Your conclusion is wrong, in that I didn’t say they’re fake, I said that they serve as a way for different mega wealthy people to take turns at serving their own interests. Which may be a synonym or not, depending on your perspective.
But I did imply that non-plutocrats have zero sway in elections, because of how the system is stacked for the two parties because of many different aspects, but one of the obvious ones is just how much money you need to run a successful campaign.
Are you arguing my point for me? Indeed, Sanders is exceptional, truly one of a kind - I’m not being sarcastic here, he really is a remarkable person.
But how many times did he get to run for president? Zero. Both times he was shut down. In any normal country, I have no doubts he would have been president.
What conclusions you decide to take are up to you, don’t make that my responsibility. You can take it lying down if that’s what you prefer, we tend to go out and make a bit of a mess around here.
It’s not about the elections it’s about who gets the support and opportunity and resources to win elections.
A footrace can be executed completely fairly and transparently but if you need to buy special expensive shoes to participate and you receive them at someone else’s discretion and you need to join one of two private clubs to get an invitation and the leaders and members of those clubs also apply discretion then a lot of unfair choices and decisions are being made before the starter pistol goes off.
conspiracy theories about elections are hardly democratic
I’d hardly call it a conspiracy theory that both the Democrats and Republicans serve the wealthy.
“sharing power” implies that non-plutocrats are not involved in the decision, i.e. implying elections are fake
deleted by creator
yeah you weren’t going to vote either way
deleted by creator
Your conclusion is wrong, in that I didn’t say they’re fake, I said that they serve as a way for different mega wealthy people to take turns at serving their own interests. Which may be a synonym or not, depending on your perspective.
But I did imply that non-plutocrats have zero sway in elections, because of how the system is stacked for the two parties because of many different aspects, but one of the obvious ones is just how much money you need to run a successful campaign.
I didn’t know Bernie Sanders was a plutocrat. Just because one race is inaccessible from the working class doesn’t mean all elections are rigged.
Learned helplessness.
Are you arguing my point for me? Indeed, Sanders is exceptional, truly one of a kind - I’m not being sarcastic here, he really is a remarkable person.
But how many times did he get to run for president? Zero. Both times he was shut down. In any normal country, I have no doubts he would have been president.
What conclusions you decide to take are up to you, don’t make that my responsibility. You can take it lying down if that’s what you prefer, we tend to go out and make a bit of a mess around here.
It’s not about the elections it’s about who gets the support and opportunity and resources to win elections.
A footrace can be executed completely fairly and transparently but if you need to buy special expensive shoes to participate and you receive them at someone else’s discretion and you need to join one of two private clubs to get an invitation and the leaders and members of those clubs also apply discretion then a lot of unfair choices and decisions are being made before the starter pistol goes off.
What part of it is theory? Citizens United was the final confirmation that made it legal and ever since it’s done in broad daylight.