Something everyone on both sides of the political spectrum actually agrees with. Except of course, those in power who consistently enrich themselves based on the above.


Might agree with it doesn’t necessarily mean they’d do anything about until outted


Because they all abuse it. Name me a long time politician that isn't a millionaire.


The question there though is, are they millionaires because they're politicians or they are politicians because they're millionaires? We need some mechanism of financially supporting people running for office. Right now we're skewed towards millionaires in office because millionaires have the financial stability needed to take a year off work to run a campaign. And they can self fund the initial set up of their political campaign.


Fun fact: Japan actually does this to a degree. All campaigning on TV is done during specific slots provided by the various channels. A candidate got in trouble a few years ago because he put his political ads on YouTube, where they could be watched at any time.




We are not an example of anything good lol


Unless it's combing gravy and cheese with french fries


It’s not that simple. It’s a special kind of cheese.


It comes bagged in blocks like some sort of Canadian cheese ice cubes. Which is exactly how I would expect it to come.


That sounds like a heart attack waiting to happen. What’s it called and where’s a good place to get it?


Poutine, Québec.


That does sound like it might taste good


Huh? Why not?


You’re good at obeying pedestrian traffic signals. That’s something!!


You charge like $10 for insulin not $600


Unfortunately, laws like citizens united opened the floodgates for private money in campaigns. Would have to deal with that first.


Apparently we're going to deal with that by voting in Republicans in November.


Seems to me the mechanism would be to remove all paid avenues to office (i.e. assholes who have enough money to run) and move to a mandatory term of service with ridiculously extreme penalties for accepting bribes.


Penalties that include mandatory prison time in a non country club prison


Fuck yes


It’s just dumb that we vote _anybody_ in who aren’t from the working class.


When they *are* from the working class, they get belittled for it.


Probably because if you come up through irregular means, you werent vetted, groomed, selected, and beholden to the guys who maintain the status quo. This *is* a democracy so it *is* possible to run your own campaign and get elected to office, it’s just a pretty freakin steep hill to climb and the top is already full of guys with jetpacks - you either make a deal with them when you finally drag yourself up or they will try hard to kick you off Edit: for an easy to see example, consider how desperate for Trump’s endorsements 90% of the gop is. They brag about it when they get it, they pander for it until they do, and *that’s* just what *we* see! No one is taking payouts from trump at this stage, more that he is making sure in no uncertain terms that they will follow him unquestioningly if push comes to shove, again.




We don’t even get the chance to vote for anyone that we the people would actually choose. We’re left with two options every election, that are essentially who the party picked for us, to decide between. Fuck boomers screaming “Ageism”. We need all politicians over a certain age, out of office. They’re out of touch with reality.


Policy? Here in America the only thing that matters is the little letter next to the name.


*Local politicians: Am I a joke to you?*


Those politicians are millionaires because they are funded by billionaires who give them money to do their bidding.


They also tend to have other wealthy friends and acquainces. Modern US elections are heavily skewed towards the person who is the best fund raiser, regardless of political ability


It’s actually best to think of politicians in the US as professional actors. You don’t make it to the top without selling your soul a thousand times. Same reason the GOP is fine with all the kid diddling: they have something to hold over you, so you’re controllable.


even the billionaires don’t “self-fund”


Not self-funding the whole campaign, self funding that initial period between you announcing to people that you're running and you actually start getting campaign donations.


I'm too lazy to google rn but I think I read that in the UK there's a limit on how on the budget allowed for ones political campaign.


> Name me a long time politician that isn't a millionaire politicians are paid quite well by default. Even a politician who never did anything wrong (and isnt blowing all their money) would eventually be a millionaire. I think the number of high profile politicians who dont abuse the system is within the single digits. I dont disagree with you. I just think your argument is rather... flimsy.


