My Vote Doesn't Matter

[Royal Frankia]

Allowing states to nullify laws they don;t like means the federal government has no real power.

What do you propose we go back to giving rural areas more representation than their population allows? How is that far or democratic?

Should we

"Rural areas more representation"
At the very least, to nullify laws from the state capital that ruin the people living there. Whether that impacts the Senate or the House is another matter. DC is far from the areas impacted by State policies, look at California.

"Consent of Congress"
They'll vote to admit Russia into NATO before that happens. Both Dems and the GOP share the opinion of the Old Guard on State borders.

"Has no real power "
10th amendment, the federal government has usurped powers of the States and made the lives of their citizens poorer compared to what might happen. There is already nullification going on as we speak. It a state can nullify immigration or drug laws, why can't it nullify decisions that do not appeal to its electorate? Has Congress consented to what Michigan or sanctuary cities have done?

Empires are expensive, and arms are preferred to Healthcare. The quality of life has gone down and money is being debased for the sake of banks and war. People aren't joining the military to defend a system that doesn't work.

I

[San Lumen]

Allowing states to nullify laws they don;t like means the federal government has no real power.

What do you propose we go back to giving rural areas more representation than their population allows? How is that far or democratic?

Should we

"Rural areas more representation"
At the very least, to nullify laws from the state capital that ruin the people living there. Whether that impacts the Senate or the House is another matter. DC is far from the areas impacted by State policies, look at California.

"Consent of Congress"
They'll vote to admit Russia into NATO before that happens. Both Dems and the GOP share the opinion of the Old Guard on State borders.

"Has no real power "
10th amendment, the federal government has usurped powers of the States and made the lives of their citizens poorer compared to what might happen. There is already nullification going on as we speak. It a state can nullify immigration or drug laws, why can't it nullify decisions that do not appeal to its electorate? Has Congress consented to what Michigan or sanctuary cities have done?

Empires are expensive, and arms are preferred to Healthcare. The quality of life has gone down and money is being debased for the sake of banks and war. People aren't joining the military to defend a system that doesn't work.

I

You said you don’t like that NYC or coastal California has the majority of seats in the state legislature are imposing their will as you say. I think it’s a fair question to ask if you want to go back to an unfair system of giving rural areas more representation. You dodged the answer to the question by giving a question. You also didn’t answer if you thought requiring a candidate for statewide office to win the popular vote and a majority of counties or state legislative districts was fair?

Allowing rural areas to nullify laws they don’t like is moronic. Lassen County is part of California. They don’t get to declare themselves an independent entity that doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the state government.

Your effectively saying if your county doesn’t vote for the party in power they can say we don’t recognize it’s legitimacy.

By this logic does a Republican household in Albany( New York), Chicago or San Francisco get to declare themselves independent and say I hereby nullify laws passed by my city council or state government?

[Alcala-Cordel]

I was saying that no companies should be able to donate, but honestly yes.


That's because the constitution was written by backward elitists. I don't really care what it says.

Not really, especially when they make concessions for said money.



That's been my point this entire time, yes.

That would violate the first amendment. Either everyone can donate or no one can. You can’t ignore the constitution because you find it inconvenient or don’t like who wrote it.

Companies cannot donate directly to campaigns. Why shouldn’t groups like NARAL and Sierra be allowed to donate?

Companies can donate indirectly to campaigns. Allowing special interest groups to donate removes accountability.

The founding fathers are now elitists?

The founding fathers were always elitists. We've had this discussion before.

Were they sexist and racist too because they didn’t allow people of color or women to vote?

They were extremely sexist and racist.

sex·ism

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

rac·ism

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

It’s incredibly snobbish and absurd on your part to make the argument that everyone above small town mayor is an elitist.

Call it what you want, you haven't really made any credible counterarguments to it.

You called my friend one and said he must be rich because he has a full time job while running for office. You know nothing about him or how campaigns work. The candidate isn’t expected to campaign seven days a week or conduct all voters. That’s why you have a staff.

I'm as poli-sci major who took a course in lobbying. I know plenty about campaigns.

Good luck hiring a staff without a significant amount of money.

