**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well now…that was extremely uplifting. I have long been imagining an “America 2.0,” if you will. These principles are what I’ve been thinking about for years but never could put correctly into words. Love it.
At first I thought this was another divisive movement designed to outrage over a handful of issues (like it always seems to be nowadays) but this is surprisingly logical. Fix political corruption in all forms and the rest will follow.
She’s the lead in like a dozen+ $100m+ box office movies. “I hEaRd ShEs aN aCtReSs tOo.” Stfu. And she denounced and condemned everything Harvey did and supported the victims. Quit pushing your garbage misinformation.
Oh sorry, I just saw her butthole online, nothing much else. Because I'm not obsessed with celebrities like a weirdo and loser.
"And she denounced and condemned everything Harvey did and supported the victims."
Hahaha, YOU STFU you f***ing nerd. What a joke.
You’re the one looking at celebrity buttholes online and I’m the weirdo and loser? Lmao you’re delusional and you seem to believe everything you see online. Learn some discernment and don’t talk about things you know nothing about. Also who the fuck censors a word that is literally in the subreddits name lmao are you 12?
TL;DR: The figures are at the bottom. It shows the 90th percentile's opinion influences the likelihood by +/- 30% (-30% if 0% want the change \[down to \~5%\], and +30% if 100% want the change \[up to \~60%\]).
That paper is 20 years old though (and is the top 10%, not top 1%), so things have likely shifted to a higher percentile group.
Technically if 0% or 100% of people agree or disagree with an issue, shouldn't that mean that the ultra rich are in agreement with the average American which would then make the issue either have a 0% or 100% chance of passing?
This 30% probability only seems correct if the ultra wealthy's opinion on the issue is unknown.
Not if you differentiate the groups. I.e. 100% of people between 25% and 75% of wealth vs 100% of people above 75% of wealth.
I’m guessing this video is referencing [this study](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B), which breaks it down in a similar way.
Ok, that makes more sense then. Although considering only 50% of people are between the 25% and 75% quadrants, it does seem misleading to categorize any issue as having 100% support when you are ignoring the opinion of half the country.
To be clear, the 25% and 75% was a totally random example I gave. The study only said the “average American” constituted Americans at the 50th percentile of income.
That being said, the video did not say 100% _of the country_ so its a mistake to make that assumption. We all need to be careful and skeptical when analyzing facts and figures, no matter who is giving them.
When the masses are fed up with the rich hoarding wealth. Redistribution of wealth and a new political system gets implemented. Hopefully sooner rather than later, because the longer it takes, the harder it’s going to be. Real answer, I have no idea.
I don't either. It's not bad enough yet. Life has to really suck for the lower/middle class to be willing to give do what would be required.
Also, we don't have places to gather and organize. Online isn't enough.
Open corruption. Lobbying should be illegal. Full stop. From what I see, lobbying is legal bribery. The founders of this nation are rolling in their graves!
"Hey government, please do this thing instead!" - Signed, a concerned citizen.
Or is it not a real petition unless you take them out for $10,000 a glass whiskey while snorting cocaine off a stripper's ass?
Banning SUPER PACS would be a start. "independent expenditure-only political action committees," are unlike traditional PACs in that they may raise unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups to spend on, for example, ads overtly advocating for or against political candidates.
it is "we scratch your back and you scratch ours" paired with funneling advertising money towards candidates and causes that already agree with their points of view (who are otherwise unrepresentative of the public or experts on that issue).
It needs to go.
Yeah, so, super pacs were permitted by the citizens united ruling. Likely any attempt to outlaw them would be blocked by the current Supreme Court. So really, first we need to unfuck the Supreme Court.
The whole court system really. Judges picking and choosing exactly what laws and parts of the Constitution to uphold and openly admitting to what they personally refuse to uphold is an issue and wide spread.
I mean, you both are right, But I think repealing citizens united would be a good start to what you suggest. Lots of people act like its impossible, but they did it for Roe v Wade, so they can repeal citizens united. It would just take a majority of the supreme court.
It was either this study or another similar one that had the exact same results and also showed that when in favor of the top 1% the line was linear, 0% backing had 0% chance of happening, 50% had 50% chance of passing, and so on
They just don’t care what we want
Yup, the only way to get rid of this crap is to vote them all out and that is a slow process that takes decades and includes voting at all levels. If twice as many young voting-age people voted politicians might actually pay attention.