There is also a chicken and egg factor. Poor people rarely get into politics because it costs *so* much and pays next to nothing, sometimes literally nothing at the local level. Look at your local city/town council…what are their day jobs? How much are they worth. How old are they? Odds are you will see a lot of *retired* doctors and lawyers and business owners. They are the ones who can afford to give up massive amounts of their time to comparing and serve with next to no compensation until you get to the state level. Connections also matter, and rich people are better connected with financing opportunities than poor people.


Not Amercian, but a quick wiki search shows the salary of a member of congress is $174k/yr?


I mean they make a lowish 6 figure salary. That's not "you will be a millionaire" type money. It surely can be after decades if you play your cards right. But I mean these guys even after a few years suddenly just get a huge spike in net worth.


It's easier to turn it into a million when most of your expenses are paid for.


Well and that's the big thing. Free healthcare? Check. All sorts of free perks from "donors" looking for influence? Check. Most of them even when they leave office get some high paid lobbying job after too.


And they do not contribute to social security, they get free health care for life, even if serving only one term. My dad used to say “Senator is the one job you can go into middle class, work a few years, and walk out a millionaire.” Add a dash of dark campaign money courtesy of Citizens United, and the latest Ted Cruz Supreme Court case, and the influence pours in from untraceable donors. And no one donates expecting nothing.


Should be illegal to profit off of a position like that. I'd like to see open source accounting. To a degree that doesn't necessarily expose one's personal life. Things like their mortgage(s), how much they spend on things like vacations not what the vacation is or where they went, and of course business dealings. Absolutely if money is being funneled to offshore accounts. This could sound dramatic or overkill but I honestly think it's at least part of a solution. Not that they would *EVER* go for it. There'd probably have to be insane amounts of protests and interruption of business chains hopefully not as to actually interrupt things like food supply or necessary services, but things like golf courses and luxury hotels.


While you guys are dipshititng about media lead talking points like trades, politicians are making bribery fully legal. Ie a politician can loan his money to his campaign and then be the first to get money back with interest and more when donations come into the canpaign. Stock trading by politicians and thereby trying to identify and make those trades transparent does shit all. At most, profit made by stock trades is in the five figures max. Meanwhile people like Nancy pelosi, who is largely brought up under this topic, got her wealth from family and owning real estate that jumped 10x in value over three decades. It’s a fucking distraction… Individual states giving 6-8 figure tax benefits to corporations is a issue we should focus on. How those corporations then in return hire family members of said politicians is something we should talk about. How a energy company is giving boatbart husband a 500k yearly salary with bonuses while barely graduating high school is something we should focus on. These trade deals, like the ones before Covid, we’re discussed by non politicians as well. It just weren’t posted on front pages of magazines and social media sites like Reddit to be discussed and now because you didn’t see it as a meme or Reddit post in your three hour window of browsing Reddit does not make it a conspiracy. Rather than forcing upon politicians stupid distractions for “lower issues”, focus on the actual real issues. And The wealthy affect at best 10% of the political landscape and it’s usually around taxation. They have gotten such good tax deals and pathways to go around tax rules without breaking them that the majority of the wealthy in the us do not store their wealth offshore anymore. They declared debts get credit based on stock portfolios and utilize that to drive taxation for themselves lower by showing loss income while their stocks go billions. They have no need for offshore accounts. Other countries with actual taxation do still use offshore accounts. Edit: fixed post autocorrects


I get nervous every time they trot out Roe v. Wade. "Look over here, everybody!" "They're coming to take our reproductive rights" is starting to sound a lot like, "They're coming to take our guns!"


Except they've passed major legislation in states vs abortion and won't even concede background checks without screaming about radical socialism. Your version of reality seems a bit scrambled.


I feel like you’ve got stuff to say but this just reads like rambling quarter-thoughts. No clue what your big point is other than politicians are worse than everybody thinks.


