Which presidential candidate will you vote for?

not american but did it anyway and came out 86% for jill stein, with obama 2nd on 74%

Am I imagining things or has the Dems moved right on issues as the GOP has moved even further right to accommodate the batshit insane tea party contingent that has spread like a cancer? And why are around 50% of the population still voting for the GOP when their policies are going to fuck them over? Is the American Dream narrative still so strong that most of the middle-class still think they can become millionaires and therefor vote GOP so they have it all cozy and nice when they join the wealthy?

its nauseating to think about how many people vote for the dem or the rep candidates every 4 years. after the (phony)2008 banking crisis a lot more people were made aware of just how powerful the banks are within the government. hell, they are the government, just look at obama's cabinet. almost all of them are big time high up banksters(mostly goldman sachs) and lobbyist like tim gietner. obama campaigns every day about needing to fix the economy and corrupt banking after he give the bankers trillions of dollars and jobs like secretary of treasurry. same deal with republicans. this is common knowledge to anyone who barely pays attention to politics yet people still shuffle into the voting booths to pick red or blue. MADNESS. still want to vote though, need to decide soon. not a ron paul supporter but even he would be better these nascar candidates.

Nope sorry. I stopped drinking the Paul koolaid long ago, and you should consider doing the same. Foreign policy is about the only thing that man has going for him.

The US is a plutocracy, no doubt about it. It really doesn't matter who is in the WH or running congress. They are all in the pocket of big finance and other corporate interests.

  On 8/22/2012 at 2:39 PM, azatoth said:

The US is a plutocracy, no doubt about it. It really doesn't matter who is in the WH or running congress. They are all in the pocket of big finance and other corporate interests.

[citation needed]

Just look at the money that is used to get elected, do you think these huge donations are given with no strings attached? Even moreso with the superPACs that can give unlimited money. And look at the money used for lobbying by the big industries.

i can tell you that "strings" is a very complicated topic as i did study a bit of "gift economy" and a very difficult thing to prove/disprove. lobbying = "act of attempting to convince public officials to favor a certain cause or take a certain action", same, a very fluid and complicated process.

where's the hard proof for government being in the pocket of corporations ? sure those are exploitable (how? when? at what conditions?) but those statements of yours are closer to blobfish than to proof of "no doubt that government is in the pocket of corps".

i wonder if the rising population of hipsters will equate to more third party voters.

This seems to say that lobbying is a good investments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-outsized-returns-from-lobbying/2011/10/10/gIQADSNEaL_blog.html

And politics in the US is a rich men's game if you look at the net worth of the representatives

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/congress-members-worth/index.html

Basically money talks in US politics, the definition of a plutocracy.

well it's only natural that lobbying will be effective, they spend resources to persuade people..does it necessarily go against the people's interests that some particular contracts go to some particular firm ? does it mean that it's automatic ? i.e, pay money>> buy politician ? it seems that you kinda want to say "bribery !" but there's no evidence for that so you're picking at possible pitfalls of that super important institution.

the second article is a non issue. rich people = capable and successful people. everyone wants successful and capable people at the helm.

(i realize my arguments are pretty simplistic and weak but they are enough to counter that early blop of yours that i'm sure you don't even believe in it seriously.)

People need to realize that Obama is actually considerably better than Bush, in verifiable, objective ways. There is no question about it. I admit that I've made statements such as "they're all the same" and so on.

I have to admit that these statements were ignorant and childish. There is more to it than that.

Obama is a good candidate, and is working to change things. Politics are complicated, very complicated. The 1% vs 99% thing is really a very simple way of viewing the dynamics.

let's challenge you then ! why do you think show that verifiable info that proves that obama is better than bush..or more importantly than romney ?

I stand by my earlier assertion that moneyed interests have a disproportionate amount of pull in US politics. They're spending billions on lobbying each year, I doubt they would do that if they didn't get results. And look at the revolving door between Wall Street and the administration and the fact that not a single-one of the CEO's causing the crash in 2008 have been indicted. You are telling me that my assertion that money speaks in US politics is far-fetched. Please. I know you like to be the contrarian around here and have a stick up your ass when it comes to criticisms against capitalism, but c'mon.

