One of the many reasons we need campaign finance reform is to keep big companies and lobbies from buying our elected officials.
Want to know why so many Senators are voting for Betsy DeVos?
Want to know why so many oppose common sense gun reform?
What to know why pharmaceutical companies can rip you off?
Want to know why Senators oppose funding green energy?
To all the SJWs, I say Trump is YOUR fault. You promoted such a disgusting toxic culture of crybullying, so much political correctness that it’s suffocating, utilizing silencing tactics instead of being open to discussion, and have fully succeeded in poisoning the left side of the political spectrum. Trump being elected is America’s backlash against it. I’m not happy about how the election turned out, buy I would feel all the same if Hilary was elected. You made your bed, now you cry in it.
I found a £2000 computer on amazon that was, through some pricing glitch, marked down to fuckign £14, and after spending over an hour researching the seller and amazon’s incorrect pricing policies I’ve elected to buy it just to see what will happen. Will keep you all updated
In the process of setting electoral districts, gerrymandering is a practice that attempts to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts.
Gerrymandering is named after Massachusetts governor, Elbridge Gerry because an election district created by members of his party in 1812 looked like a salamander.
As you can see, the popular vote and the congressional seats won are very different. Some of these states have a Democratic majority voters, but still more seats go to republicans.
Honestly, can we just have computers make the districts???
STEP 2: REMOVE ELECTION FINANCE LAWS
“There is not going to be any real enforcement.”
“The few rules that are left, people feel free to ignore.”
Those are recent statements by two members of the Federal Election Commission — the government agency that is supposed to enforce our country’s campaign finance rules. You know it from Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. FEC, the disastrous Supreme Court rulings that are allowing unlimited corporate spending to drown out the voices of everyday Americans in our political process. Corporations are now allowed to funnel unlimited money into SuperPACs that do not require to tell us who are funding their donations and advertisements.
Since Citizens United was decided in 2010, outside money in our elections grows while transparency shrinks. Outside spending on the 2014 elections alone was well over $500 MILLION. Backed by a geyser of money supplied by ultra-wealthy donors and corporations, radical right-wing extremists swept Senate and House races across the country. The Koch Brothers are doubling down and preparing to spend almost a billion dollars over the next two years. Not to mention Wall Street banks, Oil and Gas Industry, and every other corporation are looking to influence legislation.
What happens after these elections? Less than a quarter of all government contractors disclose their campaign donations. Corporations that receive government contracts shouldn’t be able to secretly spend big money electing and re-electing the same lawmakers who are handing out government contracts. With these Supreme Court rulings there is no government accountability and corporations are allowed to pay to play.
STEP 3: RESTRICT VOTING
Last year the Supreme Court’s 5–4 decision in Shelby County v. Holder gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Before this ruling, Section 5 mandated that states with a history of racial discrimination seek “preclearance" to make any changes to voting procedures. Section 5 was extremely effective at ensuring that discriminatory voting procedures weren’t implemented. Now, individuals in these states are susceptible to an increased chance of discrimination when trying to head to the polls.
Since 2010, 21 states have added new voting restrictions. Extensive studies have showed that there has been only 31 out of 1,000,000,000 cases of voter fraud in the last 14 years. These photo ID laws that are sold to prevent fraud are only made to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of student, minority, and elderly voters. Anybody whose name does not match when you first registered; if you are a woman and you registered to vote before getting married and your married name does not match or specifically transgender people. In Texas as one example, there are only
81 DMVs in its 254 counties.
Furthermore, many of these IDs cost the individual, causing a election tax which is illegal.
These states have also made attacks on early voting, and laws making it harder to register to vote.
It is also illegal for developmentally and intellectually disabled people to vote in 39 states. At least 70% of polling sites nationwide are physically inaccessible and less than half of these sites offer curbside voting causing disabled people are about 20% less likely to vote than abled people.
The point is women, minority, lgbt and young voters tend to vote with the Democratic or third parties. The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy, but most Americans would be surprised to find out there is no affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution.
That 2015 “Vote Tory” Battlebus that Boris Johnson used to ride round in. The one that’s part of the reason they just got fined £70,000 for breaking the laws as to what extent they’re allowed to buy elections. The blue one.
That 2016 “Vote Leave” Battlebus that Boris Johnson used to ride around in. The one with that outrageous “If we leave the EU then the NHS gets £350 million” lie on it. The red one.
Here’s what I reckon. We find where they’ve been parked and they have a FUN RACE.
If the Vote Leave Bus loses then they have to reverse the results of the referendum.
If the Vote Tory Bus loses then they have to reverse all political consequences of their 2015 win.
Buying real estate at post-crash prices is business. And there isn’t anything wrong with it. But “sorta hoping” for a war so that you can sell bullets, or a fire so you can collect on the insurance, or a housing bust to scoop up foreclosed homes, seems like more than “just business.” The last one seems like the sort of thing one might forgive in a person too young to know better, trying to buy their first house or start building a fortune. But rooting for the collapse of the American housing market in your sixties, fully aware of the implications, when you already have more wealth than you’ll ever need, because you can use your spare cash to pad your billions?
Then rooting for countless families to be foreclosed upon is awful.
