lol @ using the tea party as an example. They wouldn't be relevant without the Koch brothers.

This thread wouldn't be entertaining without the butthurt cliches.

And the Tea Party wouldn't be the Tea Party today if Tea Baggers didn't basically just start ignoring the Koch Brothers' think tanks. Nowadays they just take the Kochs' money and do their thing.

I'd put cynicism and bellicose on the list of oligarchy motivators as worse than apathy. Really both are unobvious expressions of apathy. Apathy in motion. If it doesn't matter why not think the worst or behave with naked aggression? That's the Limbaugh Effect. Doesn't care and shares.

Anybody who reads this should take your opinion with a giant grain of salt since earlier you claimed that the Koch brothers weren't supportive of the shutdown or the defund Obamacare agenda.

Koch brothers issued public statement denying they supported the shut down tactic to try to defund Obamacare while Karl Rove sounded off it was a bad idea. They even directly told "Tea Party" senators they wanted no part of government shut down (if nothing else, it's bad for business).

Don't get me wrong. Kochs want to repeal Obamacare. No doubt about that. They just don't want to tie it to a gov't shut down or any talk about the debt ceiling.

Whatever the Koch's various stated intent, outcome is what counts and that looks to me like information distortion, pollution, and inequality; to be brief.

Wow. So the Koch brothers not only don't influence the party they created, but they don't even influence the political groups they almost singlehandedly fund! Why? Because they denied involvement after the fact in supporting what was widely viewed as a disastrous political move.

Next you're going to tell us all that you believe Sheldon Adelson is sincere when he says he wants to shut down online poker for moral reasons.

A positive outcome is better voter turnout and forcing some to actually care, even if you don't like the idiots speaking.

They try to exert influence, and almost certainly do have some influence. But yes, they lost control of the beast they raised years ago. They actually tried to cut funding to groups that wouldn't comply (go easy on social issues). They were promptly ignored because Tea Parties, by then, already had the likes of Bachmann and Palin dominating the airwaves, and helping Tea Parties raise money.

Now they just live with the conservatards but still hope they'll push the fiscal issues (without actually shutting the government down, that's terrible for business)

Probably in the equation. He's very much in a great position to go online. He has less to lose than, for example, Caesars. That said, no, I don't believe him. I think he's doing what Canadian cell phone service providers are doing: stall the inevitable as long as they can until they can define the parameters of liberalization/legalization on their terms.

But does that really matter? He's giving voice to what a lot of Americans feel: gambling is a vice that ruins lives.

A pretty laughable premise without any evidence to support it besides that they once issued a letter after the GOP was getting hammered on shutting down the government saying they weren't responsible, which of course isn't evidence of anything.

Except Ceasars is billions of dollars in debt and online poker is a possible raft in the water to get them out. It very much makes business sense for them to ban online gambling, if only temporarily.

Yes it matters that he's advocating policy that has a significant impact on his bottom line. Yes it matters that members of his party who he has begun to support who previously had no significant views of online gambling are now introducing legislation that was created by his own lobbyists to ban it. The fact that some people agree with his views for completely different reasons is irrelevant.

grizy you're almost unequivocally wrong

The information is in public realm. Cato, Freedom Works, and various Tea Parties all had money issues at various points as they started picking up social issues.

It's not like I am just pulling this out of my rear or if this is anything new.

http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/wil..._party_pop.pdf is considered the seminal paper on Tea Party. The conflict between the "elites" and grassroots of Tea Party existed since early days and really came to the fore when the movement picked up steam (and mascots) after the 2008 election, giving local groups the ability to raise money and survive even without Kochs' money or support.

It really isn't. It means he's tapping into an existing audience and simply activating votes that already exist.

If you convince the country that gambling online is a legitimate and harmless entertainment activity (see pot), then forces will eventually shift to legalize it.

I mean, can you be more vague and unspecific with your claims? I'm not doing your research for you. Either post some articles with the relevant information highlighted or concede that you are indeed pulling this all out of your ass.

Online gambling is not an issue that drives people to the polls. It's not even on the political radar of most Americans, and in general people don't feel strongly about it one way or the other. You might have some people who think intuitively that banning online gambling is good for America, but the foundations of those beliefs are weak and can be swayed.

Yeah, just like how the majority of Americans wanting gun control, immigration reform, and an increase to the federal minimum wage right forced their lawmakers to move on those issues, right?

It's funny you mention pot though, when online gambling is legalized in more states than pot is allowed for recreational use.

UK isn't a democracy either. They have a queen.

She can't even be bothered to vote tho. So she doesn't get to complain when things aren't to her liking.

Its a (highly distributed) structural oligarchy tho not a personal one, best you can do is meet the new boss same as the old boss. For the peons it slightly better than a personal one e.g. Russia, but it also better for the elites as is more stable and sustainable.

So what country is the closest to real democracy?

I don't know but proportional representation in the parliament systems seems better than the US.

inorite

And she keeps giving these speeches in which she tells the government what to do. It's only the sheer coincidence that she tells it to do exactly what it wants that keeps the peons from revolution.

Let's not forget the reasons why voter ID laws impact groups associated with lower SES; being poor can make getting to voting booths challenging for practical/logistical reasons, and serves as a significant reason why those with higher income are more likely to vote.

I don't even think voter ID laws is the problem. The real problem, IMO, is that we, for god knows why, don't think Election Day should be a national holiday.

"This isn't democracy. This is the free market" - Gordon Gecko

obv ahead of the curve.

Never thought about it before, but yeah WTF??!!