Anonymous #1 3w

Politicians care about getting elected that’s how the incentives work. I would prefer politically uneducated people have this take so they don’t vote.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Apparently state and local elections just don’t matter and it’s all rich and elites. Bro, populists just need to die. So tired of dealing with you dipshits. You’re actually worse than communists and socialists. I mean fuck…at least they have some framework for their beliefs.

4

Anonymous __joker__ 3w

You kind of proved my point. Instead of discussing the actual idea, that blind loyalty to parties divides us, you jumped to insults and wishing death on people. That’s exactly the kind of toxic political mindset I was talking about. If you need to wish death on people just to defend your party, maybe my post hit closer to home than you want to admit? - OP

2

Anonymous #3 3w

There is no “idea” behind populist. It’s just bird-brained nonsense. This whole “why are we fighting?!? The real enemy is the elites!” is so fucking tiring to listen to because it’s the thinking of simpletons who have no concept of the actual difficulties behind politics.

1

Anonymous __joker__ 3w

Moving the goalposts. The only election that makes real difference is the federal election.

2

Anonymous __joker__ 3w

Calling people ‘simpletons’ isn’t an argument. The whole point of my post was that regular people are stuck fighting each other while politicians and elites, regardless of party, play games with power. If that sounds ‘bird brained’ to you, maybe you’re too busy defending a system that doesn’t even benefit you. Funny how pointing out division makes me a ‘simpleton,’ but blindly defending politicians like they’re your team mascot doesn’t?

1

Anonymous #1 3w

It doesn’t matter who is elected because both candidates are controlled by corporations through lobbying.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

No. Unlike you, I have actual fleshed out fucking policy positions. You will NEVER state anything you’re actually for besides this ethereal nonsense of “we need to come together and fight the rich and elites!”. It’s obtusely ignorant to not even remotely believe that there are huge swathes of people who disagree but instead it’s just “the elites” seeing division.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

You honestly deserve the state of politics this country is in tbh. You and every other American who thinks like you.

1

Anonymous __joker__ 3w

You keep acting like the only way to be serious about politics is to throw around policy lists, but that completely misses the point. Policies mean nothing if the system itself runs on division and money. Pointing out that elites and politicians exploit people’s differences to stay in power isn’t ‘ethereal nonsense’ it’s basic political reality. If all you’ve got is calling people ignorant for noticing it, you’re not defending democracy, you’re defending the game being rigged.

0

Anonymous __joker__ 3w

God you are brainwashed holy I can’t help you. We will continue to see the wealth disparity rise because of people like you.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Okay. Now I’m just going to fully ignore you lol. Imagine trying to talk about politics but having no real beliefs or policies. Just this stoner tier “bro war is bad dawg! Everyone should just be happy brah”. Let me know when you reach the age of reason and we can have this conversation.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Good. You deserve it due to how you view politics.

1

Anonymous __joker__ 3w

Wild how you keep saying you’re going to ‘ignore me’ but still can’t stop writing paragraphs. If pointing out the obvious, that division benefits politicians and elites rattles you this much, I think the convo’s already over. Thanks for proving my point again dipshit.

1

Anonymous __joker__ 3w

I would hate to have a conversation with you about morals😭😭😭😭

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Says the person who thinks “policies are meaningless” 😭 Totally unserious person. Stoner shower thoughts tier conversation from you.

0

Anonymous #1 3w

Then don’t.

1

Anonymous __joker__ 3w

I never said policies are meaningless, I said they don’t matter if the system itself runs on money and division. You keep twisting that into something I didn’t say, then padding it with insults. If misquoting me and name calling is the best you’ve got, you’ve already lost the argument buddy lmfao.

1

Anonymous #1 3w

Most of your education and law enforcement policy is done at the state level - local elections are unbelievably important.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

You can take over. I’m going to feverishly tear my house apart for a bottle of bleach. I’m thirsty.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

What group lobbied for the key stone pipeline to be shut down?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

Exactly my point again, whether it was environmental groups, corporations, or industry lobbyists on the other side, the fact remains policy outcomes like Keystone aren’t decided by average people, they’re decided by whichever interest group has the most money and influence. That’s the system I’m calling out. You asking me to pick a specific group just proves how much control lobbying has over politics lol.

0

Anonymous #3 3w

How is me asking for an example proving your point? The actual answer is the key stone pipeline wasn’t popular. do connections and money matter? that’s somewhat true popular support matters 100x more. If it was just whoever had more money why would an “environmental group” have more money than a large oil corporation?

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Politicians are incentivize mainly by getting elected that’s why they’re politicians. That’s why policy between the two parties is meaningfully different. Why would pay to corrupt a politician when you just pay one who already has those values?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

You’re oversimplifying. Popular support only matters when it aligns with where the money flows otherwise you end up with decades of policies that most Americans oppose (war in Iraq, corporate bailouts, healthcare gridlock, Citizens United, etc.) but still happen because donors and lobbies push them. The Keystone pipeline had massive corporate money behind it it didn’t just die because it was ‘unpopular’ it died because pressure groups with influence were able to counterbalance Big Oil.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

And your second point actually proves mine if politicians are mainly incentivized by elections, why do corporations and billionaires pour billions into campaigns and PACs every cycle? They’re not donating out of charity they’re buying alignment and access. Whether you call that corruption or ‘shared values,’ the end result is the same: ordinary people’s voices get drowned out by money.

