How did USA become such a messed up country?

[Elldallan]

As someone who loves my country and the ideals it was founded on it really sickens me to see what the USA has become. Our government is OWNED by corporations and the 1% (really the .01 percent) and our so called media is more then happy to defend and protect this madness. They have bought most of our politicians and its clear as day that our representatives no longer represent us, only who pays them the most. Meanwhile most people are still oblivious to the magnitude of this, some are waking up but not enough to stop it. In 2 days the people of this country is most likely going to put the republicans back in charge of our congress (by people I mean the 45% of this country that will actually vote in the election). Im not saying the democrats are all that great either, many of them are part of the problem too but to think that this voting public can be so persuaded from big money propaganda that they put the party of big money itself back in power is frightening.

There is some hope out there. First and foremost we must fight for a constitutional amendment to end money in politics and say that corporations are not people and money is not speech. I think thats common sense but the supreme court seems to disagree so we need an amendment to make it clear to them. Also we need to get more people to vote. seems quite simple as well but takes a lot of work. If more people vote and are engaged in the political process we'll probably elect better politicians and maybe we'd have a functioning government again.

This is not a partisan issue at all. Big money corporations dont care if ur liberal or conservative or whatever. They only care about 1 thing, the bottom line. And if you are in their way its a bad day for you regardless of who u vote for. So all people in USA out there look this up online and sign a petition, sign all of them, make ur voice heard!

And for all non Americans out there all I can say is I hope u still believe in us, because right now I dont.

Ok rant over. Back to my football, bacon cheeseburgers and internet porn haha!

What you need isn't an amendment to patch the symptoms(although that should really be done anyway), you really ought to change your outdated federal election system, it's 200 years out of date, it was necessary for running a large country 200 years ago because communication was hard back then. Especially with a small federal state without far reaching powers but nowadays your federal state is just as large as any other government with the federal government running most things it chooses to run. And this is a good thing in my opinion, a small state doesn't work, that just means you're giving corporations a free run to do whatever they want, you need a large with lots of regulations and investigative powers to keep the corporations in check, you need a large government which can say you broke the law so now we're seizing your assets wether you want to or not.

There's really not that much difference between the US and a smaller country. Therefore the US needs to make it easier to get a seat in congress/senate, instead of the extremely crappy "first one across the line" you inherited from the british.
If it was easier to elect someone into power(and thus out of power) and easier for parties to get representation in the senate/congress(such as a proportional election) where you don't need to get 50% of the votes in a district to get that districts seat(which is bloody hard, nearly impossible except for 1-2, maaaybe 3 parties), instead if you get 10% of the votes(which is a whole lot easier because your sympathizers don't need to all live in one place) you get 10% of the seats.

Maybe then the voter turnout could go up because people might actually feel that their vote is worth something. And if it's easier to get rid of corrupt politicians who take bribes("campaign contributions") then maybe you could return power to the masses rather than leave it in the hands of the wealthy.

Because as long as you keep your current election system you're not gonna get the other ones fixed because the politicians will NEVER prevent the corporations from bribing them, not after they've gotten a taste of it. Power begets power, for the sake of power.

[Palem]

Our government is OWNED by corporations and the 1% (really the .01 percent) and our so called media is more then happy to defend and protect this madness. They have bought most of our politicians and its clear as day that our representatives no longer represent us, only who pays them the most.

I've never understood this fear. The 1% has as much money and power as they do because you gave it to them. They have your business. Even if the representatives are in someone's pocket (and yea, they totally are), you are still being represented because Mr. Moneybags is trying to get legislation passed that's good for business. Generally speaking, if it's good for business for them, it's good for business for you (unless you're like a small business owner or something, then it's usually not)

[Elldallan]

I've never understood this fear. The 1% has as much money and power as they do because you gave it to them. They have your business. Even if the representatives are in someone's pocket (and yea, they totally are), you are still being represented because Mr. Moneybags is trying to get legislation passed that's good for business. Generally speaking, if it's good for business for them, it's good for business for you (unless you're like a small business owner or something, then it's usually not)

If it's good for big business it's usually bad for consumers, it's usually bad for their employees, it's usually bad for liberty and freedom of speech, just look at the bull**** the *AA'S are trying to push in the name of "combating piracy".
For example I'd definitely say it isn't really in the public's interest to be hunting and prosecuting individual file sharers, and especially not to be hitting them with the absurd damage claims they are. It's definitely not in the public's interest to force ISP's to filter what their customers can see.

So yeah, if it's good for big business it's usually bad for most everybody not part of big business. The oil and chemical industry would love to do away with any environmental legislation there is because it'd be cheaper for them to do business without it.

[Palem]

I can't take you seriously when you start talking about freedom of speech

[Keller*]

No way man. We've had this "trickle down" economics crap in this country for 34 years, the system touted by the wealthy elite, and it has done nothing for regular citizens. Wages have been stagnant for a long time and all they wanna do is cut what little safety net is there to help people. Not to mention all the pollution and tax dodging they always want to protect. What has been good for business has been crap for everyone else.

