Reading list recommendations for Eugene on the corruption of politics

next year's US pres election is put on hold due to:

love,

  On 12/21/2011 at 8:17 PM, Murveman said:

  On 12/21/2011 at 7:28 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Everyone seems to be comfortable with the "lesser of two evils" paradigm, which conversely means you need to be comfortable with the fact that every successive choice between two evils gets worse and worse. Give an inch, and they take a mile.

 

If everyone needs to be in the pocket of big business to become electable, then most of American voters aren't represented in government, so why even vote? Its like giving the boss a bonus for taking yours away.

I completely agree and have been very depressed by that second paragraph for a couple of years now.

 

Just curious, who do you think you'll vote for or do you think you'll vote at all? I don't think I can force myself to vote for Obama this time, and the republicans are all too conservative for me. I'm waiting to see who the Green Party elects, but it's hard to get excited about voting for a party who cannot win.

I am definitely going to vote. Even if the vote is "meaningless" in a direct sense, it shouldn't be. It still has figurative value; I was told I was born in a nation where people exercise their voice democratically, and one of the best ways to do that is to vote. While voting for governors or senators or presidents might in a sense be completely rigged, voting is not rigged on the local level. I have been out campaigning in recent history, not for certain delegates, but against delegates (Democratic, Republican, and Independent alike), to make my neighbors and fellow citizens/ voters to remember what they are pissed about and that they CAN have control over how their county is being managed. You would be amazed at how significant that can be on a local level. Since I have been politically active, I was a small but important part of a local movement that helped topple one of the most corrupt politicians in our counties' recent history, and the candidate that replaced him knows we aren't to be fucked about.

Voting and democracy doesn't mean anything because you are willing to believe it means nothing. Democracy fundamentally requires activism and relentless aggression against those who act against the will of the people...the founding fathers and plenty other post-Enlightenment figures constantly stated this....this tenet and fear of debauchery and apathy that spilled out into public politics during the Early Republic era were Adams and Jefferson's nightmares made reality. But it doesn't have to stay that way, and indeed it didn't.

The creation of the Populist party in the 1880s and the Progressive Movements in the 1880s-1920s were taking over the minds of an American public that saw all of the benefits of the Industrial Revolution go to the monopolists, and all of the worst machinations unloaded on them. These movements became so significant that American political scientists, bureaucrats, and militarists had to create an entirely new and incredibly advanced propaganda structure because they were that shit-scared that Americans were in open criticism and rebellion against what they saw as a completely corrupted democratic system.

As a result of these movements, labor unions were created and gained significant power against industrial titans, the poor agrarian workers had increased representation, broke up railroad, steel, telecommunications and arms monopolies, wages significantly increased (with the federally mandated minimum wage being established during the New Deal), exposed and ameliorated subhuman labor conditions in the meat, steel and textile industries, ended child labor, the Sheppard Towner Act, universal women's suffrage, the creation of an educated middle class, the creation of a university system that rivaled some of the best European schools at the time, and much, much more.

The best election result the Populists ever gained was 1 million votes in 1892, only a seventh of what the President-elect garnered. Woodrow Wilson was re-elected on a wave of positive Progressive reforms and a promise to allow women's suffrage...yet he turned face and ignored them for the rest of his term.

Does this mean that these movements, or their voters, or their act of voting was insignificant, devoid of value? That's complete bullshit and is the unhealthy view of modern apathetic Americans that not only needs to die a horrible and fiery death, but that people unwavering in this position should be treated with disdain and as one of the main thrusts and explanations as to why we are in our current socioeconomic constraints.

Voting does mean something, even if it doesn't mean the election of your candidate. Get out and fucking say something....you want the Tea Party or brainwashed idiots on both sides of the aisle speak for you because there is more of them and they have more money?

  On 12/21/2011 at 9:35 PM, Benedict Cumberbatch said:

  On 12/21/2011 at 9:21 PM, Joseph said:

If only half the intelligence, money, effort, and time were spent in a truly democratic process solving real problems, and not being thrown away in these fucking elections. It really dumbfounds me and I haven't met someone who can answer this question. it's simple!

 

maybe if it was a question....

answered above.

  On 12/21/2011 at 9:38 PM, Joseph said:

Answer the question of why we do this instead of that yet call ourselves democrats

'why' is pretty fucking obvious if you've ever compared party mediaspin and wedge issue lip service with administration-to-administration political reality and looked at the persistence of power structures in this country. You don't know fuckall about power or world history if you think there's an easy solution.

Let me illustrate:

News media: gayabortionsocialism

You: Oh noes! I better vote for x

The State: trollface

  On 12/21/2011 at 11:27 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 12/21/2011 at 8:17 PM, Murveman said:

  On 12/21/2011 at 7:28 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Voting does mean something, even if it doesn't mean the election of your candidate. Get out and fucking say something....you want the Tea Party or brainwashed idiots on both sides of the aisle speak for you because there is more of them and they have more money?

Good point, nice read, *jots it down*. I suppose I'll be proud to vote 3rd party then, and look at it a tad less negatively.