[San Lumen]

That would violate the first amendment. Either everyone can donate or no one can. You can’t ignore the constitution because you find it inconvenient or don’t like who wrote it.

Companies cannot donate directly to campaigns. Why shouldn’t groups like NARAL and Sierra be allowed to donate?

Companies can donate indirectly to campaigns. Allowing special interest groups to donate removes accountability.

The founding fathers are now elitists?

The founding fathers were always elitists. We've had this discussion before.

Were they sexist and racist too because they didn’t allow people of color or women to vote?

They were extremely sexist and racist.

sex·ism

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

rac·ism

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

the belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.

It’s incredibly snobbish and absurd on your part to make the argument that everyone above small town mayor is an elitist.

Call it what you want, you haven't really made any credible counterarguments to it.

You called my friend one and said he must be rich because he has a full time job while running for office. You know nothing about him or how campaigns work. The candidate isn’t expected to campaign seven days a week or conduct all voters. That’s why you have a staff.

I'm as poli-sci major who took a course in lobbying. I know plenty about campaigns.

Good luck hiring a staff without a significant amount of money.

So pro choice and environmental groups should no longer be allowed to donate to campaigns? Only individual donations should be allowed?

You’re effectively calling anyone from 1789 to about 1870 a racist and sexist. The idea of women voting in 1789 was something no one was even thinking about.

Unless you’re running for president or statewide office the staff isn’t very big. I have actually worked in campaigns. Know how you get people to donate? You get your name out there. There are even organizations that can help you raise money.

[Betoni]

Oh, so the mysterious them, who think everyone else is a mindless slave put in power by voters who supposedly prove that assertion wrong by putting these horrible people in power, and you think this is a good argument to get other people involved in this strange ritual?

I don't really see much difference between voting for donald duck and not voting. All it really tells the would be politicians fishing for votes is that you don't have to work that hard to get these people to vote for you as opposed to those ones that didn't even bother to go voting. I don't know if that is a good thing or not. I would question if spoiling a ballot is anymore effective than not voting. Politicians don't care about non voters until some other politician manages to get them voting. Or until large enough percentage of eligible voters decide not to vote making the mandate questionable and thus shaking the whole system. That being the point of not voting. Though, mostly I suspect the most likely reason not to vote is apathy and just not being bothered enough.

The mysterious 'them' are politicians, who are fundamentally human beings like you and I. Just operating on a set of circumstances that promote certain behaviours- like egotistical ones. Some of them absolutely adopt views or act in ways that suggest it once they have attained office. Power corrupts, and all that jazz. More than one starry-eyed idealist has been elected only to become jaded sleaze-bags after a few years in the office. Voting out such individuals proves that path a foolish one, and provides a cautionary tale for the next candidate.
But of course, there's always the choice to help promoting that behaviour by not punishing them at the ballot box. Not showing up a great way to do that.

The difference between the vote for donald duck and not showing up is that donald duck is now a data point relevant to the political parties. People who watch the vote counts will see it (and they talk), the number of spoilt ballots is recorded (and it is watched closely), choice selections end up in the press for all to see. You're then going on to reinforce my argument for me- yes, people could be not voting due to apathy. We can't know 100%, there are too many possibilities with that. But spoilt ballots? There are just a small handful of stories with those, and all of them are direct reasons for politicians to care.

And a large enough percentage of spoiled ballots is absolutely a wake-up call; like for example in 2012 the British Police and Crime Commissioner election saw a record percentage of spoiled ballots, which was interpreted as a part of public rejection of the concept. It prompted article after article, debates in parliament, and a reform of the concept right out the gate. The catch? Less than 5% of ballots cast had been spoiled. A 5% of the votes had been the centre of attention in British politics for weeks- meanwhile low turnouts never generate as much interest.

You don't think that voter turnout is a data point? Or that voter turnout is talked about after literally every election? Suppose a large enough percentage of people don't vote. Think that could be a wake-up call? Could that perhaps be interpreted as a part of the public rejecting the concept? Now, sure there is a difference in spoiling a ballot and not voting, but you still haven't shown how spoiling the ballot is any more of a data point to the political parties than not voting. What else does it indicate other than the willingness to go out and participate even if you consider all the candidates worthless? And how is that a better data point for the sake of the individual voter?

