Sure, but youre criticizing that this isnt going to fix anything. Its not meant to, its an attempt to also benefit from a rigged system. An entirely separate effort is required to solve the rigging.
Also, even without sharks around fish still eat other fish. This isnt the sharks doing.
The phrase “get money out of politics” has been repeated millions upon millions of times in public and private venues and nobody has defined what that phrase means and how to do it. It’s vagueness makes it useless.
Try “abolish corporate lobbyist bribery” or anything that more specifically points out that you are being taxed without representation because you can never give enough money to ever be heard by your representatives.
You linked to one dead campaign that was pledging not to accept campaign contributions and which calls for “meaningful reform” instead of abolition. “Reform” is just repackaging. She lost, btw.
What I am telling you is that the wording is wrong because it’s cheap, vague, and ineffective. It’s the kind of thing that rednecks say while leaning on their pickup trucks.
No one using this would be trying to “stick it to the man” by doing this. They’re trying to get some scrapes from the man by doing this.
But to fix the problem we need to regulate their trading and get donor money out of politics.
You’re talking about a bandaid that stops the bleeding but not infection.
We need a long-term solution
I don’t think this is supposed to be a solution to anything, though there is no article to (not) read.
The two party system as it exists today is the solution to voters having a say about these things.
And every cycle they both tighten their hold on voters.
The method described in the post is more like the fish that follow sharks around. They aren’t there to stop the shark, they are there to eat.
To stop the shark requires an entirely separate effort
Except the shark is eating fish, and the scavenger fish are eating the scraps from their friends’ dead bodies…
I mean, if you really want to go deep on the analogy
Sure, but youre criticizing that this isnt going to fix anything. Its not meant to, its an attempt to also benefit from a rigged system. An entirely separate effort is required to solve the rigging.
Also, even without sharks around fish still eat other fish. This isnt the sharks doing.
That’s kind of like saying school shootings aren’t a big deal because we all die eventually…
I dunno man, I don’t think you’re gonna get this.
I’m saying this is the farthest thing from a solution. It’s the opposite of a solution. People doing these investments are increasing the problem.
The phrase “get money out of politics” has been repeated millions upon millions of times in public and private venues and nobody has defined what that phrase means and how to do it. It’s vagueness makes it useless. Try “abolish corporate lobbyist bribery” or anything that more specifically points out that you are being taxed without representation because you can never give enough money to ever be heard by your representatives.
Just because you don’t understand something, doesn’t mean no one else does…
I googled this in 2 seconds…
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/campaign-finance-reform
Is that supposed to be some sort of “own”?
You did not understand the assignment.
Good news!
I figured out why you think no one can explain it.
You linked to one dead campaign that was pledging not to accept campaign contributions and which calls for “meaningful reform” instead of abolition. “Reform” is just repackaging. She lost, btw.
What I am telling you is that the wording is wrong because it’s cheap, vague, and ineffective. It’s the kind of thing that rednecks say while leaning on their pickup trucks.