And you can't seriously say that the wealthy who are in power are there simply because they are more capable. Perhaps some of them are those mythical "self-made men" but how many are there just because they happened to be born into money and had all the privilege in the world and had their connections and money. Everyone wanting successful and capable people at the helm sure explains the Bush Jr. years.

there's nothing essentially wrong with spending on lobbying and i don't understand its bad name, it's a good mechanism (ideally) that allows influence in between elections, and i really don't know what's disproportionate when talking about usa. i'm not sure there's a consensus on who caused the crash, i mean sure there's "inside job" with its interviews with hookers and stereotypically greedy wall street people, but to me it looks more like an institutional failure rather than corruption.

money speaks everywhere, it's not what i was coming against. it's those stoner-college-dropout-reveleation like remarks like yours and delete's that get me all the time, even awepittance kinda snapped out of it with time...

im contrarian against everything, but if you've been paying attention you'd notice that i'm much closer to socialist ideals.

yes i do believe that most politicians are extremely capable and talented people..who might have their own beliefs and methods about different issues, but still, there are no stupid people at such posts. w as stupid..just smug generalizations.

IMO, there IS something wrong with lobbying, especially to the extent that it occurs in the US (which the main issue, let me say - it's not about lobbying existing in general, that's too difficult to stop. I would simply like to see lobbying power greatly reduced.).

It's paying individual politicians directly if they will pander to certain interests. That is the definition of "money talks." Whoever has more money is able to more easily influence politicians, who influence legislation, which is written in the interests of the lobbies. The short version goes cash --> law. And not just one law; 'quid pro quo' can easily create lasting political debts. Once I pay someone $1,500,000 to help my industry succeed, it wouldn't be too hard to blackmail them in the future with the 'you took a dirty deal, you owe me' lines. I have no evidence that happens in government, but it certainly happens in other debt-filled arenas, and a quid pro quo system isn't illegal (some even say it's necessary), so it seems reasonable to think that the act of taking under-the-table cash from private interests can kinda sorta screw up an individual's political agenda for a long time.

Congressmen can legally do insider trading

That attracts individuals who see "working for the people" = $$$ yo

  On 8/22/2012 at 9:04 PM, eugene said:

there's nothing essentially wrong with spending on lobbying and i don't understand its bad name, it's a good mechanism (ideally) that allows influence in between elections, and i really don't know what's disproportionate when talking about usa. i'm not sure there's a consensus on who caused the crash, i mean sure there's "inside job" with its interviews with hookers and stereotypically greedy wall street people, but to me it looks more like an institutional failure rather than corruption.

Hmm, I'm not sure how 'institutional failure' is that different from 'corruption' in this case. The people who designed the institutions knew that it was failing, knew that it was risky, that it would not end well, and they kept up the same deregulations of their investment firms, investing money they didn't have in shit that they didn't believe in. Maybe the institution failed by letting them do this, but it was the bankers and politicians that OK'd the system, abused it, and then asked for a get out of jail free card (and got it). These people are still controlling the money. The institutions failed because of corruption.

my understanding of institutional failure vs corruption is that within the former people are sure they're doing nothing wrong but it still crumbles in the end, corruption is knowingly doing something immoral/illegal. could be good ol' "both" too, institution that's very susceptible to corruption. i don't think that the people who designed the system wanted it to fail/knew it would, that's just too tinfoil..it was a long process towards ruin. anyway i don't think i'm able to continue on this topic tbh, i really don't know enough about it.

IMO, the lobbying itself is not the problem. It's politicians taking money from lobbyists or other special interests that's the problem. Lobbying in itself is not much more than having a certain position on a certain policy heard by those who make the policies. In that sense there shouldn't be a big difference between the Greenpeace lobby, or the Goldman Sachs lobby. Good politics needs a healthy dose of lobby, I'd say. Lobbying is not the same as "buying votes" or "buying policy".

Does anyone know of a country where lobbying is illegal? Or what that might look like?

don't think so, but it depends on your definition of lobbying though. sending a single email to a politician regarding some cause can be easily considered lobbying.

Yes, it's a broad word. I was thinking of paid lobbying (business with lobbyists for hire, that advance the concerns of whoever buys their skills).

  On 8/22/2012 at 7:38 PM, vamos scorcho said:

People need to realize that Obama is actually considerably better than Bush, in verifiable, objective ways. There is no question about it. I admit that I've made statements such as "they're all the same" and so on.

 

I have to admit that these statements were ignorant and childish. There is more to it than that.

 

Obama is a good candidate, and is working to change things. Politics are complicated, very complicated. The 1% vs 99% thing is really a very simple way of viewing the dynamics.

he's also worse in objective, verifiable ways. I didn't see Bush order the outright assassination of a U.S. citizen without trialoh yeah and his son too

I see what you mean, that Obama is a better choice than Romney. That still doesn't mean I'm voting for either of them.