That 2012 British police and crime commissioner election was, as per wikipedia, was "marked by very low turnouts, between 10 and 20%, and numbers of spoilt votes (somewhat higher than other elections under the same voting system),[8][9] sparking a debate about their legitimacy and organisation." So the claim about the spoiled ballots being the main, or only, reason for the articles, debates and reforms seems a little dishonest.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Companies can donate indirectly to campaigns. Allowing special interest groups to donate removes accountability.

The founding fathers were always elitists. We've had this discussion before.
They were extremely sexist and racist.

Call it what you want, you haven't really made any credible counterarguments to it.

I'm as poli-sci major who took a course in lobbying. I know plenty about campaigns.

Good luck hiring a staff without a significant amount of money.

So pro choice and environmental groups should no longer be allowed to donate to campaigns? Only individual donations should be allowed?

That's right.

You’re effectively calling anyone from 1789 to about 1870 a racist and sexist. The idea of women voting in 1789 was something no one was even thinking about.

That's because the vast majority of voters were racist and sexist.

Unless you’re running for president or statewide office the staff isn’t very big. I have actually worked in campaigns. Know how you get people to donate? You get your name out there. There are even organizations that can help you raise money.

Hiring people very expensive even if the staff "isn't big".

[San Lumen]

So pro choice and environmental groups should no longer be allowed to donate to campaigns? Only individual donations should be allowed?

That's right.

You’re effectively calling anyone from 1789 to about 1870 a racist and sexist. The idea of women voting in 1789 was something no one was even thinking about.

That's because the vast majority of voters were racist and sexist.

Unless you’re running for president or statewide office the staff isn’t very big. I have actually worked in campaigns. Know how you get people to donate? You get your name out there. There are even organizations that can help you raise money.

Hiring people very expensive even if the staff "isn't big".

You cannot do that. It would violate the first amendment.

Wow so we we've gone from the founding fathers were racist and sexist to the vast majority of voters were. Do you hear yourself?

And you make this pronouncement based on what evidence? I already told you there are organizations out that can help you raise money.

[Outer Sparta]

Companies can donate indirectly to campaigns. Allowing special interest groups to donate removes accountability.

The founding fathers were always elitists. We've had this discussion before.
They were extremely sexist and racist.

Call it what you want, you haven't really made any credible counterarguments to it.

I'm as poli-sci major who took a course in lobbying. I know plenty about campaigns.

Good luck hiring a staff without a significant amount of money.

So pro choice and environmental groups should no longer be allowed to donate to campaigns? Only individual donations should be allowed?

You’re effectively calling anyone from 1789 to about 1870 a racist and sexist. The idea of women voting in 1789 was something no one was even thinking about.

Unless you’re running for president or statewide office the staff isn’t very big. I have actually worked in campaigns. Know how you get people to donate? You get your name out there. There are even organizations that can help you raise money.

How the fuck do pro-choice and environmental groups have as much impact as that of massive special interest groups like the MIC (Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems, General Dynamics), Big Pharma (Pfizer, Merck, Janssen, Eli Lily, Gilead), Big Oil (ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, BP, Chevron), Big Tech (Google/Alphabet, Meta, Apple, Microsoft), Big Telecom and Media (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, Deutsche Telekom, Disney, NewsCorp), not to mention the US Chamber of Commerce having a huge war chest to support all of these pro-business endeavors. Those small groups have 0.000001% of the influence compared to those aforementioned corporate special interest groups. How else is the MIC able to get Congress to blow $45+ billion on weapons to Ukraine (along with countless trillions financing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and an annual $800 billion defense budget), Big Pharma shooting down any healthcare reform efforts such as universal healthcare and cheaper drug prices, Big Oil preventing any sort of meaningful climate legislation, Big Tech consolidating into monopolies, selling our data, and breaching our privacy, and Big Telecom and Media preventing any effort to regulate their predatory consumer practices and they're the ones that control 90% of our media.