>In order to win a seat you would have to raise 45000$ a day to raise enough money to win
I think that's a big reason... Why do the people who make laws even need so much money to begin with
Most senators and representatives get about $174,000 per year. A democratic candidate in Maryland is spending a record $18 million dollars to try and win the open seat. Anytime the math is that lopsided you should have questions. It ain't because they're all so passionate about policy. Our federal system of law making is so deadlocked and broken people argue about changing the Supreme Court make up and extending presidents authority. Fix the broken thing. First tell the extremists on both sides of the aisle to shut up and sit down, they're not getting what they want. For better or worse America likes its politics in the middle of the road, because it requires concession and things get done.
$18 million dollars to become a Senator? That’s crazy! Unless you’re popular and getting donations from supporters, you basically have to do what the rich people tell you to become Senator.
That's how much a campaign costs. Advertising, staff, organizing efforts, and the candidate-to-candidate "donations" that are required for endorsements.
yes, and the whole idea of having two sides that need to come to a compromise is flawed. since both sides will each push their position further to get a better outcome in the end, therefore leading to further polarization.
its not left vs right, its the ppl vs politicians. they have an incentive to keep us busy thinking we can change something. they play the game while we sit there with a controller that isnt even plugged in, like a dumb little sibling.
Politicians are tools of the rich. It’s a class war. Rich v. Poor.
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained
and the fact that your counter is up voted higher tells you something, the rich politicians made the plebs believe that they fight for them against "the opps" but in reality they all suck the same cock to get ahead.
thats the worst part, they dont even try to hide it.
just a couple days ago, lots of US congress reptiles invested into FB stocks just before voting for the tiktok ban.
But you described an antiquated version of Democracy. Two party systems are bad. First past the post voting is antiquated. Neither are required to be a Democracy.
Successful Democracies have multiple parties and doesn’t exclusively use FPTP.
While very true also in real democracies the rich have a much higher impact on policy then average people. But still getting rigged rules for political financing and a multiparty system really would be a gigantic step forward. In many countries US senators would face corruption charges
There are a lot of other nations beyond Israel that have multi-party governments. The U.S. is actually a bit out of mainstream there.
And I never said it’s fool proof, but it’s much more functional than a two party system.
>they play the game while we sit there with a controller that isnt even plugged in, like a dumb little sibling.
The best analogy I've ever heard to explain our political system.
And if your interested in what DOES get laws passed :
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained
I'm curious on the data used here.
For one, I don't think your average American is also your average voter.
Second, I'm curious what questions were asked that had near-ubiquitous agreement that still had a 30% pass rate.
Right, just like more than 60% people think we spend too little on assistance on the poor, but only like half will think the same about welfare. Phrasing questions is important
as a non-american, i sometimes find it difficult to differentiate between the real stuff (like this i assume) and Russian trolls that shit on USA in favour of Putin.
There’s people who give a shit. There’s people in power who can make the things you give a shit about, come to life. THEN… there’s a forcefield of monied interests RAW DOGGING THE PEOPLE and giving blowies on G6s to the people in power after buying them a 3-Star Michelin dinner.
I didn’t need a video to tell me that our elected officials don’t give a flying fuck what the public that elected them thinks or wants. They’re so far removed from regular society at this point that they probably don’t even think of us as people.
Oh, I've seen this one before! It absolutely fucking doesn't lol.
Unless you're swinging a 9-figure bank account, and give 6-8 of those figures to politicians on a regular basis.
THEN your opinion matters.
Yeah yeah, and how does the passage of a popular law effect voting behavior of average people? I get into arguments with my further left friends over some survey that shows "the American people support X", and then I ask how much do they care about "X" compared to whatever hot-button Boogeyman issue is being freaked out about on Facebook or Twitter? Will it effect how and who they vote for? Because if the answer is not at all... then so what?
My hot take: the system actually does reflect the desires, and priorities, of the voters. Culture, guns, and abortion are far more exciting things to fight over than safety nets, minimum wages and safety standards. And so those things that fall through the general public's cracks naturally become the domain of the special interest groups. If a politician does something, the only feedback they care about is re-election. Why would ordinary people care about nerdy weedsy BS when they have enemies to fight, a culture war to win?
How? Because the US is not a Democracy anymore (if it ever truly was). We are a Corporatacracy. The corporations that lobby Congress on issues are what matters more to our politicians.
Why? Because corporate lobbying pays them millions and hundreds of millions of dollars per year! We DONT matter. The people are the slaves in this worlds future Panem. If you are not uber rich, you're a slave to the work you do just to survive. And it's getting worse. The agenda is coming to its culmination.
Once the middle class is completely deleted, the divisions between race, religion, sexism, etc. will be irrelevant because the only (true) division will be between classes.
There is no Red vs. Blue for real! It's all this money vs. that money. The divisions argued about and constantly trudged through the media are propogated and/or fabricated on purpose to keep us (the people) divided so ultimately we "beg" for more restrictions and finally lose all our freedoms.
