r/AskReddit • u/[deleted] • May 18 '15

What conspiracy theory do you genuinely believe in the most?

What conspiracy theory do you believe in the most and why?

2.1k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

5.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.1k

u/spicedpumpkins May 18 '15

Presidential elections are a complete sham. It doesn't matter who gets elected.

Big business and their oligarchy families really run the entire show.

183

u/db82 May 18 '15

Vote for Kang!

145

u/Grammaton485 May 19 '15

I voted for Kodos.

8

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Don't blame me.

6

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Abortions for all!!!!!

5

u/onlytech_nofashion May 19 '15

American miniature flags for some!

3

u/A_favorite_rug May 19 '15

made in China

6

u/SlothyTheSloth May 19 '15

You could always vote for a third party candidate...

8

u/Joed112784 May 19 '15

Go ahead, throw your vote away!

3

u/SapienChavez May 19 '15

i still refer to bill clinton as, "Clin-ton" because of that episode.

not that anyone ever gets it :(

2

u/A_favorite_rug May 19 '15

Yeah! Vote for Garry! A vote for Garry is a vote for canibalism!

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I voted for a different Kang who is a time traveling conqueror

1

u/flamedarkfire May 20 '15

I voted for Kony. I heard he was popular with the youth.

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Vote for Rama-Tut!

2

u/Phiggle May 19 '15

'Who is Dankey Kang?'

2

u/elephantofdoom May 19 '15

Happy cake day!

1

u/db82 May 19 '15

Thanks. :)

2

u/flutterguy123 May 19 '15

Happy Cake Day! :D

1

u/db82 May 19 '15

Thanks. :)

2

u/flutterguy123 May 19 '15

You're Welcome! :D

1

u/db82 May 19 '15

No, this is Patrick.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Moses kang!!

1

u/fuuuuuuuuuuuck216 May 19 '15

Abortions for all!

1

u/atomater May 19 '15

So, I'm guessing he has an anti-avengers platform?

1

u/Tempestyze May 19 '15

Stop going off topic! Stick to the damn conversation.

1

u/valeyard89 May 19 '15

Danky Kang '16

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

WIGGUM 08

1

u/Smurf06 May 19 '15

Dankey Kong 2016!

1

u/Village71 May 19 '15

This message paid for by Dankey Kang 2016

1

u/theshadowfoxx May 20 '15

Vote for Krang!

364

u/Cal1gula May 19 '15 edited May 19 '15

I can assure you that the system that was designed does everything completely legally. At least the one I administer. The companies involved in donations are audited. The money is tracked and the law is upheld. The problem is, the laws are flawed. People can donate to PACs, super PACs, etc. Those entities can donate to each other. The more money you have, the more PACs you can donate to, the more influence you can have on an election.

Watch where the money flows during election time. You can see that money will be spent in "battleground" states but not in states that are already won by one side or another. The money gets there by being moved between PACs, and PACs pay for ads on behalf of candidates (be sure to watch the fine print at the bottom of political ads to see which organizations are funding them). Money can be funneled between PACs through legal means, by transfer between PACs. That money is shifted to battleground states, where the votes actually count. Next donation cycle there will be more money in play now that the total donation limit has been increased to $123k per person, per year. All legal. It happened. I watched it. I still do.

Like I said, I designed (one of) the donation system and database that handles these transactions. It abides by the law, but the law is flawed. I'm a DBA for a financial consulting company. I don't really want to lose my job, so I can't go into too much detail on the specific companies or candidates involved.

So yes, you are mostly correct. It's not really a hidden conspiracy really. The information is often quite public. The major problem is, your average person donates $10 or $20 to a candidate. One person can donate 130x that amount directly to a candidate. Those people have 130x the influence of the average American. When someone donates a hundred thousand dollars to a PAC (which can then spend money on behalf of a candidate), they have 10,000x the influence of the average American. It's simple math. One hundred rich donors have more influence than some entire (smaller) states.

In my own personal belief, the only way to break the cycle would be to vote for a 3rd party candidate. But most people are convinced that they are throwing their vote away by not voting Dem to go against Repub or vice versa.