As long as these groups exist and continue to permeate Congress and bribe all of our representatives (and offering them cushy lobbyist or board member jobs after they retire), there won't be much done for the people. There's a reason why people don't feel they have a say (Princeton affirms it with studies on US democracy: https://prepareforchange.net/2019/12/13 ... long-gone/) and voting doesn't work. You're simply replacing a corrupt politician with another corrupt politician. If you want to change the system? Good luck with that. Either the party machine will primary you out of your seat or the special interest groups flood your opponent with so much funding that you'll simply get pushed out. This type of shit is called corruption in third-world Global South countries. Over here, we rebrand it as "lobbying" and "free speech."

[Alcala-Cordel]

That's right.


That's because the vast majority of voters were racist and sexist.


Hiring people very expensive even if the staff "isn't big".

You cannot do that. It would violate the first amendment.

Again, I do not care what the constitution says. Stop treating it like some religious text.

Wow so we we've gone from the founding fathers were racist and sexist to the vast majority of voters were. Do you hear yourself?

It's an objective reality that there were periods of time when emancipation of slaves and ending segregation were unpopular. That's really fucking racist, and ignoring efforts for women's rights is extremely sexist.

And you make this pronouncement based on what evidence? I already told you there are organizations out that can help you raise money.

And where exactly does most of the money raised come from and how do you get these organizations to help you? Oh, that's right...

[Forever Indomitable]

I did show politics are genetic. Reread the original links I gave you because I'm on phone and can't repost them (easily) right now.

I would like to live in a world that's more interesting and with a wider variety of people, creativity, challenge and stimuli. I expect my elected officials to do nothing about it because it runs counter to their interest, as it does to the vast majorities that elect them, and people don't want to compromise on anything, regardless of what team they're on.

For example, something I would like to see is drastic prison/"justice" reform. While I'd prefer the complete abolishment of the government, police, and the prison system, I'd be happy to see a program where convicted felons just complete a bachelor's degree and are released, regardless of the offense. Education is proven to radically decrease recidivism and educating prisoners would help with creating upward mobility in the poorest demographics and help the economy. Most importantly, it helps my race and humanity because it facilitates more cognitive diversity and slightly reduces genetic domestication. More interesting and multifaceted people would be given a chance to be created through reproduction, instead of all the generic, single dimensional people we're currently stuck with. I doubt that will happen, though, because democracy, like all authorian systems, wants to domesticate and subjugate it's population for the sake of control. The developed world is still waging a Malthusian eugenic war against its populations. That's probably a big reason why conjugal visits have been virtually abolished in the US. Our rulers want sheep.

There is absolutely zero evidence its genetic. If it was explain to me how West Virginia went from a solid blue state to a ruby red one? If it was true voting patterns would never change.

You want anarchy and no law and order. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously went you write insanity like this?

Why don't you get off you butt and run for office if you think you have all the solutions?

Well, didn't the Democrat party used to be more conservative in nature, but then shifted? You can't keep claiming I have "no evidence" when I post sources explicitly stating genetics has at least a moderate influence on personality (in reality, it's more) and personality directly correlates to personal politics. Maybe you should post some evidence that disproves behavioral genetics and heritability.

There is no such thing as anarchy. There are always leaders, big and small. What I want is more decentralization of power and an end to the State monopoly on violence. I want order, but more organic order, not the excessive micromanagement society is obsessed with. This is what I want:
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=520421

I actually have considered running for office, but then I came back to reality. My ideas are so unpopular, that they are singular, as in, only I hold them. People simply wouldn't vote for me. I am much better served gaining wealth because money is power and I can affect more change with it.

[Forever Indomitable]

I did show politics are genetic. Reread the original links I gave you because I'm on phone and can't repost them (easily) right now.

I would like to live in a world that's more interesting and with a wider variety of people, creativity, challenge and stimuli. I expect my elected officials to do nothing about it because it runs counter to their interest, as it does to the vast majorities that elect them, and people don't want to compromise on anything, regardless of what team they're on.