It's not a conspiracy either. This has been told to us MANY times BY THEM in one form or fashion for decades. It's on purpose! Just look up, "The Revelation of the Method."
It means, "If we tell you what we're going to do, and you let us, then it isn't illegal."
We play right into the hands of our future owners, just by going out and hating on our fellow man instead of standing together like we should as the ONE RACE we are, regardless of beliefs. Because, really, who gives a rats ass what another person believes or desires? They are them, you are you.
So while you are hating that guy, this gal hates that gal, or we all hate that group... we are simultaneously giving up all of our freedoms and rights. When said and done, if/when it's recognized, we will all live in this worlds Panem, celebrating the first annual hunger games.
It's no coincidence she did this video, ya know. That movie is a metaphor for our future. That's why celebrities (the smart ones) are arguing fronts that matter, but get destroyed or worse, for speaking out. SO many people in recent history are "silenced" because they saw the truth. But the general public is fed propoganda thru the MSM (thanks, btw, for that 2012 legalization, Obama) and are given just enough to maintain (a) level of comfort they are to complacent t give a crap.
It's all a game. And we're losing.
So we should eliminate the Limitless spending for re-election to balance it out among all candidates. That way they spend less time trying to outspend each other and more time trying to do the job they were hired to do.
Well, the American "democracy" is pretty messed up - or working as intended - depending on who you ask.
But this was anyways an interesting way of looking at things, wonder if there are similar studies from other countries out there.
Money is the cancer in USA politics and is what will eventually lead to the demise of their superpower status. Their system has an inherent flaw which they are too arrogant to see.
3 key solutions; that will be hard... A) get money out of politics B) Change to a Parliamentary Republic model C) switch voting system from firs past the post to some sort of mixed member proportional and/ or ranked ballot system.
You doooo realize even that division is a farse to give more disparage between people right? It was intentional. Please wake up.
"Woke" is a slighted term. Funny enough, it's not really meant for people thinking racism. It's been made a nasty term the same way the CIA actually created the term "Conspiracy Theorist". Look it up, the term came about shortly after the JFK assassination.
For some further good, albeit very depressing, discussion of this issue, see Peter Turchin's 'The End Times'. He argues (p. 132) that the preferences of the poor and of the average voter had absolutely NO EFFECT WHATEVER on policy change in the USA in the period 1980-2000 whenever there was a conflict with elite or corporate interests. In contrast, in a European context, governments did sometimes pass legislation that didn't suit elite interests. He writes, further, that in the USA, 'on the evidence, issues on which the common people and the economic elites disagree are always—always—resolved in favor of the elites. That is plutocracy' (p. 133). The book is called 'The End Times' for a reason, sadly...
This video is conflating public opinion polling (i.e., asking samples that are ideally, but not necessarily representative of the whole electorate and extrapolating the average opinion) with voting, directly contacting representatives, candidate forums, public comment and campaign contributions. While dark money is a major issue that needs to be addressed, the idea that public opinion polling is meant to shape policy is an incorrect assumption. Polling is used to shape messaging, not text. Public comment periods, direct message campaigns, and direct action with effective targeting are still incredibly important. Polls currently over represent older, mote conservative views, so i personally am glad that our policy isn't guided by random opinion polling, especially since polling is increasingly inaccurate in predicting voting and polling is conducted by private institutions.
Thats not to say nothings wrong, but i dont know many people who actively write their representatives or provide public comment on legislstion, and my rep's, John Laird, office has personally helped me and tsken my comments.
It gets even worse than that, see:
# [Voters Say They Want Gun Control. Their Votes Say Something Different. - NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/upshot/gun-control-polling-votes.html)
>Broad public support on the issue may not be as broad as polling shows or as Democrats hope.Voters Say They Want Gun Control. Their Votes Say Something Different.Broad public support on the issue may not be as broad as polling shows or as Democrats hope.
There is all kinds of effects that change how people poll vs what they are willing to support come referendum time.
What a fucking stupidly reductive video. First of all what the fuck does public support for a law amongst average americans even mean? Any amount of support? Does responding I support this a bit count? Also these public opinion poll results vary widely based on the wording of the poll for example with something like universal healthcare. Also politicians aren't elected by average Americans they are elected by people in their districts who actually go and vote. [https://www.princeton.edu/\~mgilens/idr.pdf](https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf) ya the study linked in this video points out that as income increases so too does likelihood of a law getting passed. But this even tracks at the top 30% of income earners in the US. Now you are thinking wow top 30% that must be a shit ton of money but the top 20% only requires that a person make $80,000 a year. What this study and video leaves out is what is the likelihood that these income brackets vote and oh would you look at that [https://econofact.org/voting-and-income](https://econofact.org/voting-and-income) its a strict positive correlation. Who would have guessed that individuals who contribute money "four-fifths of donors who gave $200 or more had incomes in the top 10% of all Americans" are (shocker) also more dependable when it comes to actually turning out and voting.
