For the first time, half of US Congress are millionaires; Democrats slightly richer than Republicans

[SgtCr4zyGunz]

[QUOTE=darunner;43515033]Except for Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden and Barack Obama, who have no qualms about standing on a pile of dead children to push their ideals on a nation.[/QUOTE]

Ignoring the fact that your emotional rhetoric lacks any real substance, those people arent reactionaries and they dont push for reactionary policy.

And if youre going to compare the erosion of human rights to gun control then that just makes the choice even easier

[catbarf]

[QUOTE=Stopper;43531055]I didn't say that. But do you really think that only Harvard and Yale kids should get in politics? How do you expect that the middle and low class citizens will be represented if 100% of Congress members haven't had a day of struggle in their lives? Why do you think the Congress (and hell, most US politicians) are so disconnected from reality?[/QUOTE]

So what's your point? Voters vote for people with expensive educations, and that means poor families can't get into politics? No kidding, that's how it has always been. What do you suggest instead?

[skoinks]

[QUOTE=catbarf;43535565]So what's your point? Voters vote for people with expensive educations, and that means poor families can't get into politics? No kidding, that's how it has always been. What do you suggest instead?[/QUOTE]

No, voters vote for one of the two equally disgusting parties. They're not given a choice to vote for anyone who can represent them. It's a closed cycle, broken and completely twisted beyond any hope. I can't suggest anything.

And no, it wasn't always like this. Your own founding fathers stood for the exact opposite.

[Sableye]

[QUOTE=joes33431;43504932]we need a proportional voting system.[/QUOTE]

eh thats what the electoral college is....

a vote from a citizen in wyoming is much smaller comparibly than a vote from a citizen in new york for example in a presidential election however in the senate the wyoming vote is much larger because they have less people proportionally

[Strider*]

[QUOTE=Stopper;43536103]
And no, it wasn't always like this. Your own founding fathers stood for the exact opposite.[/QUOTE]

Nearly all of the founding fathers of our country were ridiculously wealthy.

[skoinks]

[QUOTE=Strider*;43538346]Nearly all of the founding fathers of our country were ridiculously wealthy.[/QUOTE]

Because money allowed them to reach their goals - I don't think their wealth is in anyway comparable to the Congress members'.

[DaysBefore]

[QUOTE=Stopper;43538484]Because money allowed them to reach their goals - I don't think their wealth is in anyway comparable to the Congress members'.[/QUOTE]
The Founding Fathers laid power solely in the hands of wealthy landowning white men

And I'm sure that with inflation their wealth is very much comparable with modern politicians

[Strider*]

[QUOTE=Stopper;43538484]Because money allowed them to reach their goals - I don't think their wealth is in anyway comparable to the Congress members'.[/QUOTE]

Some of the congressmen sitting today have earned their wealth solely through their own activities prior to entering Washington. Now tell me how is that any different?

[joes33431]

[QUOTE=Sableye;43536240]eh thats what the electoral college is....

a vote from a citizen in wyoming is much smaller comparibly than a vote from a citizen in new york for example in a presidential election however in the senate the wyoming vote is much larger because they have less people proportionally[/QUOTE]

the electoral college is riddled with its own problems.

i more meant proportional in representation, as in congress and the senate.