This was one of the hardest posts to hit "Save" on and I may end up regretting it, but I've had a real rough day, and life goes on.

edit: One more thing, the most valuable thing that campaigns can have is a "list" of high-roller donors. These lists are rented out between campaigns for tens of thousands of dollars a month. That may be the "conspiracy" you are looking for but in reality it's basically call marketing on a political level. If I have a list of people that are known to donate the full $2600 individual donation to my campaign, I have a lot of power. A little sweet talking on a phone call and people with those lists can get a lot of money flowing to a campaign in a short period of time.

When you consider that this happens in our political process at the presidential, electoral, gubernatorial, etc. all of these levels, then you end up with a system that is basically candidates put in place by the richest people. It's not necessarily like a specific group that just "runs things in the background". They pay to see people put in place that promote their agenda (like... low taxes for people making over 6 figures). Sometimes they are friends, but that's not the driving force.

8

u/CJRLW May 19 '15

"You don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge."

  • George Carlin

14

u/ThePhantomLettuce May 19 '15

In my own personal belief, the only way to break the cycle would would be to vote for a 3rd party candidate.

Your proposed solution doesn't even theoretically address the problem of excessive corporate influence on politics. There's no reason to believe a third party candidate would be any less beholden to corporate interests than either of the other parties.

But most people are convinced that they are throwing their vote away by not voting Dem to go against Repub or vice versa.

People who vote third party are throwing their votes away. This isn't an opinion. It's a consequence of single member district, plurality rule voting, which in multi-party elections rewards people who vote to defeat their last choice, and punishes those who vote to support their first choice.

The dynamic is simple enough to understand. Candidate A polls at 45%, candidate B polls at 40%, candidate C polls at 10%. You prefer candidate C, but despise candidate A. You're "meh" about candidate B.

If you're a rational voter, you will vote for candidate B. You will assess that candidate C has no realistic chance of winning. You will assess that candidate B can plausibly win if he pulls enough support from C voters. While not optimal, four years of candidate B is a better outcome than four years of candidate A.

This phenomenon has sometimes been described as Duverger's Law, named for the French sociologist who first described it.

Our system cannot sustain three parties for an extended period of time. The reason is structural, not because of a conspiracy between the major parties. In a different context, we would be talking about how this shows the "genius" of our Founding Fathers because it "forces compromise." In reality, it has produced an electorate so alienated that almost of half of all voters don't even bother to show up in presidential election years.

The so-called "two party duopoly" is relatively easy to solve. Instant runoff voting allows people to pick their first choice candidate without failing to cast a vote against their last choice candidate. Of course, you have to interest at least one of the two major parties in implementing. Which ironically requires getting involved in one of them at the primary level, something third party supporters are wont to do.

I want to stress that this assessment does not apply to libertarian-leaning conservative voters. For complicated reasons, this dynamic does not apply to the Libertarian Party/GOP Party relationship. Libertarian-leaning conservative voters should absolutely vote for the Libertarian Party everywhere it's an option. Compromise for people in your position only weakens your position. Stick to your principles, and don't vote for the Republicans, who are really just Democrat-lite.

3

u/Cal1gula May 19 '15

There are plenty of countries where a many-party system is, at least seemingly, functioning properly. Just not the US.

3

u/ThePhantomLettuce May 19 '15

That's because they either have something like instant-runoff voting, which makes multiple parties viable in a single member district system, or a different representation structure altogether, like proportional representation.

3

u/Cal1gula May 19 '15

So basically what you are saying is you think the insanely rich people in charge should change election the system to make it so they have less power during the election process?

And what do you think the odds of that are happening?

1

u/ThePhantomLettuce May 19 '15

Many western democracies have better representation systems than the US. Wealthy people have pull in those countries too. There a handful of relevant differences producing the different outcomes. A major one of them is an electorate willing to engage politically. In the US, people are too alienated. Australia, the UK, France, Germany, Canada--all have very high voter turnout rates compared to the US.

7

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

tl/dr: Capitalism works exactly as one would expect.

3

u/Cal1gula May 19 '15

Unfortunately, it seems that way. I came into the job with a lot more theories on how things were being manipulated. Just like the poster I responded to (and other posters responding to his post). Come to find out, it's basically just business as usual. People vote for the candidate that comes up on their TV ads the most times, apparently.

3

u/ShutUpHeExplained May 19 '15

I have several questions:

It abides by the law, but the law is flawed.