For example, something I would like to see is drastic prison/"justice" reform. While I'd prefer the complete abolishment of the government, police, and the prison system, I'd be happy to see a program where convicted felons just complete a bachelor's degree and are released, regardless of the offense. Education is proven to radically decrease recidivism and educating prisoners would help with creating upward mobility in the poorest demographics and help the economy. Most importantly, it helps my race and humanity because it facilitates more cognitive diversity and slightly reduces genetic domestication. More interesting and multifaceted people would be given a chance to be created through reproduction, instead of all the generic, single dimensional people we're currently stuck with. I doubt that will happen, though, because democracy, like all authorian systems, wants to domesticate and subjugate it's population for the sake of control. The developed world is still waging a Malthusian eugenic war against its populations. That's probably a big reason why conjugal visits have been virtually abolished in the US. Our rulers want sheep.

Alright, I'll bite.

You have absolutely not proven that politics is genetic, and this insistence that your sources say it does even though they really don't is unbecoming.

Your first source demonstrates that children often end up voting in the same way as their parents. An important plank in your argument, no doubt, but to just declare that that means job done is a disservice. Off the top of my head, I can think of many other reasons why this would be the case; upbringing, the values the parents teach their kids, geography, membership of the same social class or ethnicity, the similarity of experiences they are likely to face, just to name a few. To prove that politics was genetic, you have to demonstrate that all of these other factors are not having a significant influence.

And then furthermore explain some vast, high profile discrepancies with the assertion such as the Brexit referendum, which saw age being the strongest predictor of how someone would vote. Demonstrably in this case, millions of britons decided to vote the opposite direction as their own children or parents- presenting a serious challenge to the notion that politics is genetic.

This notion is made further weakened then by your other source, arguing that people often prefer spouses that hold similar political opinions. OK, I agree. But that argument also doesn't prove it's genetic. Once again, I can think of many reasons off the top of my head that could also explain it, like exposure, culture, agreeability, shared experiences and political environment. And once again, I think everyone here knows someone who's married and had kids with someone of a completely different political worldview. It's a bit of a leap of logic to therefore argue that that's a reason in favour of politics being genetic.

Completely agree with you on the criminal justice reform part. Well, except with all of that mumbo-jumbo about single-dimensional people. But if you like, there is a lot of ways in which you could get involved with changing criminal justice. In fact, in the US you have a fairly unique level of influence on that realm; you get to vote on judges, sheriffs and direct ballot initiatives that all can reflect whatever view you like on criminal justice. And even huge states like Florida have voted to give felons the right to vote, so this assumption that you can't mobilise vast numbers of people to vote the right way on these issues is baloney. Put up the pressure, fight where it hurts, and it's remarkable how much you can achieve in a democracy.

I am going to gather sources and rebut this post in depth, later on. I am already short on time and will be absent from NS in the near future due to the coming hurricane.

[San Lumen]

You cannot do that. It would violate the first amendment.

Again, I do not care what the constitution says. Stop treating it like some religious text.

Wow so we we've gone from the founding fathers were racist and sexist to the vast majority of voters were. Do you hear yourself?

It's an objective reality that there were periods of time when emancipation of slaves and ending segregation were unpopular. That's really fucking racist, and ignoring efforts for women's rights is extremely sexist.

And you make this pronouncement based on what evidence? I already told you there are organizations out that can help you raise money.

And where exactly does most of the money raised come from and how do you get these organizations to help you? Oh, that's right...

You can’t ignore the constitution because you find it inconvenient.

It is ridiculous to hold historical figures and the average person of past generations to today’s standards.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Organizations like Run For Something or Emily’s list help candidates run for office.

[Outer Sparta]

Again, I do not care what the constitution says. Stop treating it like some religious text.


It's an objective reality that there were periods of time when emancipation of slaves and ending segregation were unpopular. That's really fucking racist, and ignoring efforts for women's rights is extremely sexist.


And where exactly does most of the money raised come from and how do you get these organizations to help you? Oh, that's right...

You can’t ignore the constitution because you find inconvenient.

It is ridiculous to hold historical figures and the average person of past generations to today’s standards.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Organizations like Run For Something or Emily’s list help candidates run for office.

