I want to bring this argument forwards; if the government wanted their corruption covered up, it would be easy to erase a certain study from princeton. Too easy. So ehy would they let their corruption be publicly opened unless it served them a better purpose?
It already is? Other than the Washington post, I haven't seen this study reported anywhere else. Most people don't read the Post, so it's pretty safe to say that it's essentially 'covered up' since it's not in the mass media.
@ Cheese Ran Paul has about as much chance as Rue Paul does to become president. For one, he doesn't have the support of the GOP establishment because he's not really a Republican. He's a closet Libertarian. He's also anti Wall Street, so he doesn't have the support of big corporations and the money crowd. I could list more, but those two alone are reasons why he's not going to get the GOP nomination. While I agree with some of his policy positions, I disagree with more than I agree with. He's basically a disciple of Ayn Rand and unregulated capitalism. My money is on either Walker or Bush to get the GOP nomination.
Dragon - it's funny that we're talking about presidential elections already. Only in America. Frankly, I don't think it matters who becomes president, aside from their foreign policy agenda, the executive branch has little effect on the most Americans (veto power aside). It is for this reason that Hillary scares me. This is a woman with a lot of pent up anger and an agenda to prove she can be just as tough as a man. I don't get why the executive is so god damn trigger happy. It's almost like the media will crucify the president unless they start or escalate a war by painting them as 'weak.' And of course, they all cave, and the media gets wet with advertising dollars.
Not from the US here but in a capitalist system that is following a similiar path...dog i think along the same lines...wondering perhaps even if it's not what the media project but they themselves that are also yet another fasade for a simple but large information collection system...they're all about the ratings after all and the right information can b priceless.
Actually the study focused on the relationship between the citizenry and decisions made by the government in conjunction with the effect of the rich and influential - in other words, people and groups with money have far more control over policy than the majority of citizens. Nothing new or unknown. Especially in the past few decades where well backed Republicans have pushed for financial deregulation, as reflected in the Citizens United turnover of decades of precedent, flooding unlimited amounts of money into politics (naturally, Democrats have also taken advantage of the unregulated flow of money, but they have been generally against this deregulation). Calling this "corruption" on its own without further consideration of the actual behavior of each elected official, is extreme. In fact, this thread is replete with players urging reason and actual research instead of falling prey to media created by special interests that engage in hate-mongering by telling people to believe things like the Jade Helm Conspiracy is real, the government has been pushing to confiscate people's guns, Hillary Clinton is scary because she has pent up anger issues (that only true believers are aware of), that the government will label you a terrorist if you question it, and that a revolution is the proper way to deal with United State's ills. I think the strangest aspect of this new "corruption" panic, is that the same fear-mongerers who push this aspect of the story also support and promote politicians whose policies would further exacerbate the problem with further financial deregulation and tax protections for the super-wealthy. So, not corruption per se (although I'm sure we could find instances that would rise to the level of corruption), and no need for paranoid revolutionary reactionism. This study simply highlights the need for an educated electorate, who will ignore ideological pandering, and vote for officials who are willing to take steps to lessen the power of money in politics.
There is no government institution in the world that would be corruption free - it comes with the powers. Nothing new... Corruption as old as prostitution.
Corruption is everywhere not just America. So tired of hearing trash like this. Why the hell do so many people come here if so bad i mean really U r more than welcome to stay out. If ur n dont like it ur more than welcome to leave. Stop complaining
@ Kingcalm You nailed it. The Republican party has literally become the party of stupid people. People who ignore study after study and think 97% of the world's climatologists are lying for some reason, yet totally believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and dinosaurs walked next to humans because a book written 3,400 years ago by primitive goat herding nomads told them so. People who think evolution is a lie despite overwhelming evidence and near universal acceptance in the scientific community because it offends them to think they evolved from an early primate instead of being magically created from dirt. People who think their "freedoms" are being oppressed because they aren't allowed to deny fellow citizens equal rights. The list goes on and on. The Democratic party is far from perfect, but the Republican party takes stupidity and hypocrisy to whole new levels. This is the party who proudly claims that they champion family and religious values while at the same actively pursuing polices that leave the bulk of American families poorer and are contrary to very religious values they claim to hold so dear. I've been following politics for decades and it's only getting stupider. When Carter was President about the worst thing you heard was that he was incompetent and naive. Then came Clinton, who they claimed was a lying, drug addicted thief who probably had people murdered. When Obama got elected they went bat crap crazy. Some of them actually think he's the flipping Anti-Christ who's actively trying to destroy the county. I'm not kidding. Ex-US Agent Claims Military Thwarted Obama False Flag Nuke/EMP Attack this Fall http://www.erikrush.com/ex-us-agent-cla ... this-fall/ These idiots actually think Obama tried to nuke Charleston. They're that crazy. They vote Republican. And Republican politicians pander to them instead of telling them they're idiots because they need their votes. Besides, some of those politicians think it's true themselves. They're that stupid. Not to mention consistently wrong on just about everything, especially economics. Thirty years of data proves beyond any doubt that trickle down economics doesn't work, yet they keep pushing those policies. You show them the numbers and they just stare at you while mumbling "but we need more tax cuts for the rich to create jobs" Of course, not all Republicans are stupid. Some of them know very well most of their polices are crap. They don't care because they're making money from those polices. And they'll keep on making more and more money as long as the stupid ones can be manipulated into voting against their own interests by telling them gay atheist socialists are coming for their guns.
