FTFY
1 Like
According to the FEC , I am a big money donor because I have donated more than $200. Not seeing how thatâs disingenuous of me to say.
So youâre ok with rich people paying their fair share when it comes to taxes, but not when it comes to elections AS IT STANDS NOW.
In order to change it WE HAVE TO WIN. And NOT just the presidency. Republicans understand that, and have been crushing us for years because of it. But by all means, take the moral victory. I hope it works this time, I really do.
Yes?
Like. Do you think wealthy donors are a good thing or a bad thing? Because you are currently arguing that theyâre a good thing. Not that theyâre a necessary evil, but that they are proactively good because it saves lower income people money and Hollywood is on our side or something. So which is it?
Also this. This is a much smaller story than people are making it out to be. But itâs a step in the right direction I guess.
Damned if you do, damned if you donât
https://twitter.com/sallyalbright/status/1182047613434159108?s=21
1 Like
I am saying in our current system, they are necessary.
I am saying our current system is bad.
I am saying that the system isnât going to change unless we win and change it from within. Unless we can somehow use trebuchets, because those are legitimately cool.
1 Like
Itâs a real paradox. Take money, win (maybe) then become beholden to your benefactors, nothing changes. Donât take money, lose, nothing changes.
Maybe the lesson here is that nothing changes?
Nothing stopping you from taking money from donors then screwing them. Bill Clinton did it to the unions w/ NAFTA.
1 Like
You should read the Slate Star Codex blog post on election funding vs almonds. It turns out that the US spends more on almonds than campaigns. Not making a specific point, but itâs an interesting fact.
Hereâs an audio/podcast version. Astral Codex Ten Podcast: Too Much Dark Money in Almonds
This woman is a political comms strategist. She makes a living leeching off of these donations. Iâm shocked, SHOCKED, that she would be against this.
1 Like
Joe saying it out loud again 
The system isnât going to change, period. If you want real change the system needs to be destroyed. The Democrats (or at least the good ones) donât want to destroy anything, they believe they can save the system from itself. They are almost certainly wrong.
2 Likes
so basically, Trump. because heâs doing a decent job of destroying it.
How? How do we tear down the system? Can we do it without winning? It seems to me youâre saying we need to do it without winning.
where do we aim?
(trebuchets are cool)
1 Like
You are asserting that an election canât be won without big money donors. Spare us the reminder that the FEC thinks you are one. The Koch brothers distribute hundreds of millions each election cycle. They think less about you than someone crossing a lawn thinks about stepping on an ant.
3 Likes
What if the Trump presidency was 9d chess all along, moderate dems working with republicans to get Hilldawg elected in 2020
1 Like
I would say that one step towards tearing down the system involves proving that you can win running on a message of anti-rich class warfare.
Referring to a 200 dollar individual donor as an example of the type of money people are talking about when they say they want money out of politics is completely misrepresenting that view. They are talking about hosting closed door events where admission is based on not just a max donation to a single candidateâs campaign but also max donation to the DNC, and the PACs for the House and Senate running up over 30k. They are talking about the Hillary Victory Fund shenanigans. They are talking about all the loopholes that allow the Koch brothers to invest in candidates way beyond the maximum individual contribution.
2 Likes