And his eyes are shiny, don't discount that.

Preach!

+

damn this dude has 10m subs

falling...

Megz Bartsch same

Megz Bartsch SAME

Same lol

my ap exam is tomorrow so i FELT that

Seems pretty clear the Craig and the writers lean in that direction too, but this is an American show, and in America truth is determined by democracy instead of through fact. So they have to pretend it's an equal battle to avoid the shitstorm that would ensue if they made it explicit that only one side makes any sense.

+Sebastian Anderson In America, truth is determined by who can afford the more expensive lawyers - or, by extension, who has the most money; the rich.

+Chike Ezebilo It's not the system necessarily that is broken, but the way we implement it and the way we allow it to be regulated and controlled. There are plenty of other systems that ARE fundamentally horribly broken, but this isn't necessarily one of them. Just....currently horribly abused and exploited. Like the poor!

+Jens Nielsen In America , more like all civilizations ever.

Armendicus While that's also true, the topic was America, not the rest of the world :P The problem with any system is the risk of corruption and inequality. Communism can turn into the state stealing from the entire population and redistributing the entire wealth of the nation to the politicians, and capitalism can lead to the rich holding down the poor by using their excessive capital to shape the nation into favouring the rich, leaving the poor to fend for themselves (as many times seems the case with the US). And a corrupt socialist state could swing either way I guess - into a capitalist nation where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer - or into a communist nation where the state owns more and more and all the profit goes to the politicians.

+William Stockhecker That's easy for the leader of an imperial coup to say. :P

+William Stockhecker Hey I liked the Galactic Senate! GO RODIANS!

+William Stockhecker ... or at least that was Palpatine's excused to have Valorum ousted.

departed402 Exactly, the bureaucracy gave Palpatine the excuse he needed to take over the Senate, thus ruining in.

And in conclusion, everyone was screwed.

+Ashton “Nauct” Simmons It is not. If the interest groups are only allowed to suggest bills, not buy them. It is true though, that both the congressmen and interest group know what the donation means.

+Jeroen Bollen it's illegal, just no one cares unless it suits them to point it out when someone else does it. kind of like Jay walking.

+Ashton “Nauct” Simmons Quid Pro Quo*

+Jeroen Bollen it's only because "bribery" has a specific legal definition that this doesn't fall into. To most people, the energy industry giving thousands of dollars annually in donations to the chairman of the Senate committee on the environment (who just so happens to constantly try and spread denialism of global warming) is effectively bribery.

Krombopulos Michael Well that'd mean you are making donations illegal. That'd be fine, but calling that bribary would be confusing. You'd be banning donations to prevent bribary.

GOOD CALL LMFAOOOOOOOO

+SmallGodFly He's used it a couple times, especially early on in the series.

Are you sure? I thought for sure it was Greg; like Greg Ferguson, that scottish guy.

I always thought that was a type-o. I've never know anyone named Craig. Well Greg Lee from back in school kept saying his name was Craig, but I always thought he was joking.

Inorganic Vegan My insurance premium is up 400% and many of my friends are as well. My wife and I are healthy and in our mid 30s we used to pay $200/mo now we pay $400/mo after a $400 tax credit so the real premium on that policy is $800/mo. I speak out of experience!

+Sami Hanish Anecdotes are not citations.

the affordable care act, wasn't it super similar to Nixon's health care plan? it is a system made to benefit the special interest groups under the guise of healthcare for all. only good part is pre existing conditions being un able to prevent you from getting insurance. reading peoples definition of socialism being state controled everything is silly. actual socialists threw out that definition decades ago. now it is about workers having a say in where the companies surplus goes and what sort of choicws are made. sorta a reboot of workers co-ops. Laborers take the materials and add value to it, so why should owners get all the profit? a new way of looking at economics. what will we do when few humans need to work, the next level of automation? allow everyone with no job prospects to starve? have them be slaves or serfs to the company owners? around 38% of jobs are transportation based. Self driving vehicles will throw them all out and more. think of people who carry boxes and such in warehouses. Think Ups, usps, or amazon. Small program able mini vehicles could take all the jobs as well, easily. this is why we need to establish healthcare and education as human rights in our country. or they will be impossible to reach in the future around the corner. our president says we can't start over with a new health care system to sanders... well, with such a crooked system that caters to providers instead of patients... ni amount of changes will help. it needs scraped. we have a system that doesn't work to prevent illnesses, but works to profit when someone is sick. more preventive care and biyearly appointments and regular tests, would save millions in procedural and surgery costs. but guess where insurance companies, hospitalsand drug companies make their money? when people get sick passed the point of curing, and big money in surgeries. needs a reboot.

+Ko Gyi "directly influence" is pretty vague. Also, another alternative to limiting campaign funding is have campaigns be mostly funded by tax dollars. That's how we do it in Belgium, and it gives even smaller parties a chance to make it.

Well, by direct influence, I mean like the interest group or super pac shouldn't be allowed to write checks and just give it to the candidate.