Why do you keep on thinking such grassroots organizations have about as much say as the corporate special interest groups?

[Necroghastia]

There is absolutely zero evidence its genetic. If it was explain to me how West Virginia went from a solid blue state to a ruby red one? If it was true voting patterns would never change.

You want anarchy and no law and order. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously went you write insanity like this?

Why don't you get off you butt and run for office if you think you have all the solutions?

Well, didn't the Democrat party used to be more conservative in nature, but then shifted? You can't keep claiming I have "no evidence" when I post sources explicitly stating genetics has at least a moderate influence on personality (in reality, it's more)

And you base that on...?

and personality directly correlates to personal politics.

Not necessarily. For example, stubborn, belligerently right-wing homophobes can beget a stubborn, belligerently queer leftist. Both are stubborn and belligerent in terms of personality, but their politics couldn't be more different.

[San Lumen]

You can’t ignore the constitution because you find inconvenient.

It is ridiculous to hold historical figures and the average person of past generations to today’s standards.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Organizations like Run For Something or Emily’s list help candidates run for office.

Why do you keep on thinking such grassroots organizations have about as much say as the corporate special interest groups?

The group run for something has helped hundreds of people get elected to state and local office.

[Outer Sparta]

Why do you keep on thinking such grassroots organizations have about as much say as the corporate special interest groups?

The group run for something has helped hundreds of people get elected to state and local office.

It's just the state and local office, which is different than national politics. Grassroots groups can achieve things at that level, but the big corporate groups control national politics.

[San Lumen]

The group run for something has helped hundreds of people get elected to state and local office.

It's just the state and local office, which is different than national politics. Grassroots groups can achieve things at that level, but the big corporate groups control national politics.

People often start at the local and state level. It’s very rare to start with governor or US senator.

[El Lazaro]

and personality directly correlates to personal politics.

Not necessarily. For example, stubborn, belligerently right-wing homophobes can beget a stubborn, belligerently queer leftist. Both are stubborn and belligerent in terms of personality, but their politics couldn't be more different.

To some extent, however, openness to experience does correlate to political views and likely influences them. Since personality is partially derived from genetics (although this is a limited and complex relationship), it’s not entirely wrong. However, the main contribution of genetics in politics is probably behavioral or cultural consequences (i.e. dark skin and experiencing racism) of them rather than biological factors themselves.

[Perikuresu]

Expecting this thread to be renamed "My Vote Doesn't Matter unless I'm Italian"

(yes this is obviously a joke, I've to say this because... "reasons")

[Neutraligon]

Not necessarily. For example, stubborn, belligerently right-wing homophobes can beget a stubborn, belligerently queer leftist. Both are stubborn and belligerent in terms of personality, but their politics couldn't be more different.

To some extent, however, openness to experience does correlate to political views and likely influences them. Since personality is partially derived from genetics (although this is a limited and complex relationship), it’s not entirely wrong. However, the main contribution of genetics in politics is probably behavioral or cultural consequences (i.e. dark skin and experiencing racism) of them rather than biological factors themselves.

I think a bigger predictor is exposure, rather than genetics. How often have we heard of someone who was homophobic changing when a close family member came out as gay? How often have we seen changes in opinion when someone has moved from one part of a country to another?

[Alcala-Cordel]

Again, I do not care what the constitution says. Stop treating it like some religious text.


It's an objective reality that there were periods of time when emancipation of slaves and ending segregation were unpopular. That's really fucking racist, and ignoring efforts for women's rights is extremely sexist.


And where exactly does most of the money raised come from and how do you get these organizations to help you? Oh, that's right...

You can’t ignore the constitution because you find it inconvenient.

I absolutely can, when discussing whether not the status quo is bad.

It is ridiculous to hold historical figures and the average person of past generations to today’s standards.

This isn't "holding them to today's standards" so much as it is "applying an accurate definition to their beliefs". The definitions of racism and sexism haven't changed.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Organizations like Run For Something or Emily’s list help candidates run for office.