0

Anonymous #3 3w

Do you see how you’re making an unfalsifiable claim? ofc there’s going to be money when there’s popular support. Also you’re just wrong about Iraq the pic is from pew research before the Iraq invasion. Ok so then it’s not all about money then?

1

Anonymous #3 3w

I already headed off this argument bc politicians are supported by people who agree them. Again why would you pay to hopefully corrupt a politician when you can support who already aligns with you? All your claims are unfalsifiable if it’s not about money then it’s “pressure groups”. I have to find a specific policy where no interest group is involved but is also wildly popular to disprove you, It’s literally impossible.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Also citizens united was a court case from the Supreme Court the supreme doesn’t have a popular mandate. Ig you can say there’s corruption or a conspiracy but the Supreme Court isn’t rlly supposed to consider popular opinion that’s why they aren’t elected. Unless they have a living constitutional interpretation of something, but that’s up to their discretion.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Oh sorry you said the war in Iraq fighting isis was popular.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

You keep trying to play gotcha with cherry picked polls and courtroom technicalities, but you’re sidestepping the bigger point. Yes, there was initial support for Iraq but that support didn’t happen in a vacuum, it was manufactured through years of media messaging, lobbying, and political fearmongering. That’s literally how influence works, money and power shape the narrative before the public even gets polled.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

And on your ‘alignment’ point if politicians were truly just reflecting voters, explain why we consistently see policies with overwhelming public support (universal background checks, drug price negotiations, abortion access, higher minimum wage) stall or die while big donors on the other side get what they want. That doesn’t happen by accident, it happens because money bends the playing field.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

Citizens United is the perfect example it legalized unlimited outside spending, which only tilted politics further toward money. Saying ‘the Court isn’t elected’ doesn’t change the fact that it gave billionaires and corporations more leverage than everyday voters.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

You’re proving my point again whether it’s lobbying, media spin, campaign financing, or the courts, ordinary people’s voices get drowned out. You can nitpick polls all day, but it doesn’t erase the obvious, money talks louder than voters

1

Anonymous #3 3w

It doesn’t matter if it gave corporations more power the point of the court isn’t to limit corporations power the point is for them to interpret the law. You can disagree with their interpretation or say it’s bc they’re corrupt whatever, but you’re not understanding the point of the court which makes bc sense your “not political” which I feel like is just code for you have rlly strong opinion but don’t know a lot about the subject.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

You can say I’m proving your point instead of engaging with what I’m saying that’s fine. Again your claim is unfalsifiable and doesn’t make a lot of sense for the reason I already stated. I also like how the point you brought up is now nitpicking bc you were wrong lol.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

I can show more polls they all overwhelmingly align with what I’m saying so I’m happy to go down that road. So true the dislike of Iraq was all manufactured there was no reason to dislike Iraq at the time. I thought popularity didn’t matter why would you need to influence people if you can just buy politicians? Now you’re actually proving my point crazy.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Bc we don’t decide things through polls it’s nuanced but the main push for policy is popularity. Bc conservatives have disproportional advantage in our systems mainly through senate but also through the electoral college bc land distorts votes, which that’s done on purpose. It depends what policy we’re talking about abortion is still pretty close. It also depends on the poll. If polls show different results based on the question I usually see that as a sign of not super strong opinions on polci

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

You just admitted yourself that it’s not all about popularity, it’s ‘nuanced.’ That’s exactly what I’ve been saying money, lobbying, media influence, and systemic biases (like the Senate/EC you mentioned) all skew outcomes away from what ordinary people want. That’s not unfalsifiable that’s observable.

0

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

Citizens United isn’t me missing the point of the Court, it’s me pointing out how the system keeps tilting further toward money. Pretending that’s just neutral law interpretation ignores the real world effect billionaires and corporations gained more political power while average voters got less.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

You can call me “not political” all day, but it’s telling that instead of engaging with the substance, you keep circling back to polls, semantics, and personal digs. I don’t need to out argue you in paragraphs when your own contradictions already prove my point.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

You literally said you’re not political lmao I didn’t just randomly call you that. Polls are the substance how else are we supposed to know if any given policy is popular? Are we supposed to trust your feelings on what’s popular? that’s obviously not true as we seen with Iraq. What semantics are we disagreeing on lol pls tell me? The only personal dig I’ve done is I’ve said you don’t seem to know a lot about this bc you’ve been wrong repeatedly, but I’ve addressed your arguments.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Yeah I never said it was all popularity in fact I explicitly said “do connections and money matter? That’s somewhat true” but I’m being the bad faith one here as you mischaracterize something that I explicitly clarified. That wasn’t your argument, your argument was “they’re decided by whichever interest group has the most money and influence” if by influence you mean popular support then I agree but at that point you just believe what everyone else in politics already believes.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Some of it is observable like the specific things I already listed some of it isn’t observable and is unfalsifiable like the things I specifically listed. Then show the actual connection of how billionaires impacted it instead of saying “well the law benefited one party over another party that means conspiracy” that’s how every case ever works.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

