It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

South Carolina YouTube Democratic Debate Discussion Thread

page: 13
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

She accepts Super-Pac money, I've decided anyone that does will never get my vote.


So?

I think it's silly and naive to think/believe because someone plays the game differently it makes them a better candidate to run this country.

I say, take the money. It's legal.




posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

It's legal, but means she's beholden to the corporations who paid her way, not the people. If we want the government back from corporations, we need to make getting their jobs and their priorities about us, not their corporate sponsors.

You say, so what if they play the game differently.

It's not a game it's all of our lives. Super-Pacs may be legal, but so are a lot of detestable things. You can play corporate puppet if you want. I won't.

Anyone with a corporate logo can go screw themselves, that's where my vote goes. I'm against the citizens united ruling and this is how I say so, with my vote.

I'm allowed to do that, yes?

At this point it's typically been between a douche and a turd sandwich, so pretending anything they say has any merit is ludicrous, they're all bull#ters. So the only real change can be accomplished by changing the power of our vote.

Whether Bernie or Hillary sucks is irrelivant, to a degree it's almost a given for all current politcians. But taking away the power of Super-Pacs, that's an actual change that will shake things up given enough time and support into it.
edit on 1/17/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

It's legal, but means she's beholden to the corporations who paid her way, not the people. If we want the government back from corporations, we need to make getting their jobs and their priorities about us, not their corporate sponsors.



And????

Grass roots? 320 million people? No such thing as grass roots.

The game starts where it exists. Changes also start from where it exists.

Only the naive think they can take control of those with the money and power.

To change power and money, you first have to be one of them to affect change from within.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

In that case we're just screwed. And history disagrees with you.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

In that case we're just screwed. And history disagrees with you.


Your idealism is not reality.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I'd rather die an idealist fighting for change, than live as a pessimist rolling over to corruption.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

I'd rather die an idealist fighting for change, than live as a pessimist rolling over to corruption.


I have my own idealism.

Doesn't change how politics functions.

Love your avatar BTW.


edit on 17-1-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

If people stop voting for candidates with super-pacs, how will that not create a change in how politics is done?

Oh and thanks, was originally a character I made in champions, converted to this image by someone on ATS because they thought it would be interesting and good practice.
edit on 1/17/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

If people stop voting for candidates with super-pacs, how will that not create a change in how politics is done?


Most people are sheep IMO.

Let me know when you have majority support for your idealism.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

It starts somewhere.

If Bernie wins, that would show it's possible. If he loses, we lose a lot of that momentum. But he wins, then there's a chance people will stick with it, cause they'll realize we don't have allow corporate bribery to decide our politicians, and we can control the vote.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

It starts somewhere.

If Bernie wins, that would show it's possible. If he loses, we lose a lot of that momentum. But he wins, then there's a chance people will stick with it, cause they'll realize we don't have allow corporate bribery to decide our politicians, and we can control the vote.


Great.

You have only 320 million to convince.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Bernie isn't without supporters. You act like he's a nobody candidate. The fact that he has so much support with a no Super-Pac run campaign has brought me out of slumber. I was one of those asleep with no hope, that never voted cause I felt my vote had no power.

Bernie with no Super-Pac succeeding as much as he has, has given me hope and given me the ability to care about politics again.

I'm not the only one he's dragged out of slumber.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

Bernie isn't without supporters. You act like he's a nobody candidat.


I never said that.

But, you just did.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

It sounded like what you were implying with that. "Great, you have the rest of the US to convince comment" when that's clearly not the case, there are plenty already against super-pacs.
edit on 1/18/2016 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

It sounded like what you were implying with that. "Great, you have the rest of the US to convince comment" when that's clearly not the case, there are plenty already against super-pacs.


Never said I support Super Pacs.

I'm just a realist.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

You are by sticking with the status quot when there's a candidate with momentum that's refusing them. Even if he doesn't win, every vote for Bernie is a vote against Super-Pacs and showing that, if we try we can get the numbers.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   
With the way things are looking for Hillary, her first year in office might consist of trips between the White House and the Court House.

I honestly can't think of a worse example for the first female POTUS, Bill will be thrilled to get another crack at the interns.
edit on 18-1-2016 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Annee

You are by sticking with the status quot when there's a candidate with momentum that's refusing them. Even if he doesn't win, every vote for Bernie is a vote against Super-Pacs and showing that, if we try we can get the numbers.


NO.

I'm being a realist. Money has power. That's a fact.

As said, I have my own idealistic ideas. I don't think fighting against the system will get them implemented. I think working within an already existing system will get more results.

Change from within. How do you convince people to change?
edit on 18-1-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

No your being a pessimist, because we actually have momentum, and your not even willing to try. Everyone that like you is against super-pacs but chooses to be "realistic" and not fight them are doing nothing more than creating a self-fullfilling prophecy.

When it doesn't work you all will say, we told you so, when the reason it didn't is because too many people like you gave up before even trying.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
"Realism" will get you nowhere you want to be. The issue people have is that they start at a compromise. An idealist will fight for 100% and end up with 50%, a realist will fight for 50% because that is "realistic" and end up with 25%.

Regardless, the "realistic" bet is actually on Bernie. As far as I am concerned, he is already President and this election is nothing more than a formality. Aside from my own observations, there is a university that has had a 100% accuracy rate for predicting the president going back something like 60 years. Guess who they ended up with, several months ago, before he picked up so much momentum and people were still writing him off? Right, Sanders.

If you do nothing, you will get nothing. Consigning yourself to an unpleasant fate is nothing more than apathy, something which I am personally quite familiar with.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join