|
|
Post by Ravensword on Aug 28, 2015 17:02:36 GMT -6
We can thank Citizens United for getting crappy politicians. I'd like to believe that the election will be against Bernie and Trump, which would make the election easier to elect someone like Bernie (but he would still have that shitheel Congress to deal w/). That's just wishful thinking on my part. It most likely will be Jeb! and Hillary that get their respective party's nomination. Luckily for me, I don't have to vote for $hillary (votiing for Jill Stein if Bernie is t the nominee) and I can do it w/o looking like a dumbass that voted for Nader in Florida back in 2000, b/c I don't live in Florida or any other battleground state. Don't be so hard on Nader supporters, Gore didn't have to pick that D.I.N.O. Lieberman to be his running mate. Admittedly, there were several things that went wrong during that clusterfuck, like hanging chads, people somehow accidentally voting for Pat Buchanan or whatever, SCOTUS canceling the recount (and in effect appointing that make believe shitkicker (Bush the Lesser is from Connecticut, and he sold his ranch about a year after he left office and moved into some rich bastard gated community), Nader voters didn't help the situation one bit. Besides, Nader voters particularly piss me off when you hear them justify their lapse in judgement by saying things like, "Oh, well, I voted w/ my conscience!" Oh, well, okay, then. Dubya became president, but I'm glad you were able to come out of the voting booth w/ your conscience still in tact. Don't get me started on that slimy, little ratfucker. That fucker won't go away, and now he's a lobbyist, which isn't surprising in the least. We can thank Citizens United for getting crappy politicians. Crappy Candidates have existed long before Citizen's United, and they'll exist long after it as well. If you want to blame someone for crappy candidates, blame american citizens not giving a shit. 30 to 50 percent voting in these elections makes the candidates cater to those 30-50% voters, instead of the majority of americans. 2008 got 63% voter turnout and that was considered near mind shattering. Throughout history there's been secret money, corporate bias, and policies made to benefit the few over the many. For Example, Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense was a man named Charles Erwin Wilson, the head of general motors who had to sell his stocks only after congress pressured him to do so. Conflict of interest? Maybe, but nobody cared then, and people only moderately care now. The truth of the matter is, if the voting public doesn't give a shit and take part in these elections, they're asking for the type of inept and corrupt politicans they love to complain about. I hate everyone in this election, and if there was a vote of no confidence option on the ballots, I'd vote for it. But, seeing as how that's not an option, I'll probably go for a third party, just because. If you're talking about impropriety within politics, that's been around for awhile, maybe even since humans began to govern each other. What makes Citizens United so particularly toxic is the huge amount of money that it unleashed onto the political landscape. Aside from the usual quid pro quo type of corruption (which is likely the case w/ Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin and Koch stooge), but when it comes to candidates running for nomination. Hillary can get the Democratic nomination not b/c she is a better candidate, but b/c she can easily outspend her opponents. As for voting, voting should be made as easy and hassle-free as possible, Election Day should be made a national holiday, and make votin mandatory for all citizens like Australia does. Obviously, it's not perfect and these solutions won't necessarily translate into better candidates being elected (Australia has compulsory voting and they ended up electing that Abbott asshat). |
|