You keep trying to shrink this into polls = substance, but polls only show surface level popularity. They don’t explain why some popular policies never pass while deeply unpopular ones (corporate bailouts, Citizens United, endless wars) do. That gap between opinion and outcome is exactly what I’m talking about money and influence bending the system.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

And I didn’t mischaracterize you, I quoted you saying “connections and money matter, that’s somewhat true.” That’s literally my point. You admit money and influence play a role, but then keep arguing they don’t matter that much. Which is it?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

As for “show me the billionaire connection,”the evidence isn’t hidden lobbying disclosures, campaign finance data, PAC spending all public, all showing billions spent every election cycle. If that money didn’t buy influence, it wouldn’t be spent. Pretending it’s just a coincidence is what’s unfalsifiable.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

I never said it doesn’t matter? Can you show me where I said it doesn’t matter?

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Show me in the specific case you presented. You keep doing this thing whenever I try to get you to expand a specific claim you retreat to your broad claim.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Wdym me surface level popularity what does even mean lmao? What should we look at instead of polls to decide what’s popular? I never said they explain that I said they’re an indication of popularity. You keep falsely claiming things are unpopular without evidence. Yeah I know what your vague claim is I feel we’re never gonna talk about any specifics bc any evidence that disputes you is “surface level” or “isn’t substance” despite it directly contradicting what you previously said.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

You keep asking me to “show where you said money doesn’t matter”but I never claimed you said it outright I said you keep downplaying it. You literally called money “somewhat true” while still insisting popularity drives everything. That is minimizing the role of money.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

And on polls, they’re not useless, they’re just limited. They show what people say they support in a given moment, not why they believe it, how strongly, or whether policy actually reflects it. That’s why I call it surface level. A majority can favor background checks, lower drug prices, or higher wages, yet those bills stall in Congress while donor backed priorities sail through. If popularity were enough, those policies would already be law.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

The specifics you’re demanding don’t disprove my point, they highlight it when money aligns with popular opinion, you can’t separate the two; when it doesn’t, money often wins. That’s observable, not unfalsifiable.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Let’s name a specific case and go through it then where popular support was against something and money won

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Yeah my point is I don’t downplay it I’m keep a consistent opinion you keep trying to conflate the two. When in actuality i just have a nuanced opinion. You’re acting like that’s a contradiction when it isn’t I can say it is “somewhat true” and still have case by case takes your not saying anything meaningful. You’re just desperately reaching for a contradiction, bc you contradicted yourself with actual observable info like polls.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Support and what they believe are synonyms I understand you have to cope over polls bc they don’t support your points but pls make it less obvious. Polls do show popularity you keep obfuscating that point but it’s obviously true. Bc it’s not just as simple as popularity, popularity doesn’t mean there’s a bunch of political attention, popularity doesn’t mean that conservatives have a slim advantage in congress. If you’re not scarred to go over specifics pls let’s go over one.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

Alright, let’s do specifics: 1. Universal background checks for guns consistently polls above 80–90% support across Democrats, Republicans, and independents, yet Congress won’t pass it because the NRA and gun lobbies spend millions blocking it. 2. Prescription drug price negotiation years of polls showing 70–80% support, but Big Pharma lobbying ($300+ million annually) stalled it for decades until tiny reforms squeaked through last year.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 3w

3. Raising the minimum wage majority support in poll after poll, even in red states where ballot initiatives pass, but federal action gets blocked because business lobbies and donor pressure lean harder. These are observable, not vague. Popular support is there, policy doesn’t follow, and the missing variable isn’t “semantics”it’s lobbying and money. That’s exactly the pattern I’ve been pointing to since the start.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Ok I like how I asked for A specific case but we’re gonna spam out three bc we’re good faith, regardless. 1. Democrats on mass support universal background checks last time it was almost put to a vote (to my knowledge) 50 Republican senators refused to put it up. 2.if people aren’t sure there’s obviously a lack of political will or interest.

1

Anonymous #3 3w

State ballot initiatives don’t take effect at the federal level “I’m not political” (again you have strong opinions but you don’t know anything). We literally just had a presidential election were one candidate (democrat) was promising a 15$ minimum and another (republican) wasn’t guess who one both in the electoral collage and popular vote?

1

Anonymous #3 3w

Your claim is vague and the reason why it was vague is bc when we get into specifics you get blown out of the water. Bc you don’t know anything you project your surface level knowledge of politics onto real observable data like polls. You were the one who claimed I was using “semantics” fallaciously but you can never articulate how even when asked weird…

1