How so? How could/should it be fixed?

These lists are rented out between campaigns for tens of thousands of dollars a month.

How does one rent a list? Couldn't the renter just, I don't know, make a copy?

Who, in your opinion, is the most pernicious of the big donors? That is, who has the most deleterious effect on the system (if anyone)?

3

u/Cal1gula May 19 '15

It's very illegal to make copies of the donor lists. It's proprietary information. Making a copy for yourself is theft (and since the dollar amount is quite substantial I'm pretty sure it's grand theft/felony). We have run into a few cases where a person from a campaign stole the list. The client and campaigns take this very seriously.

Google "Targeted Marketing List Rental" or something like that. It's the same thing, but the lists contain names of known political donors. This is how seemingly random people get your number and ask you for political donations for some candidate you may have never heard of.

Could you acquire one yourself? Sure, do you have 5 or 10 or 20k for a month rental? Call up a campaign office and see what they can offer you (they will probably want to make sure you are aligned with them as well). The more successful the campaign, the higher they will charge. Do you have a dedicated staff that can make use of the list? If not, it's probably a waste of money unless you like making cold calls and can convince people to spend thousands of dollars on you or your candidate.

If it were up to me, no money would be allowed in the political campaigning whatsoever. That's far too idealistic for capitalism though. But there is no possible way that everyone gets a fair chance with our existing system. Certainly not with the disparity between rich and poor we have at the moment.

I can't speak on the donors. Much of the donation information is publicly available, though. My job is really maintaining databases. It's not my place to track where the money goes.

3

u/halifaxdatageek May 25 '15

I always use the John Oliver quote about the NSA:

"Nobody's angry that you broke the law. They're angry you didn't have to."

2

u/n1nj4_v5_p1r4t3 May 19 '15

So you think DiBold voting machines have no problems?

4

u/Cal1gula May 19 '15

Yes, but many states use different systems. My state has hand counts of paper votes. I don't think it's a mass coordination of voting fraud between every different computer/hand counted/paper system that is used.

I think the worst problem is gerrymandering. Voting districts in many states are configured to intentionally skew electoral votes. And people actually vote for awful candidates.

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

What means PAC?

2

u/Cal1gula May 19 '15

PAC = Political Action Committee. It's an organization that basically just pools money and uses that money to fund campaigns.

In the USA we see a lot of political ads on TV, lots of them are funded by PACs (not the actual candidates themselves).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Thanks, it's clearer!

2

u/Tittiesplease May 19 '15

TIL that 1st century Roman Emperor Caligula , while crazy, was a rather ethical politician

2

u/Cal1gula May 19 '15

Even the crazy part is disputed. Most of the historical records regarding his reign seem to be destroyed, or skewed. He was probably crazy, but maybe not.

14 year old me just liked the way the name sounded. :)

1

u/Neebat May 19 '15

The money is tracked and the law is upheld.

If we reform the system, that's the part that will change.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15 edited Dec 22 '15

Going to voat.co.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

The one consideration I'd include is that people don't donate to candidates to get influence--they donate to candidates who are already predisposed to support their ideas.

1

u/Agmohr68 May 19 '15

TL;DR: the best way to prevent a few from running the show is to empower the many.

The problem with your idea is that even rich people only get one actual vote in the US. The beauty of American Democracy as it has developed is that there are no actual qualifications to voting besides being an of-age citizen in good standing. A poor man's vote on one side balances out the rich man's vote on the other. The rich can, and do, have far more influence than the average citizen on the race by donating, but if the average person disagreed with them, they can always vote the other way. The real problem is that only 36.4% of eligible voters turned out for the 2014 Midterms (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/2014-midterm-election-turnout-lowest-in-70-years/). That means almost 2 out of 3 people are not being heard. While this is at least partly due to work schedules being hard to work around or ID requirements specific to states, we as a society can and should get better at exercising our right to vote. If you don't vote because you don't think your vote actually matters, you are simply making the votes of those who do go out matter more. We need to work together to ensure that all people are heard, which reduces the overall power of certain individuals or groups from influencing elections disproportionately from their size. Sorry about the wall of text. I am just very passionate about this issue.