Run For Something specifically works with certain political ideologies. They also don't give financial support beyond some discounts.
Emily's List is also a PAC with a specific focus. Neither of them make the elections process less elitist, as candidates will still have to take corporate money to run their campaign.

[San Lumen]

You can’t ignore the constitution because you find it inconvenient.

I absolutely can, when discussing whether not the status quo is bad.

It is ridiculous to hold historical figures and the average person of past generations to today’s standards.

This isn't "holding them to today's standards" so much as it is "applying an accurate definition to their beliefs". The definitions of racism and sexism haven't changed.

I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. Organizations like Run For Something or Emily’s list help candidates run for office.

Run For Something specifically works with certain political ideologies. They also don't give financial support beyond some discounts.
Emily's List is also a PAC with a specific focus. Neither of them make the elections process less elitist, as candidates will still have to take corporate money to run their campaign.

You can think the status quo is bad but your proposal to allow only certain kinds of donations is unconstitutional.

By your standards almost everyone in the Roman Empire was a racist.

I was giving examples I know off. I am sure there are other organizations. The term elitist is being used a as buzzword at this point. You know nothing about the person I mentioned I know who is running. You like to make assumptions and generalizations.

You do not need corporate money and you are also using that term as a generalization. You want anything other than individual donations to be banned. That is unconstitutional.

[Platoon of Peace]

You can’t ignore the constitution because you find it inconvenient.

I absolutely can, when discussing whether not the status quo is bad.

You can say that the status quo is bad, but you cannot say that we should just straight up ignore that part of the constitution. It may be worth it to review letting for-profit businesses be able to lobby, however.

[Alcala-Cordel]

I absolutely can, when discussing whether not the status quo is bad.


This isn't "holding them to today's standards" so much as it is "applying an accurate definition to their beliefs". The definitions of racism and sexism haven't changed.


Run For Something specifically works with certain political ideologies. They also don't give financial support beyond some discounts.
Emily's List is also a PAC with a specific focus. Neither of them make the elections process less elitist, as candidates will still have to take corporate money to run their campaign.

You can think the status quo is bad but your proposal to allow only certain kinds of donations is unconstitutional.

The constitution is irrelevant to my argument and has no place in my ideas for the future. Freedom of speech should only be applicable to what individuals say.

By your standards almost everyone in the Roman Empire was a racist.

If something fits the definition of racism, it is racist.

I was giving examples I know off. I am sure there are other organizations.

The burden of proof is entirely on you.

The term elitist is being used a as buzzword at this point. You know nothing about the person I mentioned I know who is running. You like to make assumptions and generalizations.

I've been consistent with my idea of what elitism is. If it needs money from the elite to operate, it is elitist. If you make concessions to corporations, you are an elitist.

You do not need corporate money and you are also using that term as a generalization. You want anything other than individual donations to be banned. That is unconstitutional.

You made that argument before and could not find a single example that did not involve corporate money. And again, screw the constitution.

[San Lumen]

You can think the status quo is bad but your proposal to allow only certain kinds of donations is unconstitutional.

The constitution is irrelevant to my argument and has no place in my ideas for the future. Freedom of speech should only be applicable to what individuals say.

By your standards almost everyone in the Roman Empire was a racist.

If something fits the definition of racism, it is racist.

I was giving examples I know off. I am sure there are other organizations.

The burden of proof is entirely on you.

The term elitist is being used a as buzzword at this point. You know nothing about the person I mentioned I know who is running. You like to make assumptions and generalizations.

I've been consistent with my idea of what elitism is. If it needs money from the elite to operate, it is elitist. If you make concessions to corporations, you are an elitist.

You do not need corporate money and you are also using that term as a generalization. You want anything other than individual donations to be banned. That is unconstitutional.

You made that argument before and could not find a single example that did not involve corporate money. And again, screw the constitution.

You cannot ignore the constitution. Either everyone can donate or no one can. It is relevant when your proposing something that is violation of a freedom of speech.

So you've now gone to most people in history are racist.

You have a ridiculously broad definition of elitist. I know someone on the Baltimore city council and he isn't an elitist and he's not rich. He worked for an education organization and could very well be mayor one day.