Bernie Sanders exposes billionaires who are buying US government.

[Lorizael]

This sentence is either trivially false or devoid of meaning.

edit: technically, it could be a true claim that some people are just stupid, but you're implicitly claiming to be one of those people so it still doesn't help you

That Bayes' theorem is true is undeniable. That the Bayesian interpretation of probability is true is questioned by some; there are several different interpretations of probability.

[kentonio]

Yes! OBVIOUSLY more viable candidates is more democratic.

So if a billionaire picks 3 people and through his funding they are the only 3 viable candidates, that would seem perfectly democratic to you?

[Hauldren Collider]

Lori, I'd advise you not to argue with Kuci on matters of logic. If you've gotten to the point where you think you can only be right by proving Kuci wrong mathematically, you've already lost.

[Kuciwalker]

That Bayes' theorem is true is undeniable. That the Bayesian interpretation of probability is true is questioned by some; there are several different interpretations of probability.

None of those are relevant.

btw, trying to argue with me about probability or the philosophy thereof is a dumb idea. (OH NOES AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY)

[Hauldren Collider]

So if a billionaire picks 3 people and through his funding they are the only 3 viable candidates, that would seem perfectly democratic to you?

The good news is that there are enough billionaires and millionaires in our country that you can usually find one to bankroll just about any idiot with some prominence. ****ing Herman Cain was able to raise money, for christ's sake.

[kentonio]

The good news is that there are enough billionaires and millionaires in our country that you can usually find one to bankroll just about any idiot with some prominence. ****ing Herman Cain was able to raise money, for christ's sake.

Presumably you also don't think that the interests of billionaires may differ quite significantly from the interests of say.. low income families?

[Hauldren Collider]

Presumably you also don't think that the interests of billionaires may differ quite significantly from the interests of say.. low income families?

Which is why the low income families get to vote. It isn't enough to bankroll a candidate. That's why Republicans didn't win senate seats or governorships in California or Nevada in the last midterms. Voters have to agree, too.

[kentonio]

Which is why the low income families get to vote.

So everyone gets to vote, but only a tiny group get to decide who you can vote for? That's democracy?

[MrFun]

If lobbying 1) often involved blackmail and 2) actually worked, how would you ever know?

It's not my problem if you're so naive to think lobbying is completely devoid of blackmail. Corporations and wealthy individuals can threaten to flood a congressperson's state/district with negative attack ads if they don't approve a ridiculous, wasteful pork bill for example.

[MrFun]

Which is why the low income families get to vote. It isn't enough to bankroll a candidate. That's why Republicans didn't win senate seats or governorships in California or Nevada in the last midterms. Voters have to agree, too.

Might not be the case anymore. Voter ID laws could very well discourage or intimidate perfectly legal, low-income voters from voting in some states.

[Hauldren Collider]

So everyone gets to vote, but only a tiny group get to decide who you can vote for? That's democracy?

1. It's not that tiny a group.
2. No, they don't. There are any number of ways a candidate can raise money. They could have one big donation from one guy or lots of little ones from lots of little guys.
3. After a certain point more campaign money doesn't help. There is tons of evidence of massive diminishing returns on political ads. Note how little the polls have moved despite Obama's incredible amounts of ad spending. Once you get through the gate, everyone's pretty much on equal footing.

[C0ckney]

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

well talking of buying candidates, here's how it works in brasil. it costs a fair amount of money to run for office, so those without significant means of their own need the backing of rich men. so rich men give their candidate money to run their campaign. this goes from the mayor of a medium sized town to state governors to members of parliament. now obviously these rich men don't give their support for free, they expect something in return and that comes after their man has won the election. it can be a small thing, like making a regulatory problem disappear for his brother-in-law's restaurant or a public job for his imbecile cousin. or it can be a big thing, like a major government contract for their backer's company. obviously this is proportional to how important the backer is and how much the candidate is in his debt.

there's a big scandal right now about a particularly wealthy man who was (among various other things) buying out whole political parties. of course when gets really big, it can be a whole set of politicians, perhaps funded by many men in the same industry, to make changes, which benefit that industry, or resist changes that would harm it.

of course this happens in western countries too, but it's less direct and obvious. of course we hate to admit it and prefer to call it things like 'free speech' and 'lobbying'...

[Hauldren Collider]

Might not be the case anymore. Voter ID laws could very well discourage or intimidate perfectly legal, low-income voters from voting in some states.

You are a tool.

[MrFun]

By the way HC, do I have to bribe you millions of dollars, for you to read and reply to my private message I sent you about Dark Knight Rising movie?

[Hauldren Collider]

By the way HC, do I have to bribe you millions of dollars, for you to read and reply to my private message I sent you about Dark Knight Rising movie?

Oh, sorry, I saw that and forgot about it. Will reply tonight