It just bums me out that the party I want to win will not win. We are indeed stuck in a two-party system, where 3rd parties are unable to take part in debates because they can't get enough of the vote.

How am I supposed to go out and say something though? I don't know where to start.

_

I don't think he's great for the country but I have to say it is refreshing as hell to see someone interesting (who actually gives a shit and isn't just a celebrity like Palin) making his presence felt in US politics again.

  On 12/22/2011 at 12:39 AM, sweepstakes said:

I don't think he's great for the country but I have to say it is refreshing as hell to see someone interesting (who actually gives a shit and isn't just a celebrity like Palin) making his presence felt in US politics again.

Yeah, I don't agree with him on some points, but it seems pretty clear that he actually cares about stuff & that's sorta refreshing.

Also that he seems like he has spent time thinking about topics instead of just memorizing focus group refined bullet point answers.

  On 12/22/2011 at 12:27 AM, Awepittance said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8EwKLAuSyw

 

Cenk makes some good points, some good bill clips in here

 

i know using the term 'shadow government' will discredit me in some people's eyes, but i think this video and ron paul downplaying is a great example of them coming out of the shadows a little too obviously. The last time i felt this way about the invisble hand becoming visible was when every credit card company , big bank, amazon and paypal all collectively tried to stop Wikleaks from receiving donations

 

usually this behind the scenes element has excluded people from the race by simply phasing them out of the debates, this time around they didnt do it. Kucinich and Gravel were quietly phased out of the 2008 presidential debates, i guess it's too late now for them to do the same to Paul

its not even a "shadow"; it most cases its blatantly obvious...but not in some ultimately nefarious reason like taking over the world....there is a simpler explanation. money.

no sane big-business man wants a candidate who would cut or end the military-industrial complex would sit by and not exercise or abuse their powers/flex their muscles to get him out of the race.

it's shadow in the sense that we don't see the innerworkings of it, we just know the theory behind it as you say money or a combination of money and influence.

i want to actually be a fly on the wall during these In the Loop / Thick of It style meetings when the people with the money decided collectively 'ok time to shut ron paul down, the experiment is over'

Obviously ron paul isn't actually going to get the republican ticket, even if currently he is the single most popular out of all of them. All the bachmann, perry, gingrich supporters etc. are going to switch their vote to romney once they realize the ron paul shitstorm is coming.

Anyways, people get so fucking depressed and upset over this shit it really isn't such a big deal. We still have it pretty well off here in the USA and that is not going to change any time soon. It might get a little worse economy wise but we have our fingers in so many pies there is little that can happen to actually fuck us over, besides an asteroid. We are not that fucking corrupt that everything is going to go to shit internally. China can't take us out, thats a load of bullshit, china needs us for their own wellbeing. Russia is a joke. and we have a crazy fucking military and intelligence for all the petty terrorist/nuclear threats that supposedly are springing up in the middle east. We've got lots of support in europe too.

plus the president is pretty much NOT that big of a deal anyways. Checks and balances yo.

why the FUCK is michelle bachman polling at 8%?!?!?!??

WHAT IS THIS I DONT EVEN

MURICA

i was just thinking, even if paul won all the caucuses and won the primary, the Republican party can still reject him as the Republican candidate...its well within party rules IIRC....they did it to Roosevelt.

  On 12/22/2011 at 4:56 AM, Bubba69 said:

Anyways, people get so fucking depressed and upset over this shit it really isn't such a big deal. We still have it pretty well off here in the USA and that is not going to change any time soon. It might get a little worse economy wise but we have our fingers in so many pies there is little that can happen to actually fuck us over, besides an asteroid. We are not that fucking corrupt that everything is going to go to shit internally..

This is a slippery slope. Our welfare (not the program, the state of being) and civil rights are being eroded one grain of sand at a time. Our democracy is already a farce, the electoral college is a joke - my vote for president has never counted, and unless I move to florida, california, or maybe ohio it never will. And congress has oh, around a 10% public approval rating right now, so one would think that roughly the same % of incumbents will be reelected in 2012, right?

The decisions driving this country are made by banks and big business whose only allegiance is to capitalist principles, and the common man has no recourse. Yes, we are that corrupt.

  On 12/22/2011 at 3:04 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

  On 12/22/2011 at 4:56 AM, Bubba69 said:

Anyways, people get so fucking depressed and upset over this shit it really isn't such a big deal. We still have it pretty well off here in the USA and that is not going to change any time soon. It might get a little worse economy wise but we have our fingers in so many pies there is little that can happen to actually fuck us over, besides an asteroid. We are not that fucking corrupt that everything is going to go to shit internally..

 

This is a slippery slope. Our welfare (not the program, the state of being) and civil rights are being eroded one grain of sand at a time. Our democracy is already a farce, the electoral college is a joke - my vote for president has never counted, and unless I move to florida, california, or maybe ohio it never will. And congress has oh, around a 10% public approval rating right now, so one would think that roughly the same % of incumbents will be reelected in 2012, right?

 

The decisions driving this country are made by banks and big business whose only allegiance is to capitalist principles, and the common man has no recourse. Yes, we are that corrupt.

this must be the most popular argument among the demoralized neo-hippies in recent time, and i've been too lazy to read up something serious about this. so what's the essential tl;dr on the topic ?

