Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[Lorizael]

Bribery is illegal. Politicians can't be forced to make decisions with money. You have to actually convince voters to vote for what you want.

Mindbogglingly, you think this is the sort of thing that isn't protected under the constitution.

I didn't say anything about the Constitution. I'm speaking of a theoretical ideal for a country, not what does or could necessarily exist in America. I'm not a constitutional scholar. The difficulty here is that, ideally, voters should be convinced rationally. Psychology tells us that more or less the exact opposite is true.

No, I'm not (read the post I actually wrote, not the one you wish I did), and appealing to tradition isn't a fallacy anyway.

Your edit detailing why my idea is absurd, which I didn't seen when I made my post, makes my claim that your argument was an appeal to tradition less true. Regardless, appeal to tradition is a fallacy. It's not a formal fallacy, but it is an informal fallacy. Arguing that something is bad because it goes against tradition is such a fallacy. Arguing that something is bad because what's done traditionally is better (as you did when you edited in an example of why my idea is stupid) is not a fallacy.

[Jaguar]

I would love for voters to be smarter. I also want a batmobile.

[Kuciwalker]

Regardless, appeal to tradition is a fallacy. It's not a formal fallacy, but it is an informal fallacy.

Bzzt. Stop talking about logic if you don't understand it. Appeals to tradition are formal fallacies (as any heuristic argument is). They aren't informal fallacies.

[Lorizael]

You can't stop markets from existing. It's like trying to contain the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. I'm going to choose the people who provide a better product - the people who provide me with more interesting material. In return, I give them some small degree of political influence - the ability to influence my thought. There is no way to stop some people's speech from being more valuable than others'. Turning a market into an awkward barter of in-kind services doesn't stop it from existing.

I don't want to prevent people from having political influence. I just don't think said political influence should necessarily be based on material wealth.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I didn't say anything about the Constitution. I'm speaking of a theoretical ideal for a country, not what does or could necessarily exist in America. I'm not a constitutional scholar. The difficulty here is that, ideally, voters should be convinced rationally. Psychology tells us that more or less the exact opposite is true.

Why is rationality a pre-requisite to vote? Seriously, the vote action is akin to any other purchasing decision. Essentially all purchasing decisions come down to fulfilling an emotional response. Why would voting be different or expected to be?

[Guynemer]

Bribery is illegal.

That's cute.

[C0ckney]

You lure them in by flattering them with news that confirms their beliefs, then you warp the information presented to them so that they come around to your beleifs.

I keep going on and on about the Kleck study on "defensive gun use", the alleged 2 million gun uses / year. The data presented in the study is easily proven to be grossly false, it predicts defensive woundings that are more than 1000 times greater than the observed statistics, yet the Kleck study refuses to die. People are still quoting it. That's the power of peopaganda.

very true. people tend to select sources of information that confirm their own biases, but then these sources can manipulate stories until falsehoods become 'facts' in their minds of their audience. the kleck study is a great example. in the UK it would be something like the murdoch press' reporting on immigrants. they take a few stories about the 'outrageous' benefits given to immigrants and after a few tens or hundreds of stories in that vein, that all immigrants get 'outrageous' benefits becomes fixed in their audience's mind and is repeated as gospel truth, even when any serious analysis of the issue proves this to be completely false.

[Jaguar]

I don't want to prevent people from having political influence. I just don't think said political influence should necessarily be based on material wealth.

Buckingham Palace is material wealth; plenty of people would pay a lot of money to live there.

Bill O'Reilly's airtime is material wealth; plenty of people would pay a lot of money to get to express their opinions nightly to a half-million viewers.

Wealth is still real, whether or not it comes from a financial transaction. All you're trying to do, at best, is to arbitrarily stop people from using a particular medium of exchange - the dollar - in trades with each other for a particular sort of wealth. It doesn't matter. People still want it, and some have more of it than others.

[Jaguar]

That's cute.

It's telling that you don't want to expand on this further. If you did, you'd be intellectually steamrolled, because what you're ultimately complaining about is people convincing other voters to vote for the same person as them. Which is exactly how democracy is supposed to work.

[kentonio]

You guys love squawking about the constitution and understanding America and all that ****, but how about you try it yourself sometimes? America was supposed to be about freedom and not having to live under the yolk of a ruling class, and yet you dumb mutts bend over backwards to give power and influence to a whole new ruling class of super rich plutocrats.

You have billionaires basically buying your candidates and you think that's a positive thing? Seriously? Are you really that ****ing dumb?

[Kuciwalker]

Billionaires can only "buy" a candidate by persuading voters to elect him.

[kentonio]

Billionaires can only "buy" a candidate by persuading voters to elect him.

Amazing how $100m of TV spend will get large numbers of voters to vote for you. See Romney vs Gingrich for more details.

[Wezil]

I wonder what the ad and marketing guys here would think to find their profession has no effect on people.

[Lorizael]

Bzzt. Stop talking about logic if you don't understand it. Appeals to tradition are formal fallacies (as any heuristic argument is). They aren't informal fallacies.

Wiki would seem to indicate otherwise, placing appeal to tradition under the category of red herrings, which it further places under the category of informal fallacies. Regardless, your earlier claim that appeals to tradition are not fallacies is refuted by your later claim that they are.

[Kuciwalker]

Amazing how $100m of TV spend will get large numbers of voters to vote for you. See Romney vs Gingrich for more details.

you think Gingrich lost because he was outspent?