Their point is that this is a blatant both sides distraction story that's gotten more run on Reddit than anything else this year despite being a relative non-issue, because most people have been so dumbed down they can't see the blatant both sides propaganda despite it being straight out of every fascists' playbook the last 100+ years. It's understandably successful, especially after spending a few decades undermining public education. I would argue it was actually a bigger issue two years ago with Trump pumping stocks on national TV, Republicans selling stocks then underming covid, Loeffler, etc, but it's a bigger news story now because the Democrats are in charge and most people in life are terribly poor at thinking. This post which Reddit upvotes daily has more posts than the school shooting. It's stunning how unaware most of you are, this is blatant both sides distraction propaganda that the conservatives will stop upvoting when their party takes the Senate in November.


Bernie Sanders maybe?


He's a millionaire. One thing to remember is that being a millionaire isn't some crazy amount of wealth for someone at retirement age. You shouldn't conflate someone who has two million dollars with someone who has 100 or 10000 times that amount. 1 million dollars is 6 years of a senator's salary.


I agree, I do wonder about his wealth compared to other US (long time) politicians


He is a millionaire. He is worth roughly 2 million.


Worth millions doesn’t necessarily equal have millions


I said they are millionaires, not that they have millions in a bank account. But point stands that people with that kind of net worth don't live a lifestyle that resembles anything close to that of the average American. Shit they get free healthcare for life too. That alone is one of the most hypocritical things I've seen in my life.


He is only a millionaire because of his book and that he doesn’t live lavishly. In fact, he is famously shown as not spending much while campaigning.


No, he's a millionaire.


If anyone has been making congress-level salary for the past 30 years and isn't a millionaire they're doing something very, very wrong.


Show me one law legislators passed to restrict their own powers


Right? Shameless. "Servant of the people" my ass. Politics these days and really for most of all time is just a power grab unless specifically made not to be so by the people. Passing laws to ensure they don't lose said power too. Jailing people in some cases if they try to be independent. How much protest and through what means would it take..? And I don't mean June 6th type crud but meaningful


Wanna know something super fucked up? It was recently found that the more a company lobbied members of congress, the more that congress members trading that companies stocks. They also found that the companies that lobbied congress the most resulted in congress members investing in those stocks and getting the best returns over all of any trades they made. It's so fucked up. Congress is de facto made up of elitist kleptocrats. And the sad thing is, at this point, elitist kleptocrats or corporate plutocrats is the best we can get, because the other option is psychopathic fascists.


In other countries, when someone gives a politician lots of money to help them get something they want, thats called bribery and thats corruption. kept telling my friend that the US is one-of-the-most corrupted countries in the world, because the above is considered 'speech'. and its legal. but words have power, and the words 'its legal' keeps things nice and clean in the eyes of most people.


Freakonomics did an interesting episode on corruption


Don't they also vote on their own pay raises?


I believe they technically can only vote on pay raises for the next session of Congress because of the 27th Amendment


"We don't make the laws to protect you from us. We make the laws to protect *us* from *you*."


I dunno I’m pretty sure with a little work and facebook memes the dumb rubes on the right can be easily convinced that politicians manipulating stocks is a good thing. Just blame trans people or something. “Ben Shapiro OWNS transgender woke Feminists by explaining how the Mexicans want to limit our freedom by further controlling the stock market” or some shit. Boom. Trending on Youtube and now Billy Bob no teeth from bumbfuck Oklahoma is pro insider trading.


Tucker Carlson's spin on it "Apparently people don't want YOU to voice your opinion to congress. That's right, people want lobbying to be illegalized. Who would think this? Well no one of course other than the radical left. More on that later. Anyway, here's a high speed police chase"


I work in politics and can confirm that Shapiro talking point would probably be effective lol


I think that's the goal, tho. Get one side to blame the other, while we all get screwed.


The right would want politicians to trade stock as they'd like but to be banned from regulating businesses.


How dare you! -*Nancy Pelosi*


Let's just start with having our politicians believing in democracy first, then we can worry about the details. Righ nowt we have an entire party trying to impose an authoritarian right-wing fascist state on the rest of us.