- The batshit insane amounts of money spent on campaigns and lobbying

- The erosion of the middle class to the point where the distribution of wealth in America mirrors that of most 3rd world countries

- An entire party dedicated to maintaining the status quo and vehemently opposed to any substantive tax reforms (on corporations or the rich)

- An ineffectual opposition party that claims to have the people's best interest in mind yet is equally bought and paid for

Do we not have the right to complain because we make 30k a year?

Can we complain when we make 20k?

10k?

5,000 US dollars a year?

money does not=quality of life or a healthy democracy.

  On 12/22/2011 at 3:56 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

- The batshit insane amounts of money spent on campaigns and lobbying

 

- The erosion of the middle class to the point where the distribution of wealth in America mirrors that of most 3rd world countries

 

- An entire party dedicated to maintaining the status quo and vehemently opposed to any substantive tax reforms (on corporations or the rich)

 

- An ineffectual opposition party that claims to have the people's best interest in mind yet is equally bought and paid for

that's not what i meant by "tldr on the topic", this is just more opinions based on experience/reading//impressions/whatever. i wanted some deeper analysis of the influence of money on politicians, the description of the process..there must be something.

disclaimer: no reading suggestion by awepittance, kcinsu, azatoth, delete.., impotentwhitecapitalist, yikes, ET will be accepted.

(im not in a troll-mode, i'm genuinely interested in this, it's important)

  On 12/22/2011 at 4:12 PM, eugene said:

  On 12/22/2011 at 3:56 PM, Bob Dobalina said:

- The batshit insane amounts of money spent on campaigns and lobbying

 

- The erosion of the middle class to the point where the distribution of wealth in America mirrors that of most 3rd world countries

 

- An entire party dedicated to maintaining the status quo and vehemently opposed to any substantive tax reforms (on corporations or the rich)

 

- An ineffectual opposition party that claims to have the people's best interest in mind yet is equally bought and paid for

 

that's not what i meant by "tldr on the topic", this is just more opinions based on experience/reading//impressions/whatever. i wanted some deeper analysis of the influence of money on politicians, the description of the process..there must be something.

 

disclaimer: no reading suggestion by awepittance, kcinsu, azatoth, delete.., impotentwhitecapitalist, yikes, ET will be accepted.

 

(im not in a troll-mode, i'm genuinely interested in this, it's important)

lol don't bother. you are hopeless. your disclaimer is more than enough evidence of that.

i consider the people in the disclaimer a bit too heavy on the batshit delusional side, their critical thinking is very limited in scope.

i didn't include you or chengod for example..

well you are in troll mode, so i dont think people anyone is going to take you very seriously

Eugune, occasionally when i'll un-ignore one of your insightful posts i get a chuckle. This time it just seems to carry over an immature resentment towards me and others who poke holes in your israel fantasy.

If we could hand you all of the information you wanted all nicely wrapped and digestible we would, unfortunately a lot of it requires you to learn on your own. A good place to start to see just how heavily politics is influenced by money is this website - http://www.theyrule.net/

but in the end Eugune, just please stop fucking up my threads, thanks and have a nice life

i think i made a serious enough request that was following the logic of the thread while making a humorous jab, using it to push aside the request is kinda lame. i see influence of the corporation as a very complex issue which on watmm is extremely simplified, bob's post is an example of a phenomena, not an exception. i can temporary take you out my list of people i don't take seriously if you're willing to play, though it wasn't your argument..

so, what actions of current administration can be described as heavily influenced by corporate interest (rather than peoples' interest) ? what can you bring to back this up?

  On 12/22/2011 at 4:12 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

money does not=quality of life or a healthy democracy.

Disagree, especially now that corporations are people. The right to complain isn't the only factor of a healthy democracy.

  On 12/22/2011 at 7:35 PM, Awepittance said:

well you are in troll mode, so i dont think people anyone is going to take you very seriously

 

Eugune, occasionally when i'll un-ignore one of your insightful posts i get a chuckle. This time it just seems to carry over an immature resentment towards me and others who poke holes in your israel fantasy.

 

If we could hand you all of the information you wanted all nicely wrapped and digestible we would, unfortunately a lot of it requires you to learn on your own. A good place to start to see just how heavily politics is influenced by money is this website - http://www.theyrule.net/

 

 

but in the end Eugune, just please stop fucking up my threads, thanks and have a nice life

didn't notice the edit, but no, a site with a domain name "they rule" won't cut it for me at this stage, you go back to the list.

delete's into this whole "they" control the world though, he might like it.

  On 12/21/2011 at 2:28 AM, Kcinsu said:

I'm fairly sure that if Ron Paul became president, he'd be assassinated.

For those of you who actually believe this nonsense, it's time to grow up. You live in a confused, hippie extremist bubble. I don't doubt there would be a possibility of an attempt on his life (as there have been for most presidents), but to make a statement like this puts you in the same lazy-thinking category as free republic neo-con tea partiers who actively pray to the Lord for Obama's death.