And its not about who has money anyway, thats a debate for another time. This is about the rich using their money to influence elections and the political process. We are supposed to be a democracy, 1 man 1 woman 1 vote, no matter how much money u have. But if 6 billionaires can finance their own candidates and flood the airwaves with ads then that will influence elections and how politicians govern. And most of the time the crap they peddle in these ads are lies anyway.

[Keller*]

What you need isn't an amendment to patch the symptoms(although that should really be done anyway), you really ought to change your outdated federal election system, it's 200 years out of date, it was necessary for running a large country 200 years ago because communication was hard back then. Especially with a small federal state without far reaching powers but nowadays your federal state is just as large as any other government with the federal government running most things it chooses to run. And this is a good thing in my opinion, a small state doesn't work, that just means you're giving corporations a free run to do whatever they want, you need a large with lots of regulations and investigative powers to keep the corporations in check, you need a large government which can say you broke the law so now we're seizing your assets wether you want to or not.

There's really not that much difference between the US and a smaller country. Therefore the US needs to make it easier to get a seat in congress/senate, instead of the extremely crappy "first one across the line" you inherited from the british.
If it was easier to elect someone into power(and thus out of power) and easier for parties to get representation in the senate/congress(such as a proportional election) where you don't need to get 50% of the votes in a district to get that districts seat(which is bloody hard, nearly impossible except for 1-2, maaaybe 3 parties), instead if you get 10% of the votes(which is a whole lot easier because your sympathizers don't need to all live in one place) you get 10% of the seats.

Maybe then the voter turnout could go up because people might actually feel that their vote is worth something. And if it's easier to get rid of corrupt politicians who take bribes("campaign contributions") then maybe you could return power to the masses rather than leave it in the hands of the wealthy.

Because as long as you keep your current election system you're not gonna get the other ones fixed because the politicians will NEVER prevent the corporations from bribing them, not after they've gotten a taste of it. Power begets power, for the sake of power.

We probably do need some serious reform the the election system way beyond just getting money out of it. But federalism isnt going anywhere in America. States will never relinquish what powers they have and if anything is only getting worse. Sometimes I wonder if some of these states really will secede again. Not sure what the reaction would be if that happened, another civil war? I dont think the geography lends itself to that again.

[Palem]

And its not about who has money anyway, thats a debate for another time. This is about the rich using their money to influence elections and the political process. We are supposed to be a democracy, 1 man 1 woman 1 vote, no matter how much money u have. But if 6 billionaires can finance their own candidates and flood the airwaves with ads then that will influence elections and how politicians govern. And most of the time the crap they peddle in these ads are lies anyway.

You're more than welcomed to fund political ads supporting candidates you support. They're American citizens just the same as you are, so why can't they do the same thing you can? Everyone still has 1 vote. It's not like they're rigging elections. It's not their fault the majority of Americans are too retarded to know what they're voting for. You can also make the case that those people are representing a majority, economically speaking. If Walmart supports one candidate, and millions of people support Walmart, it logically follows that those millions of people support that candidate.

[Keller*]

You're more than welcomed to fund political ads supporting candidates you support. They're American citizens just the same as you are, so why can't they do the same thing you can? Everyone still has 1 vote. It's not like they're rigging elections. It's not their fault the majority of Americans are too retarded to know what they're voting for. You can also make the case that those people are representing a majority, economically speaking. If Walmart supports one candidate, and millions of people support Walmart, it logically follows that those millions of people support that candidate.

C'mon ur saying I can have as much influence on the political process as a billionaire? Half the country couldn't compete with that kind of money. Thats just naive to think that way.

But none of this is what the founders intended. They were very specific in their warnings of monied interests getting involved with government.

And they are rigging elections with voter ID laws and cutting back on early voting days, because they know if more people vote they will lose. So its not just some honest debate between 2 ideologies. Its straight up fixing the system in their favor.

[noobium]

Which founder? I think you'd find a lot of them found it perfectly acceptable and proper that a wealthy aristocracy had the most power in determining what goes in this country, certainly among the revolutionary lot. It wasn't until some time afterward that you really saw a push to democratize the vote to all men regardless of income or land ownership.

The system has been out of any public control, oversight, or visibility for some time now. No one with power is going to let the public have any say in America's foreign policy, for instance - that **** is tightly controlled, even when the people are fully aware of what is happening in the world.

Most people don't realize that their leaders aren't really playing in the same kingdom, and that the elite in this country have convinced the masses to accept a structured acres farmout and think it's a good thing.

[Elldallan]

I can't take you seriously when you start talking about freedom of speech

So you're saying that companies wouldn't love to limit or remove your ability to report publicly about a bad product of theirs... if they could?
They're in it to make money so charging the highest price for the cheapest(crappiest) product they can is a good way to go, if they could prevent ppl from publicizing just how bad that product is they'd do it in a heartbeat.
If they could prevent employees from whistle blowing they would in a heartbeat.

We probably do need some serious reform the the election system way beyond just getting money out of it. But federalism isnt going anywhere in America. States will never relinquish what powers they have and if anything is only getting worse. Sometimes I wonder if some of these states really will secede again. Not sure what the reaction would be if that happened, another civil war? I dont think the geography lends itself to that again.