Although I definitely agree with insider trading being illegal, I don't think politicians owning stock is universally a bad thing. The most pervasive issue in American politics right now is that there is no incentive for politicians to make the lives of Americans better - they are only incentivized to get reelected and to raise money for their party. At points in history you only got reelected if you did good things for the country but that is no longer the case. If a politician was spending their time and energy backing bills that would be beneficial for certain companies while owning significant stakes in those companies, it should be clear to voters and that person should lose their position. If they own broad market stocks and pass bills to help everyday Americans which helps customer spending which helps companies - incentives all align and they get reelected. This tweet is just a take that encourages division and apathy without a meaningful solution. If politicians can't own stocks tomorrow, is anyone's life going to improve? Is the system going to get better? I'm not seeing it. I will bang the drum continually that the only way to turn the focus back on policy and accountability for that policy is more choices of candidates. With a FPTP and single representative system we will never see improvements to the system. We need to incentivize politicians getting things done instead of the status quo of incentivizing doing nothing except fundraising.


or even handing personal stocks over to a neutral party like a trust to manage while in government. It's still not a perfect solution (cause you know the "neutral party" probably wont be) but still head and shoulders over the current system.


They'll ban insider trading when they find a new way to legally accept bribes.


There are already laws against it, they just aren't enforced and the laws themselves may be poorly written. But I actually think this whole topic is a red herring meant to distract from real reform aimed at systemic corruption, like reforming lobbying and getting rid of these sweet deals lawmakers carve out for themselves with industry. We need to get money out of elections. We need to do a lot, and banning stock trading is basically on the bottom of the list when it comes to corruption in Congress. Yet it seems to take up a lot of people's attention.


Until citizen united gets overturned good luck changing the system


“Laws” The “law” is that Congressional insider trading can only be investigated by Congress and the punishment comes from Congress. That’s not a law. That’s a house rule for Monopoly.


You mean lobbying and Super PACs?


There are already SO many ways. Book sales, speaking fees, private sector lobbying jobs after they’re out of office.


Redditor discovers the revolving door lmao


Ted Cruz has already done that with his SC case. Write your campaign a million dollar loan. After your campaign get donations to your campaign that will be paid out directly to you to recoup your loan. Easy bribe.


There are already SO many ways. Book sales, speaking fees, private sector lobbying jobs after they’re out of office.


They'll just make it a violation of free speech to forbid PACs from buying stocks.


WRONG! Athletes should be able to change the rules and make the calls. There should be only two teams that take turns winning, and you root for the team you hate least.


Sounds like the NBA when it was just Lebron vs the Warriors for a few years


Jockeys can bet on others races. Owners and trainers can bet on any horse.


Ahhh horse racing. The one incorruptible sport with a spotless history of ethics.


Is this an NBA hate post or a congress hate post?


I went with the latter, interpreting teams as dems/reps.


I was taking a shot at the NBA :)


I feel like athletes and coaches should be allowed to bet on their own team though. Pete Rose got banned from baseball for it, but it seems a bit harsh since it's not like he was throwing games. He was betting on his own team.


Americans are one of the few countries that has an either-or system. It’s almost like the average intelligence of the electorate doesn’t have the ability to compute more than a binary choice, and they somehow manage to fuck that up too.


This seems like a failure of checks and balances in my opinion, since the law banning it has to be passed to be affected entity. Is there a way the executive or judicial branch could be leveraged to implement this change? Or maybe a nationwide popular vote akin to “propositions” voted on in states like California?




The discussion here is not over insider trading. Politicians that hold financial stake in companies are no longer unbiased and are likely to vote in such a way that benefits their investments.


Boxers (and MMA fighters) may bet on themselves. They are generally restricted to straight bets to win (not lose!), and no props like *"by knockout"* or *"after the nth round."* https://shortboxing.com/why-boxers-can-bet-on-themselves-but-not-against-themselves/


There's a real logic to this that I like. Betting on yourself to win isn't a conflict of interest since they'd be trying to win anyway.


