1) True, you don't have to, but if you do decide to sign your life over to donors, you usually get more campaign donations than the person running against you that doesn't. And the person with the most money wins 90% of the time. Read Republic, Lost, Martin Gilens' research, or that book by Zephyr Teachout that I haven't read yet.
I don't even have the money to buy books. If you can't even find a half-decent source online, you don't have a good argument.
HOW!?! You can't just say these things.
In what ways? How? Where are your actual sources?
You don't even have an argument. You're just making assertions and saying that there are things written that back you up.
In what concrete ways? I hate to be a broken record but blind assertions are bad arguing.
Hahaha this is an internet forum, not an academic journal or a courtroom. Since you insist on internet sources, here are a few to get you started...
About two-thirds of the population favors increasing the minimum wage. In the last election, only about 49% of the vote went to a candidate that supports raising the minimum wage. People voting for a party that openly and publicly advocates for things they disagree with isn't elites controlling the system. Things getting passed more often when interest groups (which seem to include groups of citizens advocating for specific policies. Shocking that people who are engaged and involved in politics have more influence then people who aren't) or the rich are in support of something is more of a reflection of the fact that ordinary people don't put thought into their vote then deliberate rigging of the system. Affluent people do have disproportionate influence, but they aren't
that powerful.
The policy being advocated for seems to be one that actively forces banks to give up part of the loans they gave out, which is a bad idea because A. it would probably make loans more expensive for everyone, and B. the banking system was in a very bad spot at the time, and if all the banks collapse, the economy is completely destroyed and everyone is screwed. These "handouts" to the banks were actually protecting everyone from the great depression level devastation that would come with a collapse of multiple large firms. The banks didn't need regulations that made it even harder for them to survive.
This was all directly ripped/obtained from information and subtext in the article, by the way.
Poll
