Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do stupid people vote for rich politicians

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   
This is a question that has been on my mind for quite some time now.

Most people know, or think that politicians are out of touch with the average person.

How much is a loaf of bread, how much is a litre of milk, your average politician would have no idea without asking an aide to quickly come up with an answer.

So why do people in all Countries around the world persist on voting these people into office...time and time again....ignorance or just a lack of someone else to vote for.

These politicians seek election wins for what reason, money, they have plenty of that. Power, they have plenty of that also.
Satisfy their egos, possibly. Or is it that we the dumbass masses have no idea how to think for ourselves, we need them...

Here are a few examples of past and present rich politicians.
Add names to the list, there are plenty of them.

Michael Bloomberg
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is clearly the richest politician in the world, with a fortune estimated by Forbes to be $19.9 billion. The former Wall Street trader founded the financial market information services firm now known as Bloomberg in 1981 and went on to build a global empire. Bloomberg controversially switched his political allegiance from Democrat to Republican in 2001 and become mayor in the same year. He is now serving his third term in the job – a feat he only managed after changing the rules which previously prevented mayors from serving three terms.

Malcolm Turnbull
Former Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull, whose fortune is estimated at $186 million by BRW, is the most prominent wealthy-businessman-turned-politician in Australia. Turnbull, a former lawyer and investment banker, is something of a serial entrepreneur, although as leader he was regularly attacked as being too close to business.

Sebastian Piñera
South American entrepreneur Sebastian Pinera was elected president of Chile in January, and has been forced to deal with the prickly issue of being worth about $2.5 billion in what remains a developing country. Since becoming president-elect, Pinera has sold a number of his investments (including a big stake in Chile's main airline) and put a reported $US400 million in a blind trust

Serge Dassault
French industrialist Serge Dassault, who is worth about $8 billion, is the chairman of media and software company Groupe Dassault and the owner of French daily newspaper, Le Figaro. He has also had a long career as a conservative politician, serving as a French senator since 2004 and also as the mayor of the city of Corbeil-Essonnes, a southern suburb of Paris. However, he was stripped of this latter role last year after it was found he had made "gifts of money" to voters as part of the re-election campaign.

Silvio Berlusconi
If Bloomberg is the richest billionaire politician in the world, then Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is probably the most powerful. Berlusconi's wealth, estimate at about $10 billion, stems from his interest in the media sector, while he also owns interests in everything from advertising agencies and sporting teams to insurance firms and movie production houses.




posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: keenasbro

If you have that sort of money you can buy votes and friends, Warp the media in your favour, buy good PR teams and smear you opposition.

Plus In the UK although we have a few MP from the lower middle classes, only those from the old boy network get the important cabinet positions or get to be prime minister, just take a look at our PM and chancellor they both look like they came out of the same cloning vat!
edit on 12-8-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link   
That's the thing, until the practise of jobs for the boys is truly recognised by voters, the politicians are seen for what they really are, nothing changes.

It is simple to think that I have a few million dollars in my bank account, you have five hundred dollars in your account, you went to public school, so you are dumb and not worthy of any position in politics or any position of power.

Ask Bill Gates, Donald Trump to name a few from humble beginnings.

If we want change, this is as good a place as any to start looking at to make that change.


a reply to: crazyewok



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 05:55 AM
link   
a reply to: keenasbro

Gee you make it sound as though we actually have a choice in the matter.... Does that answer some of your question lol



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: keenasbro

Most politicians are rich and come from privileged backgrounds, by that logic all voters are stupid for voting for them.

You mention Turnbull but you didn't mention any other Australian politicians who are 'guilty' of excessive wealth. What about Clive "lets build another Titanic and a dinosaur park" Palmer?

It's not the wealthy politicians that are the problem, it's the wealthy lobbyists that are the problem. They have used their incredible wealth and power to influence policy for a long time now, and thanks to the latest ICAC hearings these corrupted officials are now falling on their swords.

Sadly those who are responsible for the corruption will never be accounted for-Singleton, Jones, Murdoch-they'll get away with it.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 06:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Old "Let's start a revolution" Clive? Still F**king waiting Clive....



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: keenasbro
Really because you have no other choice. If they weren't Filthy Rich when they get in, they are filthy Rich when they get out. Their Campaign would never see the light of day without Contributions from Big Business. Money changes their perspective, and most anybody that sees a sudden surge in their pay in a couple of weeks thinks they well deserve it.

So now, they got money coming in hand over fits, the "people" Voted and approved them, how can they do or be wrong?

Candidates like Ron Paul and Ross Perot who would have made changes in the right direction are made out to be loonies by the Corporate Owned Media and their Rivals. The 2 Party System is deeply flawed. The Electoral College is deeply flawed, will they change it, NO.

Insider Trading is still Legal for these wretched Phonies that claim to be working for us. They all think they are Princes and Princess's, and might as well be. I can't believe this Nation of Stupids just sits back and takes it.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 06:39 AM
link   
I didn't mention Rudd's $56 million worth either.

As I mentioned in the op, there are plenty of names that could be added, too many in fact.

The average voter is unaware of most politicians wealth, the politicians prefer to keep that information quite for obvious reasons.

My point is the voters should/need to know more about the person they are voting for, will the voter take the time to research a candidate, NO! Tooooo lazy for that, will the voter have a whinge and bitch about a politician, YES! plenty of time for that.

Would a politicians wealth change what a voter thinks about that politician, could the knowledge be enough to change some voters minds, I think so.