You like it till you realize that his bookie recognizes every fight he doesn’t bet on himself for and changes odds. It’s what was the major issue with Pete Rose


It’s an assumption of risk and impropriety. If you end up losing beyond your means, it’s possible shady bookies can force you to manipulate the games or matches you are playing as repayment


Its a conflict if they collude. The long shot bets on himself to win, and the sure thing throws the fight and they split the winnings.


Yeah this is how it should be for all sports. Let them bet on themselves winning and restrict it to only that.


No, it shouldn't be like this. Betting in any capacity by the competitor can be abused and lead to match fixing and other fuckery. If I'm allowed to bet on myself, I could make a huge bet on myself to win and cut a deal with my opponent for them to throw the match and we split the profit, especially if I was the underdog. As another example, a bookie could note when I don't bet on myself and change their odds around that. Betting should be banned full stop by people who compete or have a stake in the event or it inevitably erodes the competitive integrity of game.


Until you get collusion, where one team asks the other to let them win for their bets, and they will return the favour next game.


Why don’t most sports allow players to bet on themselves winning anonymously? I can see why allowing it publicly could influence the odds, if people think they’ll try harder now or something. But I see no conflict of interest or anything if Tiger Woods makes an anonymous account on a sports betting website and bets on himself to win.


In individual sports, like golf, I'm with you. Pete Rose famously says he only bet on himself to win, but there's no telling how many relievers he burned or what happened with his bullpen rotation if he was losing a game he bet heavily. Did games become more important than a series? This is true to a lesser extent with players in a league. Do you go all out on Friday night and then suck it up on Saturday because you bet on yourself in the middle of a season? Do you throw a pass instead of just going into halftime because you have yourself to win by 6? Pete Rose had more incluence as a manager than he did as a coach, but in a TEAM sport, you start putting your bets ahead of the theam.


Also, this serves a double awesome purpose that it would stop rich assholes who have no sense of american reality from running for things and making decisions with zero concept of what things cost and how people struggle. WIN


You mean like the people who decide what kind of healthcare the American people get while not being subject to that same healthcare?


And pay! Let's see how fast minimum wage changes when they make $7.25/hour or whatever miserable number it is.


Poor Pete Rose


Pete Rose was/is an asshole and a habitual liar. Every time I see a comment with empathy for the guy, I just want to remind people that he *accepted* his lifetime ban in return for MLB not pursuing him any further. Also just in case anyone wants to bring up the fact that he bet on his team to win—doesn’t mean he still didn’t alter the course of other games to give him a better chance at winning in the games he bet on. For example: possibly not using an effective pitcher in one game because he needed him to be fresh for one he bet on. In this instance, he sacrifices his chance at winning one game for another because one game has money on the line. There are numerous scenarios where he can alter lineups or whatever to give him the odds on the games he *did* bet on.


Btw this is not the important reason. Suppose you only bet on your team to win and only put your teams chances first. An addict still may lose beyond his means, and then seek out less above board bookies to continue betting. If he continues to lose and cannot pay, how will those bookies get a return on their money? Why did they take his bets in the first place? Once he is beholden to them, THEN they can force him to manipulate games for their own benefit. That’s why you can’t have athletes gambling on sports. Maybe it’s becoming a bit less important now with mainstream online legal gambling but that’s the biggest reason for the prohibition on gambling in the days of Rose and the black Sox. The game can never have a suspicion of being fixed.


Bookies don’t/didn’t run with gambling addicted athletes. The reason Pete was an issue was because he was analytical with his win only bets. He didn’t put less effort into the games he didn’t predict a win, but his bookie would receive some inside info and could manipulate the betting line. It is less complex and more complex than you believe


He deserved the ban, but doesn't deserve to be out of the HOF. Amazing playing career that should be recognized.


