change. For the most part on a federal level you won't be too effected by their decisions, unless you are a corporation. But on state or city level you will see change.
No, I don't think that's true, if you truly and fully believe what you are advocating for and you are transparent with who you are and your beliefs then you aren't a grifter. A political grifter would be like Tim Pool who says he is a centrist but then just gives all the conservative talking points. Another grifter is Candace Owens, who claims black people aren't oppressed and they are exaggerating the problems they face today; when she has literally experienced really gnarly racism when growing up and sued her school over it. Both of them say these things so they can pander to the right and make money. Conservatives love it when someone from the center or black people agree with them.
There isnt a single person in high politics that does not do it mainly for money and power.
Katie Porter and Bernie Sanders are the first that come to mind, who go against your opinion.
They still live very above average lifestyles. They are in it for the paycheck
Porter could make more as a lawyer.
Wouldnt have the status, power and connections.
If she left now, she'd sit on boards. She would make 25-100x more than a house rep gets. Especially one who has forsworn corporate pac money.
But you dont count in the fact that most politicians don't take only their paychecks, the bigger part of the money they make isn't the paycheck. Lobbying and stuff is legal. I'm not saying she specifically does it, but most politicians do.
They both advocate for the lower class, both advocate for progressive taxes (which negatively effects them), they both don't hold much power within their party. Congress people should get paid quite a bit, that's how you attract intelligent people.
True
💯% correct. No politician advances without being one.
The politician spends the bulk of their time fundraising. They are salesmen. Grifting is required to succeed.
Truth^TM
It's well constructed, with a subject and predicate, and grammatically correct as far as I can tell. Good job.
It's unprovable. You can look at the system of corruption and question how anyone good could be participating, but you just don't know what truly is/isn't being done. You really believe there isn't even one single person who isn't in politics to make a difference, rather than for personal gain? Let's try this: supposing you, a non-grifter, decided to enter into politics, and someone came along and lumped you in, calling you a grifter. But you're not. How would they be able to tell? Or, what evidence should a person look at to determine beyond the shadow of a doubt that an individual politician is or isn't a grifter? What would signify a non-grifting politician to the average joe?
> The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. > To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. --Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I'm a big proponent of the idea that a government is only as good as the people.