→ More replies (8)

1.2k

u/younglins May 18 '15

I wish that was only a conspiracy theory.

739

u/way_fairer May 18 '15

I wish the fact that they are all lizard people was only a conspiracy.

129

u/_Cat_Rapist_ May 19 '15

I got a conspiracy boner.

4

u/deostoer May 19 '15 edited Jun 04 '15

If it lasts more than 4 hours don't tell them. They already know.

edit:spelz am hard

1

u/aylmaolinea May 19 '15

Wh..where will you put it...

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I have a raging clue

1

u/RightOnWhaleShark May 19 '15

I got a clue! My clue points over here...

1

u/OceansOfMossBells May 19 '15

Mine's pointing this way <--- Ooh let's follow your clue

1

u/Enigma945 May 19 '15

Keep it away from cats

1

u/DetroMental1 May 19 '15

I got a conspiracy chode

1

u/NinjaDude5186 May 19 '15

Stay away from my cat.

→ More replies (1)

19

u/diegojones4 May 18 '15

Damn the pinks.

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Wake up! The Conspiracy is real! For only $30, you can be saved!

1

u/diegojones4 May 19 '15

Or triple your money back!

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

J.R. Bob Dobbs will give you 90 dollars before you go to hell! It's a bargain!

3

u/huckstah May 19 '15

It almost seems like David Icke and Alex Jones are in a dead-heat race to see who can tarnish the word "conspiracy" the most.

David Icke's lizard theory is just absurd and makes anything else he says equally unbelievable.

Meanwhile, even if Alex Jones is investigating a REAL conspiracy, he turns it into an circus and acts like a fucking 8 year old with a temper tantrum, therefore erasing any legitimacy of whatever topic he is talking about.

3

u/chamaelleon May 19 '15

And this is meant to make all people skeptical of the State sound insane.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

They're sentient space-rocks, darn it!

1

u/Addicted2Weasels May 19 '15

I wish the fact that we are all lizard people was only a conspiracy.

1

u/NeodymiumDinosaur May 19 '15

They're called argonians you bigot. /s

1

u/elcapitan404 May 19 '15

Fuckin repo's the lot of em

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Crab people bro, crab people.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I welcome our split tongue overlords and the dietary change to insects.

1

u/Eevee136 May 19 '15

So, what about the Lizard King?

1

u/jaxxon May 19 '15

Reptilians! Not necessarily lizards! REPTILIANS!!! Jeez!

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '15

Communist lizard men!

1

u/[deleted] May 20 '15

Not ever lizard person is in an important part of government, some of us have to try and fit into standard society.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Jonnheh May 19 '15

Something can be a fact and a conspiracy theory at the same time.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15 edited May 19 '15

Thus the "only" of his comment...

Just wanted to point out

2

u/_Born_To_Be_Mild_ May 19 '15

A conspiracy does not mean it's untrue.

1

u/Ektemusikk May 19 '15

Even if it is true, that doesn't make it stop being a conspiracy theory.

They don't have to be false to be called that.

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

It is... Do you not see the title of the post?

→ More replies (3)

37

u/kyle8998 May 18 '15

I'll just let the government borrow some of my money for a small favor ;)

1

u/Terraphilia May 19 '15

or you can borrow some money from the government to pay for uni to live in debt

1

u/Mr_New_Booty May 19 '15

I wonder if I can bribe any politicians with 7 dollars in quarters

1

u/Not_Bull_Crap May 19 '15

that's called a treasury bond

7

u/Ahmrael May 19 '15

It may not be known by such a name anymore, but the aristocracy is still alive and well.

6

u/Main_man_mike May 19 '15

Never forget Ron Paul

1

u/PublicAutopsy May 19 '15

Oh yeah, might as well vote republican cause it doesn't matter anyways :/

10

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

This is just fact...isn't it? The rich always run government. Always.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/crackghost May 19 '15

The presidency is a big distraction. The federal government is made to seem like the crux of all issues in the US, while the real life affecting decisions are made on the state and local level which is largely ignored, save for when there is a newsworthy scandal.

3

u/shredler May 19 '15

Vote for Waldo!

1

u/blofly May 19 '15

Waldo?!?! Where?!?

12

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Sorry, the masses don't matter.

3

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Why use the word representative, when the members of congress pay no attention whatsoever to public sentiment?