Indifference to huge swaths of America may matter little for a Manhattan mogul, but matters very much for someone asking to be entrusted with representing every American. And politically, an answer like that cannot help Trump in a swing states like Florida, Nevada, or Arizona, where so many families were devastated by the housing crash.
So Ed has totally won “grand romantic gestures” and everyone else can go home we will never be more romantic
Oswald is a freaking head of crime and has a ton of cronies that would happily kill Ed as soon as look at him.
While Ed probably worked it out that Butch couldn’t find him until the results, there was a very real risk that Os would find out well before, and have Ed killed. Ed actually risked his life to do this.
And I also freaking love the instance with the girl. Ed didn’t just sit down and say “I know what Oswald needs better than he does”- he had a theory and he tested it. He didn’t think that Oswald would actually be happy buying the election So he tested that out.
What is Oswald’s reaction to someone genuinely appreciating him?
What is Oswald’s reaction to someone being paid to appreciate him?
I’m pretty sure that if, when Ed paid off the girl, Oswald had said, “Thank you- see, this is exactly my point. Why take the risk? It’s so much more satisfying having the certainty.” and truly meant it, Ed would’ve backed off. Okay, Os is cool with this, whatever.
But he wasn’t. He was crushed. And anyone with any common sense would know that Oswald would not be truly happy with a bought election.
So Ed risked his freaking life to prove to Oswald that Oswald is better than this. Oswald had the ability to legitimately win in it.
(also a very real possibility that he somehow convinced Butch that he’d taken the money back, or that he used other threats to get them to rig it, but the point is- Oswald thought it was legit!)
I think the most hilarious argument for guns (especially assault weapons) yet is this peculiar notion that conservatives NEED guns to fight off the government if it becomes tyrannical.
Mother fuckers, HAVE YOU SEEN REALITY LATELY?
Our elections are bought buy the highest bidder, our government spies on us and pours trillions of dollars into a military industrial complex while our education and healthcare systems crumble and our populous has an increasing poverty rate that is shameful in the wealthiest nation on the planet, our legislature is dysfunctional to the extreme and works with banks and corporations to reward them for avoiding taxes and having low wage jobs overseas while they hedge our property, our discourse, and our well-being…
If ya’ll want to fight tyranny, what the fuck are you waiting for?????
Oh, yah. That’s right. Muh Constitution and Muh Freedoms. Muh Capitalism and Muh Free Market. Muh Military and Muh ‘Merica!
Sell off your liberty for a gun and tax cuts for wealthy corporations. Because guns put food on the table and offshore money creates jobs.
Your guns have been so helpful to your country. Pat yourselves on the back.
Super PACs funded by billionaires are buying elections. Ordinary people don’t get out and vote. We have an economic and political crisis in this country. Visit http://bernie.to/IACaucus and www.voteforbernie.org to help make this political revolution a reality. #FeelTheBern (at Mason City, Iowa)
Moderator: “You said in Iowa, ‘I do not represent the interests of the very wealthy.’ If you’re President of the United States, you have to represent everybody, don’t you? Do you believe there is a risk of seeming divisive in a statement like that?”
Bernie Sanders: “Divisive? You know, when you have the 20 wealthiest people in this country owning more wealth than the bottom 150 million people, when you have a handful of billionaires spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to buy elections and represent candidates and have candidates elected to represent the wealthy and the powerful, frankly, I think we need a movement in this country; and no individual can do it alone; a political revolution that says to the billionaire class, ‘Your greed has gone a long way to destroy our economy,’ and second of all, ‘You can’t have it all.’ This country belongs to all of us, not a handful. I will take them on.”
Me: The moderator of tonight’s town hall, Chris Cuomo, is the son of Mario Cuomo (former Governor of New York) and brother of Andrew Cuomo (the current Governor of New York). This ridiculous question shows off his privilege in a glaring way. Who gives a shit about billionaires? They’re doing just fine. In fact, for the most part, they’re not just neutral wealthy people, they’re using their wealth, (and gained much of their wealth in the first place) from the active exploitation and oppression of others. So hell no, Bernie has no obligation to further enable their outrageous wealth.
They are saying that? These people who want to cut social security, cut medicaid, and give tax breaks to billionaires at a time when we have more income and wealth inequality, who reject science, who like a campaign finance system that allows billionaires to buy elections. They are telling the American people that I am to extreme? Sorry dont buy it.
Bernie Sanders when told republicans think hes too liberal
Only the Daily Mail could hail the resurrection of a thirty five year old policy which has been the very cause of the shortage of affordable housing in this country as a “revolution.”
This is what Wikipedia has to say about Right To Buy:
The Right to Buy scheme is a policy in the United Kingdom which gives secure tenants of councils and some housing associations the legal right to buy, at a large discount, the home they are living in. There is also a Right to Acquire for assured tenants of housing association homes built with public subsidy after 1997, at a smaller discount. About 1.5 million homes in the UK have been sold in this manner since 1980. Critics claim that this compounded a housing shortage for those of low income, initiated a national house price bubble, and what is commonly recognised as the displacement and social cleansing of traditional communities. [source]
To be clear, this is nothing new, this is the extension of an existing scheme and this is about the transfer of public assets into the private sector so that private landlords can monetize existing affordable housing schemes.