But politicians are honest, and they only look out for their constituents. /s


Yes. The rich ones. Sadly, no /s


They shouldn't have "donors" either


The single most straightforward way to improve politics in America is to completely remove corporate/super wealthy money from politics. Only allow contributions from living, breathing people and cap that at $2-5K per year per candidate. This is a nation created by and for We the People, not corporations. I don't have anything in particular against corporation. Many people derive their income from corporations and they bring a lot of good to society. But they are NOT people and they, by design, cannot be held accountable in the same way that people are held accountable. Law makers should be elected by the people, not the corporations. Further, make ALL lobbying from corporations to law makers be through documents and/or videos that become publicly accessible. No backroom deals. No fancy "fact finding" junkets.


so I totally agree with your sentiment here....but just so you know, in the US, a corporation is a legal person.


I think they know that Citizens United established that. Even if the majority of people disagree with its message. Super based take and will carve this into a cave after the revolution


It's not just legislating. They are privy to information before the public is. It's entirely unfair and immoral to have them be able to trade stocks outside of blind trusts.




A law many have been caught breaking but we've yet to see any actually investigated and held accountable.


Take it a step further. They're not allowed to own multiple properties, large financial assets. They basically shouldn't be allowed to earn outside of being a politician. I'm sure there are cases I haven't thought of but they should be the exception not the standaard/rule. You want to do this job (for the people I might add), then fucking do this job


Can no one use this in court?


At my last job I worked in IT for a company that is in the college sports ticketing and marketing business. I had 0 interactions with teams, players, or anything that could possibly influence the outcome of a game, but I and every other employee from the CEO to the janitors was barred from betting on college sports.


Also why lobbying is absolutely horrible.


Not just trading stock, accepting donations from corporations period.


Seems a bit obvious really. It’s like the phrase “conflict of interest” just doesn’t matter or apply.


Surely you're not suggesting that we hold our leaders to the same standard as a professional athlete ? That's crazy talk!


It is also why they should be prohibited from taking bribes, or I mean, donations from companies they possibly will legislate over. Or any company at all They were not elected to represent companies. They were elected to represent their constituents.


This is definitely a great perspective


I wish we spent more time on bipartisan topics like this.


Not that it needs an analogy. It’s exactly as wrong as it sounds.


If athletes made their own rules like politicians do then that law probably wouldn't exist.


MMA fighters can bet on themselves. Not against themselves to lose, but they can bet for a win. Basically the only good thing for them from being contractors


They should be banned from lobby money too but our whole political system is basically bought by corporations


OBJ better on himself for the Super Bowl but everyone didn’t say anything about it...


Ba Ba Ba BINGO!!!!!


Can an athlete at least bet that they will win?


Ask Pete Rose


It shouldn’t even be a career for them set term limits and imply a jury duty type system


And why corporations shouldn’t be able to donate to and lobby politicians


I've been saying this for the better part of two decades. It's also insane that they vote on their own raises.


I watch shows like House of Cards or Ozark and think ti myself, it can’t be that corrupt in real life can it? …. Can it?


Doesn't exactly need an analogy, it's not a hard concept


The thing is… athletes didn’t just decide they can’t gamble. Those rules are set from up top. To stop politicians from owning stock those same politicians would need to vote against their self interest. Just not going to happen. Only way it happens is with public pressure but I don’t think people really care. I haven’t seen many protests about insider trading. Just not a sexy policy position.


This should be obvious to everyone


If you argue against this, you are part of the problem.


“Rules for thee, not for me.”


Unfortunate that legislators are the only ones that could make that legislation


I been saying it and I'll continue: END CORPORATE LOBBYING


Same shit issues like term limits. Nothing will be done until the evil ones are purged from government...


Or receiving any money from lobbyist


Elected officials should have their assets frozen for life upon being elected. Provide them a monthly stipend equal to the median income of their district and hold them to similar rules as people on disability so they can't accumulate wealth.


Term limits and cessation of ALL personal trading while serving in office.


Can't stop at politicians. No good stopping them and their wife and children buy all the stocks instead. Need to ban donors and anyone involved with lobbying. Otherwise it's just 2 steps instead of 1 for corruption.


