I asked what state currently exists that has a system other than "one person, one vote"? You want to to argue that money wins elections, but the simple fact is that a credible, viable candidate can raise money. Those that cannot for the most part get beat. Not because money controlled the election, but because the money got behind the viable candidates in the race.
Ben Carson is a good example of a Sanders type candidate. He would be crushed in a general election.
People getting wealthy is not at the "expense" of the rest of us. Everyone can do well in this country if they work hard to earn it. The class warfare crap thrown out by the likes of Sanders and Warren is pure nonsense.
No....no it is not. I'll give you one good example. Walmart. Those folk are so far up the government's butt I'm surprised we haven't heard some screams of pain...or ecstasy...take your pick. No matter how "hard" those small businesses worked after Walmart came to town with their "low" prices and products from regions where employees are paid by the penny...not the dollar, nearly all of them shut down. they simple cannot compete with Walmart's economics of scale nor are their any protections for them to promote competition. So don't give me that crap about everyone can succeed if they work hard crap. Even the middle class sees that for the nonsense it is now.
Now no state has a system with something other than one person, one vote and you know that. But you prove my own words by saying money gets behind the viable candidate. And generally speaking, the "viable" candidate is the one who will vote big money's interest at the expense of the rest of our interest. Even a cave man can see that is has been happening more and more often during the past decade or two. It is almost to the point now where the will openly admit that "we the people" don't matter unless we come with checkbook in hand. I'm beginning to think that not only did you drink the Kool-aid but that you also bought some stock in the company. lol
Carson is quite a bit different than Sanders actually. He beckons back to an earlier era of Republican who realizes that money has to circulate among the majority rather than sit in the hands of the minority for an economy to be healthy. He believes that the wealthy serve a valuable purpose and must be coddled a little to much for me but at least he is a step in the right direction for the Republican party to get away from tea freaks and the religious right fanatics.
Sanders on the other hand. The man would offer basic income if congress would support it, something Carson would never do. Sander's is a Socialist Democrat forced to run as a Democrat to get any attention in this two party nation of ours.....one that is in dire need of a third party with the balls to stand up and say what needs to be said without worrying what big money thinks.
Generally speaking, I don't go with the candidate who raises the most money. I go with the one who has the best ideas. I'm an outlier in that aspect in that the majority will vote for whatever puke is pushed on them through the propaganda we call advertising in polite company.
I will say this. Out of all the pukes who are running for the Republicans, Rand Paul does have a few good ones. But the man scares me for reasons I can't really identify. Its like subconsciously I feel he is an axe murderer just waiting to get his hands on the nukes and then its party time. I'm not making a joke here. The man gives me the willies and I ain't talking about Clinton either.