Anyone whom is biased left or right is ignorant, despite political leanings. When the country becomes more moderate I'll start caring, because conservative or liberal they all have their pocketbook as an agenda.
I'm an American war vet who makes informed voting decisions and actively participates in the political process through NGOs and my representatives. I have every right to complain.
@KingCalm educated electorate? To achive what? In the best scenario to refrain to vote. Educated to vote for who? There's only two choices: republicans or democrats. None is better than the other one. People are voting republicans than 4 years later "oh no! Republicans ruined the country!" and vote for democrats. Then 4 years latee "oh no! Democrats ruined the country!" and vote for republicans. And so on. No incentive for them to change anything. Both sides know that will reach to power anyway so why would they change the system?
This is the downside of having a bi-polar political system. Indeed a multi-party political system can become even worse. A minor party can impose his agenda just because that small party might be needed to form a majority and therefore have a "blackmail" tool.
So because corruption is everywhere you think the voices of reason should be silenced. Let me tell you it's always been 1 person to step up to make change. I'll do a rough draft of a poem I've been contemplating. I will not go silently. When people are oppressed, when freedom is no more than a tool used to enslave I will not go silently. When children starve for profit, when constution rights are absolved for statues , I will not go silently, when ignorance prevails , when abominations that cannot populate are condoned , I will not go silently. When lies are told , when people are so lost they need a voice of reason , I will not go silently. When those that govern for profit not for people , when privacy is not yours , I will not go silently. When love isn't used to make decisions, when free thinking is conspiracy theory , I will not go silenty. That is not how I wanted the poem to be and made it up while typing. But you get the point and it can be applied to anyone who wants equality and freedom. Please never silence yourselfs. Never become subservient. Be the voice of reason for those that have no voice and lead them to liberation. I applaud all who take the time to critical think regardless if they end up being wrong. Please stand up for those that can't and maybe the one who can lead the people from oppression will be inspired and step forth and get the masses to put a end to this madness. But never stay silent because there's corruption everywhere it'll get you worse off. Crackers isn't a game changer but maybe you can be
@ Akura That's just it. One party is better than the other. One party is reasonably sane. The other one isn't. Let's take the subject of the thread for example. Corruption. One party thinks corporations are people, that money equals speech, so therefore corporations should be able to spend whatever they want to buy politicians. And do it anonymously. The other party doesn't. Think about it. They think Exxon and Walmart should be able to spend billions to buy elections. And they say it's not really outright bribery, because hey, no one is actually saying they're going to do favors for them in return for all that cash. Does anyone seriously believe that? Need more? Look at the Iran nuke deal. We're on the verge of making a deal that would theoretically keep Iran from making a bomb. Our allies involved in the negotiations think it's a workable deal. The weapons experts thinks it's a workable deal. One party thinks it's a workable deal and we should give it a try. The other party thinks we should bomb Iran. And keep bombing them as long as it takes. Never mind the fact that if we find out they aren't complying with the deal, we can always bomb them later. We need to bomb them now. That silly son of unwed parents, Tom Cotton, is even calling for "regime change" in Iran. There won't be any consequences. There won't be a war. It'll be easy. It'll just take a few days. That's sanity? The argument that there's no difference between the parties and that one party isn't any better than the other is fiction. One party is reasonably sane. The other isn't.
Hypothetical situation n baseless... Govt was shut down with only 2 parties..FACT but stick with the bi-polar politics n hope for change. IMO the Us n Them attitude is not healthy. I know of no evidence supporting a 2 party system is best. The possibility of a minority govt occurs when no party deserves a majority. Proving a choice of the lesser evil is not forced. Competition is healthy.
America doesn't have an official two party system. We've got plenty of political parties. Like I said earlier, Rand Paul is actually a Libertarian. It's an official party that fields candidates. They rarely win though, which is why Rand Paul ran on the Republican ticket. He would have never gotten elected as a Libertarian. Most Americans don't vote for third parties because they know it's basically wasting a vote. The 2000 election is a prime example. Al Gore would have beaten George Bush had Ralph Nader not ran on the Green Party ticket and split the vote. Nader was drawing more than twice as many Democrat voters as he was Republican voters. Winning Florida won Bush the election. Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Had Gore gotten the votes that went to Nader, Gore would have been president.