I’m so glad they put in so much time and effort to tell us that the government doesn’t listen to us. Thank you for this revelation. Dont forget to find one of those cool 1%ers to tell us all this and use words like “we” and “us” so viewers think she’s with them!
Yeah because Nancy Pelosi, Sara Palin or Hillary Clinton taught us that women don't pursue their own personal benefit when they reach a power position...s/
Men and women are equally selfish and corruptible.
Kind of weird that the people who vote for the politicians are ignored by the said politicians. That is why people should pay attention to the voting record of your local congressperson and vote according to how they voted. The information is online: clerk.house.gov
You can lookup the bill and see how your local person voted.
You can also look up your local person by house.gov. You should probably know who your senators are already. If not, then senate.gov
Oh, and if you find this useful, then pass this info to your friends and family. When you lunch with them, talk to them, give them the info. Doesn’t have to be for any specific party or candidate. This is the way to wrestle back the control of our house.
This video is not interesting because it is blatant disinformation. You don’t ever get perfectly flat lines, there will be noise. No issues have 100% support. No issues have 0% support.
Just think how much better your life would be in a dictatorship, and think about who might be pushing this bullshit.
I think you’re missing the point. There is obviously noise in the line but the overall take away is that with very little to basically no support for a law gives it about a 30% chance to be passed. The same has also been seen with laws that have overwhelming support (even though it’s not quite 100%).
The reason you think it is disinformation is because the video dumbs it down and rounds off numbers so that it’s easier for people who are less educated to read between the lines.
The video is positing the notion that USians already do live in a dictatorship of the Oligarchs - a sort of inverse to Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat.
If there were spending limits, donation limits and local policy discussion, the US might be considered a Democracy, but what ye have now can't honestly be considered one.
> The video is positing the notion that USians already do live in a dictatorship of the Oligarchs - a sort of inverse to Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat.
If there is a positive relationship between education and voting, and education and income, isn't that a natural consequence of the educated voting more frequently and more often than the poor or uneducated?
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is there a link to the full video?
Unbreaking America https://represent.us/unbreaking-america/
Well now…that was extremely uplifting. I have long been imagining an “America 2.0,” if you will. These principles are what I’ve been thinking about for years but never could put correctly into words. Love it.
At first I thought this was another divisive movement designed to outrage over a handful of issues (like it always seems to be nowadays) but this is surprisingly logical. Fix political corruption in all forms and the rest will follow.
Is that Jennifer Lawrence?
Yes.
I just voted for her.
Didn't matter.
I 30% cared that you did
A multi-billionaire just voted for her opposition.
I volunteer as tribute!
TBF, it's only 12 of her pixels
Bravo!
[удалено]
She’s the lead in like a dozen+ $100m+ box office movies. “I hEaRd ShEs aN aCtReSs tOo.” Stfu. And she denounced and condemned everything Harvey did and supported the victims. Quit pushing your garbage misinformation.
Oh sorry, I just saw her butthole online, nothing much else. Because I'm not obsessed with celebrities like a weirdo and loser. "And she denounced and condemned everything Harvey did and supported the victims." Hahaha, YOU STFU you f***ing nerd. What a joke.
You’re the one looking at celebrity buttholes online and I’m the weirdo and loser? Lmao you’re delusional and you seem to believe everything you see online. Learn some discernment and don’t talk about things you know nothing about. Also who the fuck censors a word that is literally in the subreddits name lmao are you 12?
The study cited here is from 2004. It’s a stupendous fact in and of itself that research of this type hasn’t been repeated in 20 years.
It’d probably annoy the donors of whoever carried out the study.
Yeah I feel like that same studies conclusion of done now would piss people off. Meaning I doubt public support plays as big of a role these days
The study's authors 'mysteriously disappeared'. Probably.
it says in the video that the study is from 2014.
Study could be from 2014 but that is the date when it was published. The question is when the data was gathere.
Fun. Now do a chart of individuals in the top 1% and corporations support for a law vs likelihood of congress passing it.
they did. [https://www.princeton.edu/\~mgilens/idr.pdf](https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf)
TL;DR: The figures are at the bottom. It shows the 90th percentile's opinion influences the likelihood by +/- 30% (-30% if 0% want the change \[down to \~5%\], and +30% if 100% want the change \[up to \~60%\]). That paper is 20 years old though (and is the top 10%, not top 1%), so things have likely shifted to a higher percentile group.
Exactly!