Nobody disagrees with this and yet it's still not a law. So much for representation.


Tell Nancy pelosi


I was on the board of a non-profit. At the time, I was the VP and we needed a new vehicle. Since part of my responsibilities were overseeing internal matters, I set the requirements for the vehicle, tasked the manager under me with the research and the process. Also at the time, I was working in a local car dealer. To avoid the very obvious conflict of interest, I recused myself from all discussion and research concerning this issue. Why there aren't legitimate consequences for this behavior in politics and public life is incredibly frustrating. There should not be access to the people who need to remain impartial. They, and their immediate family members, should not be allowed to control investments or businesses. How to get that implemented when the people who we need to vote it into existence would have to take away the biggest incentive to enter public service is beyond me.


Definitely the kind of wisdom we expect from u/suckontits


Nancy Pelosi does not endorse this message.


And many of her colleagues on both sides of the aisle


Yeah most people in government are scum and their power should be limited as much as possible


Yep, nobody cares.


I’m beginning to think capitalism and democracy are not a good combination….. so which one are we going to get rid of?


Well we've already gotten rid of democracy...


corruption isn't unique to capitalism




Meanwhile people who claim to support the resolution will deny methods to get there by claiming ‘both sides are the same’ or announcing how they won’t vote, even in this years midterms (THAT NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT) because they choose not to see a difference in a lesser of two evils.


Hey /u/suckontits, This is now the top post on reddit. It will be recorded at /r/topofreddit with all the other top posts.


It ain't rocket science


Good thing you elected Trump and he drained the swamp. What's that? He made it worse?


I don't think that's an analogy. I think it's the same fucking thing.


Exactly! Agree 110%, also lets force term limits, higher education, some sort of intelligence testing and equivalent business acumen requirements. Basically so ppl like Maxine Waters, cory bush etc cant get in and muck it all up.


Every normal human has to take some responsibility for what he does, politicians many with obviously total failure, but even then… immunity.


Why do we even vote anymore. If everyone overwhelmingly agrees there all bad then everyone should just stop going to the polls


Conservatives love voting, the mentality that we should all just throw in the towel is part of the problem


That was meant for conservatives as well, but I see your point


This is such a bad take... Trying to convince people not to vote is very hard to see as not malicious IMO. Who is punished by your protest besides people who agree with you? We have seen that Cambridge Analytica went online to try and make "don't vote" cool in certain communities, and is able to use that to alter election outcomes. They wouldn't exist if voting was not worth doing.


I'm not trying to convince people to not vote. I'm simply asking if voting never solves the problem then why do it. Also I meant for voters of all political sects.


It's just not a constructive way to think about it. You're basically saying you feel disillusioned, which I totally get. The problem is that it kind of gives you a toxic mindset - "if a problem exists in our country, then voting doesn't work." There will always be problems. Progress is slow and boring, and change takes a lot of time. It's frustrating, but if you give up (and care about issues like this) then the people who want this will win. You may just be speaking about any political party, and that's fine, but your message is going to hit people who don't want a corrupt government. Portraying it as a lost cause is self-fulfilling imo. Regardless of what YOUR intention is, any time someone is telling you not to vote, we should be extremely skeptical of them - and that's why I replied to you. For all I know, you are malicious, but now people will think about whether your "don't vote" idea makes sense rather than just joining in the disillusion party and that's good enough for me. IMO, there is not a good argument not to vote - it's either bad faith or a reactionary protest that exacerbates the problems that are making you feel disillusioned in the first place.


I get you but defeatism isn’t going to work.


Instead of "athletes", I read "atheists". You would not believe how deeply confused I was.




Ok elaborate then. It's a damn good analogy to me.




This applies to a lot of other things




At this point, though, it’s not going to change. The deck is stacked.


I could not agree more!


Also, fuck lobbying.


They should also be prevented from administering their own elections. I am looking at you Kemp!


Yes, but college sports…


We should tell the people who make laws about this so they can do something.