+Ko Gyi If I remember correctly, PAC's actually can't give money to politicians. They can't "coordinate" with politicians at all. In theory, they're independent, and advocate for certain policies and the politicians who support those policies. In practice, they're often formed to support one candidate by doing things that don't require direct interaction with the candidate, like running ads for them. So they use their money for the politician's good without giving it to the politician. Politicians often support these groups' efforts without actually "coordinating" with the PAC. Instead, using Ted Cruz as a real-life example, they'll publish raw footage that would make great campaign ads to a public site like UKposts where the PAC's can access and use it, but Ted Cruz didn't specifically give it to them so it's not coordination. Basically, PAC's are a loophole to an existing limit on campaign contributions.

+Ko Gyi The problem is that participation in deed is a big part of democracy. Writing letters to your representative and meet him to discuss and suggest policies.... The problem now is that there is no real balance and often there is no organization to counter a special interest. Like most people don't care and about the details of how certain company equities are taxed and sold unless you are such a company. So they are the only ones having a say in the law or regulation and therefore they will make it in a way that profits them. The "general public" would have an interest but can't actually make a common formulation of what is there interest.

Perhaps we could limit contributions on a per-group basis. Ex: no more than ten or twenty percent of a campaign's funding can come from a particular interest group or super pac.

+LarlemMagic Then don't vote, you are too stupid, ignorant and naive to understand what is going on.

kingofprussia17 Na-uh, yer stupid. :p

LarlemMagic Nice, comeback; sarcasm.

+kingofprussia17 He just wanted to name a senator who doesn't accept donations as much as other senators. Let him be.

Sydney Grosskopf yeeeees?

+Jace Beckham We aren't a democracy, but a constitutional Republic. You don't have to be rich to influence Congress. People join interest groups, aggregating what resources they have, to stand up for their interests. You don't have to be wealthy to affect political change; you only need to stand up and do something. Interest groups are simply free people standing up and doing something.

+lukassnakeman not really...the money is used for campaigning, party politics, and ideological issues, pro/con, not for personal use, rather for the political system. its necessary to have funding if you want to run for office. if interest groups agree with your platform theyll support you, if they dont, theyll oppose you through another candidate. its almost like starting a business, you have to prove your viability, the ability to get elected on your platform, to gain funding support.

***** well, it still pisses me off

lukassnakeman until you are part of an interest group or you found your own....lol

***** what about the case of climate change, which is real. its in coal and oil companies best interest for people to use their product and not be regulated on how much carbon they put in the atmosphere. but it's in the publics best interest to have breathable air, hospitable climate, and some nature to enjoy. consistently the politicians who accept money from fossil fuel corporations vote against measures that are in the publics best interest and favor policies for their donors who are motivated by greed

well, climate change is a complex issue in america, and all i have to tell you about it is follow the money...america is a resource rich country who founded the use of gasoline, understandably there are deep interests in the industry who want to prevent alternative...solar, wind, and even nuclear...and so this debate of competing interests is masked as climate change, that is not to say that climate change is not real, its just how it applies practically...plus we all want cheap energy, which fossil fuels relatively are...so there are real rational reasons why some, if not many, americans dont believe in climate change, because it hits at their pocket book....make renewable energy more competitive than fossil fuels and a "job creator," and theyll, americans, be singing a different tune...

Stella Zarivy OMGGG MONEY MONEY MOMEY

ARMYS are everywhere lol

I freaking went through the comments just to see if anyone else had noticed it xd ARMYs RULE THE WORLD 💜

have you seen countries run by poor guys? NO NO haven't you know why cause those countries suck

'neutrality bias'. I've never heard that phrase before, but it's really good. It perfectly sums up a lot of things like TestTube, and this (before this video where they seem to have caved into pressure and just told the truth).

+TheJ33s3 Your logic. Have you seen countries run by rich guys? No, you haven't because then you'd know why those countries suck. Just because your country is wealthy doesn't immediately mean it's the result of the actions of the ruling class. Countries run by free thinking intellectuals who care enough about practical fairness hardly suck, Africa is in disorder because it had the potential for accumulating great wealth, so guess what? Various civil wars run rampant because each faction is too busy trying capitalize on Africa's natural resources for themselves instead of cooperating and working together and mutually benefiting. America's foundational democracy was meant to curb any potential power bias to govern effectively, so there is obviously a problem when the power elite becomes a reality and the corporations have more power over the government than the government over corporations.

Jackboy019 actually a country run by a mix of the middle class and the few rich have been the most stable and successful historically unfortunately

@@Jackboy019 The Founding Fathers all had lots of lands, banks, and even slaves, while over 90% of Americans lived on as modest farmers. Much of American history was predominated by the WASP elite. And yet the economy grew the fastest in that period, and lots of people made lots of money, while the government was small. Also, our tax rates are progressive, and we have plenty of programs for the poor. If only the rich had their say, we wouldn't have any of that.

groups

controversy

+OG gerald ford (cocainebubbles) Is

How you learn with a test every class....lol

whats your comment saying. i cant see it.

***** If you knew the actual meme history, you would know that john cena's catch phrase is you can't see him.

***** That is obvious. oh well, the more you know. (insert meme photo here)