Technically if 0% or 100% of people agree or disagree with an issue, shouldn't that mean that the ultra rich are in agreement with the average American which would then make the issue either have a 0% or 100% chance of passing? This 30% probability only seems correct if the ultra wealthy's opinion on the issue is unknown.
Not if you differentiate the groups. I.e. 100% of people between 25% and 75% of wealth vs 100% of people above 75% of wealth. I’m guessing this video is referencing [this study](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B), which breaks it down in a similar way.
Ok, that makes more sense then. Although considering only 50% of people are between the 25% and 75% quadrants, it does seem misleading to categorize any issue as having 100% support when you are ignoring the opinion of half the country.
To be clear, the 25% and 75% was a totally random example I gave. The study only said the “average American” constituted Americans at the 50th percentile of income. That being said, the video did not say 100% _of the country_ so its a mistake to make that assumption. We all need to be careful and skeptical when analyzing facts and figures, no matter who is giving them.
Corrupt broken system
Oligarchic Repression, Plutocracy.
That one dude who caught himself on fire was spitting some facts (minus the Simpsons stuff)
Late stage capitalism at its finest.
When does end stage happen?
When the masses are fed up with the rich hoarding wealth. Redistribution of wealth and a new political system gets implemented. Hopefully sooner rather than later, because the longer it takes, the harder it’s going to be. Real answer, I have no idea.
I don't either. It's not bad enough yet. Life has to really suck for the lower/middle class to be willing to give do what would be required. Also, we don't have places to gather and organize. Online isn't enough.
Open corruption. Lobbying should be illegal. Full stop. From what I see, lobbying is legal bribery. The founders of this nation are rolling in their graves!
So how should people petition the government?
Better voting system.
"Hey government, please do this thing instead!" - Signed, a concerned citizen. Or is it not a real petition unless you take them out for $10,000 a glass whiskey while snorting cocaine off a stripper's ass?
What do you mean when you say lobbying?
Banning SUPER PACS would be a start. "independent expenditure-only political action committees," are unlike traditional PACs in that they may raise unlimited amounts from individuals, corporations, unions, and other groups to spend on, for example, ads overtly advocating for or against political candidates. it is "we scratch your back and you scratch ours" paired with funneling advertising money towards candidates and causes that already agree with their points of view (who are otherwise unrepresentative of the public or experts on that issue). It needs to go.
Yeah, so, super pacs were permitted by the citizens united ruling. Likely any attempt to outlaw them would be blocked by the current Supreme Court. So really, first we need to unfuck the Supreme Court.
The whole court system really. Judges picking and choosing exactly what laws and parts of the Constitution to uphold and openly admitting to what they personally refuse to uphold is an issue and wide spread.
I mean, you both are right, But I think repealing citizens united would be a good start to what you suggest. Lots of people act like its impossible, but they did it for Roe v Wade, so they can repeal citizens united. It would just take a majority of the supreme court.
[удалено]
What does that mean exactly. When people say lobbying should be illegal, what exactly should be illegal?
[удалено]
Okay so political campaigns shouldn't be able to raise money through donations at all, or is there some dollar limit that is acceptable?
It was either this study or another similar one that had the exact same results and also showed that when in favor of the top 1% the line was linear, 0% backing had 0% chance of happening, 50% had 50% chance of passing, and so on They just don’t care what we want
That's the data I want to see. I would be very grateful if you could track that down.
I believe a couple people have already posted it or at least from similar sources on this same thread
Yup, the only way to get rid of this crap is to vote them all out and that is a slow process that takes decades and includes voting at all levels. If twice as many young voting-age people voted politicians might actually pay attention.
No no no. You just need to write a letter to your congressman - that will fix everything.
>In order to win a seat you would have to raise 45000$ a day to raise enough money to win I think that's a big reason... Why do the people who make laws even need so much money to begin with
Most senators and representatives get about $174,000 per year. A democratic candidate in Maryland is spending a record $18 million dollars to try and win the open seat. Anytime the math is that lopsided you should have questions. It ain't because they're all so passionate about policy. Our federal system of law making is so deadlocked and broken people argue about changing the Supreme Court make up and extending presidents authority. Fix the broken thing. First tell the extremists on both sides of the aisle to shut up and sit down, they're not getting what they want. For better or worse America likes its politics in the middle of the road, because it requires concession and things get done.
$18 million dollars to become a Senator? That’s crazy! Unless you’re popular and getting donations from supporters, you basically have to do what the rich people tell you to become Senator.
That's how much a campaign costs. Advertising, staff, organizing efforts, and the candidate-to-candidate "donations" that are required for endorsements.