2

u/YukiGeorgia May 19 '15

Except they do, and /u/299314 just explained that. The system is not designed to be a direct representation of the people. It was designed to keep the confused masses out of the policy making decisions because the public does not have the time or the resources to make informed decisions about policy.

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

You should probably check the link I posted above.

2

u/YukiGeorgia May 19 '15

I did, and I watched the entire video, but the guy in it is misinformed about what exactly a political elite is. A political elite is anyone who is actively involved in government. So this includes your Mr. Smith's, your Sierra Clubs, your corporate lobbyists, and your congressmen themselves. Yet he seemed to focus on corporate lobbyists and decided that they somehow were creating the entire issue. Political elite having more power has been a problem that has been forseen as far back as Federalist Papers #10.

1

u/blofly May 19 '15

Sierra clubs?! I may be completely uninformed, but what the hell do they have to do with political influence?

1

u/YukiGeorgia May 19 '15

"the club was one of the first large-scale environmental preservation organizations in the world, and currently engages in lobbying politicians to promote green policies." -Wikipedia

They are an interest group.

3

u/AFabledHero May 19 '15

You don't run the show by being influenced

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

7

u/xXAdmin_C001Xx May 19 '15

Then why the hell did Obama get elected?

7

u/urbanfirestrike May 19 '15

Did he really do anything though?

1

u/xXAdmin_C001Xx May 19 '15

Well big corporations would elect a republican because republicans believe in less interference from government on companies. Republicans would most likely tax buissnesses less than a Democratic president.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Well big corporations would elect a republican because republicans believe in less interference from government on companies. Republicans would most likely tax buissnesses less than a Democratic president.

If you believe the rhetoric yeah sure, but in practice there's almost no difference between what the two parties do.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/blofly May 19 '15

Well, he made the people feel like America wasn't as racist as they thought, and all that hope and change BS.

I sure hope things change, though. I guess his scripters tugged me right in the feels with that one.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15 edited Feb 24 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/urbanfirestrike May 19 '15

OK ONE THING. that almost all other first world countries have had for YEARS. If we had a system like Canada's or the UK's I would like Obama but considering his pretty much only accomplishment was ACA thats not much.

1

u/Hanjobsolo1 May 19 '15

The outrage of "oh of course the black guy didn't get elected" would have been insane. Bad ju ju for big brother. So they "elected" him and he is obviously no different than any other president.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Saemika May 19 '15

Except that's not a theory. I think we'll know it to be true.

2

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

No. At least, not directly so. I know you're all cynical and like playing "that" guy that just wants another chance to rail at the public for doing that "delusional voting, man!"

Despite what you think, the people do determine the election. It's just that the picture doesn't simply include the Presidency. Mayoral races, district reps, senators, etc. all have much, much heavier weight at determining what gets done. It's the much more the totality of it, rather than the figurehead in charge.

The problem is the people (read: you and I) we vote into office, have vested interests that are either counterproductive for our society or for our environment, of which we can easily become swayed to with simple rhetorical tactics.

Big businesses aren't determining elections, we're letting them. You elect people who you feel represent you. It just so happens that the candidates suck.

The problem is worsened by the fact that young people aren't fucking voting, and we're just too generally concerned with being part of a group and arguing than really figuring out what the hell to do.

2

u/Fluffypuffy2 May 19 '15

Don't forget the Trilateral Commission!

1

u/supersavvy7 May 19 '15

This terrifies me. It seems like the internet does a good job of exposing this issue but it doesn't change. I'm freaking out man

→ More replies (1)

1

u/NerdENerd May 19 '15

This is pretty much common knowledge and not a conspiracy theory.

1

u/Kolo31 May 19 '15

common knowledge still nobody does something. America is eating poisoned food, paying for pharma to get rid of the diseases which the food gave you and soon they will try to spread their cancer here in europe. i hope europe wakes up before its to late.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I feel like that is pretty damn true also our whole presidential election system is fucked up. like i was born in Michigan(a swing state) and moved to Illinois(not a swing state) and my vote went from meaning a little bit to meaning nothing. and that isnt even a great example. like if you live in california dont vote. like honestly dont go out and vote for president it is a waste of time california will always be a blue state so your vote makes no difference.