DarknStormy
We will never have a choice if no other choices are offered.

The number of Australians who believed it made a difference which party was in power plunged from 68 per cent to 43 per cent in the same period.

www.abc.net.au...

a reply to: Thecakeisalie



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: keenasbro

Most of our representative in the U.S. are millionaires and a lot of them have held office for over 20 years. Considering a congressional representative is supposed to be a temporary job, all of these representatives make it a career job. It's why they voted down term limits. Why would you want to lose a job that pays you a hefty salary, gives you great benefits and power?

We than have people who are just trying to make ends meet who continuously vote them back into office! What's really crazy, is they defend representatives for siding with corporations that refuse to pay people a decent livable wage, reduce corporate taxes while they increase the average citizen's taxes, ignore their representatives government subsidized AAA health insurance coverage, but support them for denying their own citizens healthcare coverage. They stand behind their decisions when they want to sacrifice their constituent's children to fight conflicts overseas that have no direct threat to the U.S. mainland.

Citizens are their own worst enemy.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Probably because they are uneducated on the situation in the first place, and dont fully understand what that vote does. The politicians know this and feed off the uniformed or misguided, its been going on since elections began.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Glassbender777
Probably because they are uneducated on the situation in the first place, and dont fully understand what that vote does. The politicians know this and feed off the uniformed or misguided, its been going on since elections began.


It likely why they don't bother to sort the failing education system out, thick uneducated masses that cant think for themselves only work to there advantage.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: keenasbro

A naturally occurring Aristocracy is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I would expect the wealthiest, most productive members of a society to win in any free elections because they are the ones with the experience and influence to actually run things well. The problem becomes when you have a small insulated group of wealthy/powerful people who have the sole monopoly on issuing currency and credit who can cherrypick who they want to become wealthy and successful preventing 90% of everyone else who might be capable of competing with them from ever getting a chance.

As to people voting against their interests, that seems to be a largely American (USA) dilemma. If you read the news from other countries, you generally do not have poor people hysterically voting in favor of things that overwhelmingly benefit rich people. I think the problem you have with Americans is that truly the majority of them believe that either they will be wealthy one day or that they could be if they just worked hard enough.

People in America view poverty as a shameful thing and therefore they are in perpetual denial about their own socioeconomic status. Most of them don't even realize that in order to live the same quality of life as workers did under the height of unionization, a family of four would need to pull in at least $120k per year, which 90% of them don't.

Our rate of production has increased and our income has remained the same. If anything, we should be enjoying shorter working weeks than any other people in the history of humanity, but two adults are busting their asses, alienating themselves from their families and communities just to maintain a bare level of subsistence.

They don't pull this # on workers in any other 1st world nation. The reason they give the shaft to Americans is because they can. Americans have a slave mentality, which is strange coming from a people who profess to love freedom so much. I really wonder if they even really know what that word means... Getting to pick which master you serve isn't freedom as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: keenasbro
the bigger question is,why do rich people WANT to get into politics? They already have the money and power,what more do they need? W,Cheney,Rumsfield,were all multi millionaires before taking office,(again for a few).They could have lived happily ever after without office,but came back and ruined any reputation they had.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: keenasbro

The power of advertising.

A rich politician can use his/her own funds to a certain extent, hire the best researchers to smear their opponent. "Hey this guy voted down a save the baby bill" (Never mind that it was because there was a rider on it to fund XXXX corporation's ZZZZZ R & D for 5 years.)

The poor politician (if there is one) cannot afford to run as many ads, print as many flyers, travel all over the place and make as many speeches.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: blkcwbyhat
a reply to: keenasbro
the bigger question is,why do rich people WANT to get into politics? They already have the money and power,what more do they need? W,Cheney,Rumsfield,were all multi millionaires before taking office,(again for a few).They could have lived happily ever after without office,but came back and ruined any reputation they had.



Wealth alone, is not influence enough for some of them. They are wealthy and they feel the need to be both wealthy, and powerful.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: keenasbro

Does anyone think anyone can grow up to be president? Check it out...they are all millionaires...deciding what the poor people need. I bet no politician shops at $.99 cent stores..........

Check out the average income of any variety of politicians. You need to be and live rich to be one...



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
In America, the voters like to be spoon fed their politics. AS such, a politician who is not rich simply doesn't have funding to get the exposure necessary to be a viable candidate. in Congress, you can see all the polls about how unhappy Americans are with them, but guess what? It's always the other state's representatives who are the problem.

It's rare that a solid challenge comes to a sitting Congressman or Representative, and even when they do, they are not often successful. Maybe if more than fifteen percent of all registered voters would actually vote in mid-term elections, things would be different, but they don't and it isn't.



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Ron Paul made a difference with his campaign, he got a lot of people re-thinking about what is going on in your political arena.

People backed politicians the calibre of Ron Paul could make a change, it would take time and money but if the people get behind the candidate, the two parties will come out with all dirty trick guns blazing, showing themselves for what they are, then hopefully more and more of the people back the likes of the Ron Pauls of this world.

Pipe dreams abound.

a reply to: ugmold



posted on Aug, 12 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Doesn't the "stupid people" part of the title answer your question?



posted on Aug, 13 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   
a reply to: keenasbro

A good question and one I would like an answer to, We now have a privately owned political party now in Australia which is owned a billionaire. The owners politicans are never heard or seen of.

I think it happens because they have so much money they can afford no end of advertising and marketing.





new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join