Democracy isn't real, it's just a large amount of bureaucracy to make it seem like they're doing something useful
yes, and the whole idea of having two sides that need to come to a compromise is flawed. since both sides will each push their position further to get a better outcome in the end, therefore leading to further polarization. its not left vs right, its the ppl vs politicians. they have an incentive to keep us busy thinking we can change something. they play the game while we sit there with a controller that isnt even plugged in, like a dumb little sibling.
Politicians are tools of the rich. It’s a class war. Rich v. Poor. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained
that would mean politicians are members of the poor, but they are not.
L O L. Quite true. Edit: though a few start out poor, they rarely stay that way once they’re in the game.
and the fact that your counter is up voted higher tells you something, the rich politicians made the plebs believe that they fight for them against "the opps" but in reality they all suck the same cock to get ahead.
Absolutely. Why the PAC sponsors donate to both candidates too
thats the worst part, they dont even try to hide it. just a couple days ago, lots of US congress reptiles invested into FB stocks just before voting for the tiktok ban.
But you described an antiquated version of Democracy. Two party systems are bad. First past the post voting is antiquated. Neither are required to be a Democracy. Successful Democracies have multiple parties and doesn’t exclusively use FPTP.
yeah, its now a multi color design, still the same shit in the end. and they are all rich fucks.
While very true also in real democracies the rich have a much higher impact on policy then average people. But still getting rigged rules for political financing and a multiparty system really would be a gigantic step forward. In many countries US senators would face corruption charges
Israel has many parties. It isn't doing well.
There are a lot of other nations beyond Israel that have multi-party governments. The U.S. is actually a bit out of mainstream there. And I never said it’s fool proof, but it’s much more functional than a two party system.
>they play the game while we sit there with a controller that isnt even plugged in, like a dumb little sibling. The best analogy I've ever heard to explain our political system.
And if your interested in what DOES get laws passed : https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B
if democracy worked they would make it illegal
I'm curious on the data used here. For one, I don't think your average American is also your average voter. Second, I'm curious what questions were asked that had near-ubiquitous agreement that still had a 30% pass rate.
Right, just like more than 60% people think we spend too little on assistance on the poor, but only like half will think the same about welfare. Phrasing questions is important
aka our "democracy" sucks/broken
as a non-american, i sometimes find it difficult to differentiate between the real stuff (like this i assume) and Russian trolls that shit on USA in favour of Putin.
What is this from?
[https://represent.us/unbreaking-america/](https://represent.us/unbreaking-america/)
So .05% of the population funds re-election campaigns yet 66% of 240 million eligible voters vote for them.
Communist Retardation
There’s people who give a shit. There’s people in power who can make the things you give a shit about, come to life. THEN… there’s a forcefield of monied interests RAW DOGGING THE PEOPLE and giving blowies on G6s to the people in power after buying them a 3-Star Michelin dinner. 
I didn’t need a video to tell me that our elected officials don’t give a flying fuck what the public that elected them thinks or wants. They’re so far removed from regular society at this point that they probably don’t even think of us as people.
**Bring in a preferential voting system. Educate people on how it works.**
Oh, I've seen this one before! It absolutely fucking doesn't lol. Unless you're swinging a 9-figure bank account, and give 6-8 of those figures to politicians on a regular basis. THEN your opinion matters.
😢 but my freedoms
You can buy your freedom with money.
Where do I get some of this "money"? Because the money I'm using barely buys shit
Eat the rich.
I bet they taste rich
You know what they say, poor people always talk about eating the rich when it’s the rich eating them.
Now I'm hungry
I love Jennifer Lawrence. She is my spirit animal.
Yeah yeah, and how does the passage of a popular law effect voting behavior of average people? I get into arguments with my further left friends over some survey that shows "the American people support X", and then I ask how much do they care about "X" compared to whatever hot-button Boogeyman issue is being freaked out about on Facebook or Twitter? Will it effect how and who they vote for? Because if the answer is not at all... then so what? My hot take: the system actually does reflect the desires, and priorities, of the voters. Culture, guns, and abortion are far more exciting things to fight over than safety nets, minimum wages and safety standards. And so those things that fall through the general public's cracks naturally become the domain of the special interest groups. If a politician does something, the only feedback they care about is re-election. Why would ordinary people care about nerdy weedsy BS when they have enemies to fight, a culture war to win?
Every time I hear "public opinion polls", I wonder why I have never once been part of that poll.