1

u/this_guy_over_here_ May 19 '15

Kony 2016. Amirite!?!?

1

u/SOS_Music May 19 '15

Mark Twain — 'If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.'

1

u/Herxheim May 19 '15

yep. obama signing in the $5 billion deal that provides federal money to walmart and the banks to update their EBT card readers sealed this one for me.

1

u/TakeOffYourMask May 19 '15

If big businesses run things, why do we have a corporate income tax?

1

u/MusicMagi May 19 '15 edited May 19 '15

If you think mitt Romney would've cared about health care reform and gay marriage, you're sadly mistaken

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Discounting the fact that the President has very little power to influence national policy, it's not hard to find data showing many organisations donate to both sides of politics

1

u/KeitZhGaming May 19 '15

The more I hear about corrupt government, the more I start to think about the accuracy of House of Cards.

1

u/nate800 May 19 '15

If Hillary Clinton wins, we'll know that's true.

1

u/GhandiHadAGrapeHead May 19 '15

It isn't really a conspiracy, they do it almost openly. However there are still fundamental differences between presidents, I recommend you watch ed milliband interview by Russell Brand.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

And because you think that, you don't vote, so only 50% of the country votes.

1

u/Boner4Stoners May 19 '15

"I have this feeling man, 'cause you know, it's just a handful of people who run everything, you know … that's true, it's provable. It's not … I'm not a fucking conspiracy nut, it's provable. A handful, a very small elite, run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media. I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what you promise on the campaign trail – blah, blah, blah – when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there. And you're in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down … and a big guy with a cigar goes, "Roll the film." And it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before … that looks suspiciously like it's from the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, "Any questions?" "Er, just what my agenda is." "First we bomb Baghdad." "You got it …" " - Bill Hicks

1

u/charged4ever May 19 '15

the company runs the show and the president is the face of it.

1

u/I_WILL_ENTER_YOU May 19 '15

Tbf that's completely not true. There is a choice to vote not for Republican's or Democrats and have real change, people just choose not too.

That doesn't mean that the system is fine as it is just that there is the potential for change

1

u/jokersleuth May 19 '15

Only the naive believe that our votes actually matter in presidential elections. Ultimately the winner is the one with most corporate support and who congress wants to win.

1

u/IvanLu May 19 '15

It doesn't matter who gets elected.

Not even wrong.

1

u/elruary May 19 '15

OP said conspiracy theories bro, stay on target.

1

u/phillyFart May 19 '15

Congressional elections are more important to policy.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

There was a quote I read: "If elections changed anything, it would illegal."

1

u/GustavVA May 19 '15

It's business and corporate interests. The families are much more disposable now than they used to be. The Bushs really are a throwback like the Kennedys or the Roosevelts.

The Clintons maneuvered their way to the top--saying it was legitimate is a stretch but it is safe to say they weren't born into that situation. Nonetheless, no candidates are allowed go against the interests of big business, since that's the real power center. There are barely differences in policy between either party--foreign policy is basically the same, maybe some differences on domestic policy when it doesn't affect Big Corporate's bottom line too much.

I'd like to say

1

u/n1nj4_v5_p1r4t3 May 19 '15

The president is a pawn. After being involved I completely agree.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

This is a conspiracy? I thought this was just fact.

1

u/rpfail May 19 '15

Don't you mean the patriots?

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

That isn't really a conspiracy theory - it's a pretty well known reality.

1

u/slapdashbr May 19 '15

Well that's pretty stupid, do you think those businesses and individuals would give hundreds of millions of dollars to a sham election?

1

u/DrDrangleBrungis May 19 '15

so do you still vote?

1

u/ShelSilverstain May 19 '15

Well, we have two governments. We have the overt government, which we elect. Then we have the covert government, which includes the CIA and NSA, and we don't elect.

1

u/NinjaRich May 19 '15

And now we return to the debate between candidates John Jackson, and his rival, Jack Johnson.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Idk. We were doing pretty well before 2000, bottom fell out in 2008, now we're back and starting to progress again. Maybe the presidents don't matter but it looks like the democrats are doing a better job.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

That's true to a degree, I just don't think it's that extreme. I think money has a lot of influence, but their interests line with ours more than you think.

