221–230 of 362 posts
I think rich people have too much influence, I probably agree with Garry Tan on a lot but we need to get money out of politics. Let’s face it we’re all meant to get one vote but rich people spend money on this stuff so that they manipulate what and who can be voted for. I do think that if this current system is the result of democracy + the internet we need to seriously reconsider how democracy works because it’s cur…
Study after study shows that money doesn't really effect the results of high-information elections. If it really did, Hillary Clinton would have been president twice . It's just that candidates with a ton of support tend to raise a ton of money. Low-information elections are where money seems to help. I think we can throw that on the pile of 'your democracy is only as good as your electorate', and we have an electora…
Or maybe a statement of just how much the US population is uninformed/misinformed.
If the later is true, the US 'electorate' really is dumb as dirt...
This is one of the guys that thinks we should eliminate voting because he thinks him, Thiel, Zuckerberg, Bezos all know "better" than the people.
From that angle it's a game of who has the money, power, and diatribution to enact this manipulation.
Twitter being a prime example. Is Elon "right"? Maybe but the main point is it doesn't matter as he has the distribution.
If you have money but low to no distribution -> you do what gary is doing. Maybe he'd be interested in removing rights to vote but someone like Zuck would NOT because he has outsized ability to influence as he sees fit.
I think rich people have too much influence, I probably agree with Garry Tan on a lot but we need to get money out of politics. Let’s face it we’re all meant to get one vote but rich people spend money on this stuff so that they manipulate what and who can be voted for. I do think that if this current system is the result of democracy + the internet we need to seriously reconsider how democracy works because it’s cur…
Study after study shows that money doesn't really effect the results of high-information elections. If it really did, Hillary Clinton would have been president twice . It's just that candidates with a ton of support tend to raise a ton of money. Low-information elections are where money seems to help. I think we can throw that on the pile of 'your democracy is only as good as your electorate', and we have an electora…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I believe this because it is his fundamental right as a citizen of the republic. This is kind of exactly my point though. Citizen of what republic? Soros and Elon are both wealthier than most states and affect politics globally . They literally cannot be prosecuted, they are barely accountable to any legal bodies.
Citizens of this one. And they can be prosecuted. You just are not comfortable with the fact that they haven't really committed any crimes. Epstein was a billionaire too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If majority of people in a country want to persecute an outnumbered subgroup, then what prevents the majority of delegates wanting the same as well? You have an implicit assumption that the delegates are going to be smarter and better people that are going to lie to the majority to get elected and then will valiantly protect the subgroup. But that have not happened anywhere. In fact in every case it is the delegates…
I refuse to believe that anyone reading this is incapable of remembering at least five historical examples in which the public was happy to treat an unpopular group unjustly. There is no foolproof system that can guard against it, however declaring 'rights' and delegating the responsibility to protect them to the judiciary at least is a mitigation.
Can you bring one example where the public wanted to treat a group unjustly and parliament elected by that same public have defended the group?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citizens of this one. And they can be prosecuted. You just are not comfortable with the fact that they haven't really committed any crimes. Epstein was a billionaire too.
It's far easier for a billionaire to get away with a crime than to prosecute it. You would think that would be common sense, but I guess not. How many crimes do you think Putin has done? I mean Trump has 33 or 34 felonies on record, does it matter? What about Saudi princes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Study after study shows that money doesn't really effect the results of high-information elections. If it really did, Hillary Clinton would have been president twice . It's just that candidates with a ton of support tend to raise a ton of money. Low-information elections are where money seems to help. I think we can throw that on the pile of 'your democracy is only as good as your electorate', and we have an electora…
This is total bullshit. Or maybe a statement of just how much the US population is uninformed/misinformed. If the later is true, the US 'electorate' really is dumb as dirt...
From 2024: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241279659
Consistent results indicate that, yes, money tends to matter, but it's the source of that money that tends to be doing the heavy lifting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with a sovereign nation taking steps to reduce or eliminate the influence of a non-citizen who they feel is acting against the best interests of that nation? If a nuclear capable country like France decides that someone like Elon Musk is acting against the best interests of their country they can ask him nicely to stop and if he continues they can use force to reduce the perceived threat. This all seems…
He is a citizen of the US and has full political rights. There is only one legal distinction between a foreign born citizen and a natural born citizen and that is that he can't serve as president. France is absolutely capable of using force against Elon Musk up to and including their nuclear arsenal. However, they would need to decide whether it is worse for their interests to tolerate Elon or to detonate a nuke on U…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Study after study shows that money doesn't really effect the results of high-information elections. If it really did, Hillary Clinton would have been president twice . It's just that candidates with a ton of support tend to raise a ton of money. Low-information elections are where money seems to help. I think we can throw that on the pile of 'your democracy is only as good as your electorate', and we have an electora…
Yeah if money didn't matter what's up with the $2billion price tags
The underlying effects of where the money comes from seems to matter a lot more that that the money exists. If a campaign does not have money, they likely that that campaign does not have supporters. However the opposite is not true. If a campaign has money, it is still not certain whether or not that campaign has any supporters, because that money could all be coming from narrow interest groups.