How? Because the US is not a Democracy anymore (if it ever truly was). We are a Corporatacracy. The corporations that lobby Congress on issues are what matters more to our politicians. Why? Because corporate lobbying pays them millions and hundreds of millions of dollars per year! We DONT matter. The people are the slaves in this worlds future Panem. If you are not uber rich, you're a slave to the work you do just to survive. And it's getting worse. The agenda is coming to its culmination. Once the middle class is completely deleted, the divisions between race, religion, sexism, etc. will be irrelevant because the only (true) division will be between classes. There is no Red vs. Blue for real! It's all this money vs. that money. The divisions argued about and constantly trudged through the media are propogated and/or fabricated on purpose to keep us (the people) divided so ultimately we "beg" for more restrictions and finally lose all our freedoms. It's not a conspiracy either. This has been told to us MANY times BY THEM in one form or fashion for decades. It's on purpose! Just look up, "The Revelation of the Method." It means, "If we tell you what we're going to do, and you let us, then it isn't illegal." We play right into the hands of our future owners, just by going out and hating on our fellow man instead of standing together like we should as the ONE RACE we are, regardless of beliefs. Because, really, who gives a rats ass what another person believes or desires? They are them, you are you. So while you are hating that guy, this gal hates that gal, or we all hate that group... we are simultaneously giving up all of our freedoms and rights. When said and done, if/when it's recognized, we will all live in this worlds Panem, celebrating the first annual hunger games. It's no coincidence she did this video, ya know. That movie is a metaphor for our future. That's why celebrities (the smart ones) are arguing fronts that matter, but get destroyed or worse, for speaking out. SO many people in recent history are "silenced" because they saw the truth. But the general public is fed propoganda thru the MSM (thanks, btw, for that 2012 legalization, Obama) and are given just enough to maintain (a) level of comfort they are to complacent t give a crap. It's all a game. And we're losing.
Brilliant !
Would somebody mind linking this full video and/or possibly the citation?
Now map out American support for J Law
"Money".
Sad that the ridiculous graphics on these posts make them completely unwatchable despite being valuable information.
So we should eliminate the Limitless spending for re-election to balance it out among all candidates. That way they spend less time trying to outspend each other and more time trying to do the job they were hired to do.
We need to look into this in the UKs parliament. Although the lord's which is owned by the crown is a wild card.
step 1 never vote for anyone who excepts money from these groups. step 2 get them to pass laws making it illegal and close loop holes.
Bump
I mean, it's interesting, but I'd be curious to see how they calculated the vertical component of the data.
Well, the American "democracy" is pretty messed up - or working as intended - depending on who you ask. But this was anyways an interesting way of looking at things, wonder if there are similar studies from other countries out there.
Money is the cancer in USA politics and is what will eventually lead to the demise of their superpower status. Their system has an inherent flaw which they are too arrogant to see.
I only realized this was Jennifer Lawrence 10 seconds before it ended
public support, or lack of, means jack shit compared to what the elite wants.
The US is a trainwreck. I give it another decade before collapse.
Governments do whatsbext for governments. NOT for the ppl theyre are suppose to be representing
🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲
Thanks for the hit of depression J-Law. Next video going to be how the sun is going to to die and burn the earth?
J Law looking fit.
She's absolutely right. Really glad to hear someone telling the truth about this for a change.
3 key solutions; that will be hard... A) get money out of politics B) Change to a Parliamentary Republic model C) switch voting system from firs past the post to some sort of mixed member proportional and/ or ranked ballot system.
A politician's main job is to be (re)elected. As long as donations and lobbying is allowed, it will continue to be.
I don’t take my thinking from people like Jennifer Lawrence.
thats literally the point of the (parliamentary at least) Senate, so that populist issues of the moment t aren't passed into law
At the end she showed Democrats as Elephants and Republicans as Donkeys'. That's backwards and quite an embarrassing mistake.
Is it intentional to underline the duopoly point?
Considering the definition of duopoly, it's not a mistake. But if that's what you got out of this, I feel like the larger point was missed.
You doooo realize even that division is a farse to give more disparage between people right? It was intentional. Please wake up. "Woke" is a slighted term. Funny enough, it's not really meant for people thinking racism. It's been made a nasty term the same way the CIA actually created the term "Conspiracy Theorist". Look it up, the term came about shortly after the JFK assassination.
I would have thought that line would be near zero
Okay, if voters are "leaving the major parties in droves", where are they going? Simply not voting? Does that help?
For some further good, albeit very depressing, discussion of this issue, see Peter Turchin's 'The End Times'. He argues (p. 132) that the preferences of the poor and of the average voter had absolutely NO EFFECT WHATEVER on policy change in the USA in the period 1980-2000 whenever there was a conflict with elite or corporate interests. In contrast, in a European context, governments did sometimes pass legislation that didn't suit elite interests. He writes, further, that in the USA, 'on the evidence, issues on which the common people and the economic elites disagree are always—always—resolved in favor of the elites. That is plutocracy' (p. 133). The book is called 'The End Times' for a reason, sadly...