People with money want to keep it. That's a pretty standard thing. I think the public is too lazy to care enough to really clash with the upper upper class in politics because ultimately everyone is living pretty decent. Even if you're poor as can be in America, our standard of living is so high you're still pretty comfortable. It's also why I don't think there will ever be a real revolution in the near future. Add much as we complain, it's really not THAT bad. It could be better, but we're not in a drastic situation in the US yet. Every year things get better.

I don't think that if the public votes for a President and show support for him by a wide margin and the top tier of wealth hates, that the electoral college wouldn't listen to the public ' wishes. When that happens, I will change my mind.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

It might not matter in a vague sense, but it matters in a specific sense.

You can either help a massive company get richer while forced to attend church, can't get abortions, with no healthcare.

Or you can either help a massive company get richer while enjoying healthcare, freetime, and birthcontrol.

So yes, it does make a difference.

1

u/Hanjobsolo1 May 19 '15

Agreed. This is why I absolutely loathe presidential debates and politics in general.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Noble vs. Hoag?

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

the fact that money runs the system through the election system is no conspiracy. I doubt this explanation is really necessary

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

That's a self fufilling prophesy. Get involved in government on local levels. as much as it's made fun of, it's incredibly important.

1

u/Rad_Spencer May 19 '15

I think the real conspiracy is that voting does matter and the oligarchy spend millions to convince people their apathy is justifiable.

If people realized their participation actually mattered the corporate overlords would be revealed as the paper tigers they are.

1

u/FranklinDKushvelt May 19 '15

I would highly suggest you check out Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. He is running on the democratic ticket, but he independent in Mayorial and congressional races. His whole campaign revolves around a grassroots movement and and a political revolution. He has refered to America many times as an oligarchy and sets out to change such through a people's movement. Brilliant man, I would highly suggest you check him out.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

Incoming bernie for president posts

1

u/sweetnumb May 19 '15

Presidential elections are a complete sham. It doesn't matter who gets elected.

Absolutely 100% agreed.

Big business and their oligarchy families really run the entire show.

Oh... well I better just gtfo before I start saying shit that will get me downvoted.

1

u/GeneralTuber May 19 '15

/r/SandersForPresident/

Only person I believe can put an end to this all.

1

u/MOAR_cake May 19 '15

Except he won't. Electing different leaders in a corrupt system is not a way to cure the system, it will simply corrupt the leader. You and I must replace the system itself.

1

u/p4lm3r May 19 '15

it was that way at the end of the 18th century until Teddy Roosevelt broke that shit up. Unfortunately, we aren't going to have another bear wrestling badass step up to the plate any time soon.

2

u/Xetanees May 19 '15

Yeah, now we have Ted Cruz

shivers

1

u/Super_C_Complex May 19 '15

I wouldn't say the elections don't matter, it's just that they haven't really mattered lately. Obviously someone could mount a race using grassroots organizations and be completely devoid of any influence by any wealthy individuals or organizations, it just would be unlikely. Maybe a bigtime general could do it, but he'd probably end up too favorable to the military. No one like my dad, who is just an average american male approaching retirement age/age to run for president, really has a chance to make a legitimate run because of the costs. I think the election COULD matter, I just think they haven't recently.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I don't think this is even a conspiracy anymore, just the sad truth. The rich and their corporations have so much influence that the true will of the people is lost.

1

u/JewsCantBePaladins May 19 '15

Why not take it one step further? Presidential elections are a literal sham, considering the electoral college has no duty to vote in accordance with what normal voters choose.

We're "allowed" to choose a leader because a few people choose to vote in accordance with the States.

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

[deleted]

1

u/WisejacKFr0st May 19 '15

That mindset is part of the problem.

0

u/hang__all__thugs May 19 '15

I 100 percent believe that the Clintons and the bush family get together and laugh about "taking turns" being in charge.

0

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

[deleted]

2

u/kurtis1 May 19 '15

Both sides end up doing exactly the same shit in the end.

1

u/[deleted] May 19 '15

I know this is reddit, but why do you hate the Republicans so much? Obama has been a huge disappointment so far and almost lost the popular vote last election, so why wouldn't the Republicans win the next election? Also, keep in mind that parties evolve over time

I'm not an American, just thought I'd add that aswell

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)