I think that there is a Supreme Court ruling which says secession isn't legal under the US constitution. And if the states retain what powers they have that's fine, I meant how federal elections are handled.

[Elldallan]

If Walmart supports one candidate, and millions of people support Walmart, it logically follows that those millions of people support that candidate.

No, that's a ridiculous logical fallacy. It's called an association fallacy, it's the same as this example:
John Doe is a Murderer, John Doe shops at Walmart, therefore everybody who shops at Walmart is a murderer.
How about another one, Millions of people voted for George W Bush, GWB invaded Iraq which lead to the killings of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, therefore anybody who voted for GWB supports killing innocent civilians.
Or how about this one, The US Military is funded by taxes, the US military kills innocent people in Iraq(whether it's by accident or not), therefore anybody who pays taxes to the US Government supports killing innocent civilians.

There is simply no data to logically connect those two statements.

[Palem]

C'mon ur saying I can have as much influence on the political process as a billionaire? Half the country couldn't compete with that kind of money. Thats just naive to think that way.

That's not what I said. I said you have a vote and they have a vote. Bill Gates doesn't vote 20,000 times. He votes once, just like you. But while you're bringing it up, why is having more influence not fair? It's not fair that Obama was a better public speaker than Romney? Of course it's fair. Much like utopia, we're all playing the same game.

But none of this is what the founders intended. They were very specific in their warnings of monied interests getting involved with government.

As noobium pointed out, the founders were very ok with the rich dominating the poor. Here's a fun fact, the income tax was originally illegal.

And they are rigging elections with voter ID laws and cutting back on early voting days, because they know if more people vote they will lose. So its not just some honest debate between 2 ideologies. Its straight up fixing the system in their favor.

So let me get this straight. We have two kinds of voters here:
a.) The educated, well-informed voter that knows all the political campaign ads are bull**** and is determined to fight.
b.) The idiot that thinks George Bush was one of the greatest presidents of all time because that wolf ad he ran was so damn cool. Honestly surprised s/he can tie their own shoes.

You're telling me that Voter ID laws and less early voting is going to turn more away voter a than voter b?

[Palem]

There is simply no data to logically connect those two statements.

Why did people boycott Chick fil A when they publicly came out against gay marriage? Why did others immediately go out and get Chick fil A?

People know that companies like Nike and Apple use sweat shops with miserable working conditions. When they continue to pump money into those companies they're supporting their decisions. Where you put your money is often times just as political as who you vote for, whether you're aware of it or not.

[Keller*]

Which founder? I think you'd find a lot of them found it perfectly acceptable and proper that a wealthy aristocracy had the most power in determining what goes in this country, certainly among the revolutionary lot. It wasn't until some time afterward that you really saw a push to democratize the vote to all men regardless of income or land ownership.

The system has been out of any public control, oversight, or visibility for some time now. No one with power is going to let the public have any say in America's foreign policy, for instance - that **** is tightly controlled, even when the people are fully aware of what is happening in the world.

Most people don't realize that their leaders aren't really playing in the same kingdom, and that the elite in this country have convinced the masses to accept a structured acres farmout and think it's a good thing.

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
- Thomas Jefferson

“The power of all corporations ought to be limited, [...] the growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses.”
— James Madison

Those are just 2 that I know of. There are many more.

Your right that some of the founders had a more aristocratic point of view and democracy has had to grow since then with universal suffrage and direct election of senators. But why give that all away now that we have it. Things may not be unacceptable for you now but this is a dangerous slippery slope here (and I dont use that argument that much) and eventually it will hit u if it hasnt yet.

And your right about most politicians playing for the same team, team money.

[Elldallan]

Why did people boycott Chick fil A when they publicly came out against gay marriage? Why did others immediately go out and get Chick fil A?

Because those people made a concious choice to do so, most people doesn't, they make a passive one and buy from whoever is cheaper. Their morals or political leanings usually play very little part in that decision, convenience does.(which is why capitalism is as much of a utopia as communism is, neither can work in reality, communism because people are inherently selfish and capitalism because no consumer has the time or energy to weigh all the variables and pick the perfect choice when buying something)

People know that companies like Nike and Apple use sweat shops with miserable working conditions. When they continue to pump money into those companies they're supporting their decisions. Where you put your money is often times just as political as who you vote for, whether you're aware of it or not.

For the same reason people could keep rubberstamping papers ordering the mass murder of jews during WWII, because there's a distance from you and the act.
To you it's just numbers/letters on a paper and you don't actually connect to said wrongful act in any meaningful manner.
You would hardly condone it when it happened in your face next door but when it's on the other side of the planet it's just numbers and letters on a paper and to most people it then becomes more important how the shoes or smartphone looks or how much it costs.
So said act is not a concious political or moral choice, it's a passive one, you simply don't care enough to make a stand(which is arguably a choice in and of itself).
It's also why natural disasters that hit tourist resorts get 100 times the relief funding of a natural disaster that affects a more rural area even if it kills a lot more people.
If you can easily imagine something happening to you or to a place you know then it becomes a lot more emotionally charged.