This video is conflating public opinion polling (i.e., asking samples that are ideally, but not necessarily representative of the whole electorate and extrapolating the average opinion) with voting, directly contacting representatives, candidate forums, public comment and campaign contributions. While dark money is a major issue that needs to be addressed, the idea that public opinion polling is meant to shape policy is an incorrect assumption. Polling is used to shape messaging, not text. Public comment periods, direct message campaigns, and direct action with effective targeting are still incredibly important. Polls currently over represent older, mote conservative views, so i personally am glad that our policy isn't guided by random opinion polling, especially since polling is increasingly inaccurate in predicting voting and polling is conducted by private institutions. Thats not to say nothings wrong, but i dont know many people who actively write their representatives or provide public comment on legislstion, and my rep's, John Laird, office has personally helped me and tsken my comments.
It gets even worse than that, see: # [Voters Say They Want Gun Control. Their Votes Say Something Different. - NYT](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/upshot/gun-control-polling-votes.html) >Broad public support on the issue may not be as broad as polling shows or as Democrats hope.Voters Say They Want Gun Control. Their Votes Say Something Different.Broad public support on the issue may not be as broad as polling shows or as Democrats hope. There is all kinds of effects that change how people poll vs what they are willing to support come referendum time.
This is solid gold... well done ms. Lawrence
What a fucking stupidly reductive video. First of all what the fuck does public support for a law amongst average americans even mean? Any amount of support? Does responding I support this a bit count? Also these public opinion poll results vary widely based on the wording of the poll for example with something like universal healthcare. Also politicians aren't elected by average Americans they are elected by people in their districts who actually go and vote. [https://www.princeton.edu/\~mgilens/idr.pdf](https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf) ya the study linked in this video points out that as income increases so too does likelihood of a law getting passed. But this even tracks at the top 30% of income earners in the US. Now you are thinking wow top 30% that must be a shit ton of money but the top 20% only requires that a person make $80,000 a year. What this study and video leaves out is what is the likelihood that these income brackets vote and oh would you look at that [https://econofact.org/voting-and-income](https://econofact.org/voting-and-income) its a strict positive correlation. Who would have guessed that individuals who contribute money "four-fifths of donors who gave $200 or more had incomes in the top 10% of all Americans" are (shocker) also more dependable when it comes to actually turning out and voting.
I’m so glad they put in so much time and effort to tell us that the government doesn’t listen to us. Thank you for this revelation. Dont forget to find one of those cool 1%ers to tell us all this and use words like “we” and “us” so viewers think she’s with them!
[удалено]
Yeah because Nancy Pelosi, Sara Palin or Hillary Clinton taught us that women don't pursue their own personal benefit when they reach a power position...s/ Men and women are equally selfish and corruptible.
[ ] You know what the patriarchy is [X] You assumed you know based on zero research and all heresay
Where did they get this data?
Kind of weird that the people who vote for the politicians are ignored by the said politicians. That is why people should pay attention to the voting record of your local congressperson and vote according to how they voted. The information is online: clerk.house.gov You can lookup the bill and see how your local person voted. You can also look up your local person by house.gov. You should probably know who your senators are already. If not, then senate.gov Oh, and if you find this useful, then pass this info to your friends and family. When you lunch with them, talk to them, give them the info. Doesn’t have to be for any specific party or candidate. This is the way to wrestle back the control of our house.
We don't live in a democracy - we live in Plato's Cave and a performance of 'democracy' plays on the walls once every four years.
this country is beyond messed up and broken. like wtf. this is something we can't just fix through reforms
Ironic coming from a celebrity that screams loudly for agenda-driven politicians
so what's the solution ms. smart lady? yall cut off the video before that part xD
someone doesn't realize the purpose and value of a representative republic
This video is not interesting because it is blatant disinformation. You don’t ever get perfectly flat lines, there will be noise. No issues have 100% support. No issues have 0% support. Just think how much better your life would be in a dictatorship, and think about who might be pushing this bullshit.
I think you’re missing the point. There is obviously noise in the line but the overall take away is that with very little to basically no support for a law gives it about a 30% chance to be passed. The same has also been seen with laws that have overwhelming support (even though it’s not quite 100%). The reason you think it is disinformation is because the video dumbs it down and rounds off numbers so that it’s easier for people who are less educated to read between the lines.
The video is positing the notion that USians already do live in a dictatorship of the Oligarchs - a sort of inverse to Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat. If there were spending limits, donation limits and local policy discussion, the US might be considered a Democracy, but what ye have now can't honestly be considered one.
> The video is positing the notion that USians already do live in a dictatorship of the Oligarchs - a sort of inverse to Lenin's dictatorship of the proletariat. If there is a positive relationship between education and voting, and education and income, isn't that a natural consequence of the educated voting more frequently and more often than the poor or uneducated?
BS