Buy citizenship out of the US and build a better country abroad with your foreign investment. Not much to do with the way things are going, but you can make Ireland or Monténégro a better place.
You’d start by attending $10,000 plate dinners, and shaking hands with candidates and expressing views. Hire a few $60k a year idealists for a think tank to publish papers. Pick 1-2 issues and hammer them. Pay lobbyists to set up meeting and propose/write legislation and amendments.
As some of your (hopefully idealistic) candidates win, you ask them to help drive your issues through. Get them to make concessions to other people’s proposals for support on theirs, helped by your lobbyists. Use your think tank to drove issues and provide talking points and legislation.
That’s the traditional view. A better approach might be to create a 501c3 and run positive message ads that give you a warm feeling about america in general, say nothing of substance, and include a candidate you like’s name sometimes. Then another pac showing pictures of the candidate you don’t like and chanting “hate hate hate” behind them. Play to your audience.
The fundamental cause of America’s problem is the two-party system. If you want to get rid of that you have to switch to a proportional representation system. I would suggest working at the local or state level. I do not know of any organization working on this issue. You would likely have to start one yourself or hire someone else to do so.
If you’re genuinely going to do it, any suggestion I make here about specifics would be pointless, as you should do significant research before deciding on what flavor of proportional representation to push and where. But, the key is to adopt a system known for accurate and small party representation. If a party gets enough votes to win a single seat, they should be awarded a single seat. If they get a third of the votes, they should get a third of the seats.
I used to say this too, but living in a multiparty country for 20+ years now (NL) I don’t see it as an advantage when you need to govern so large a country. It sounds like an easy solution until you try to get agricultural and city people to agree, and then now try multiplying it by 50.
Unfortunately, a two-party system will likely work best as you’ll need a common consensus to move the country in a single direction.
Wow. You really don’t care to understand a point other than your own. You want to pivot anyone else’s opinion to meaninglessness, and so I don’t see a need to reply further to a one-note-mentality as yours. Enjoy your holidays and goodbye.
You’re saying that choice isn’t good and that people need to choose better (perhaps choosing more like you?). Skip the pretense and only have one choice.
The guy before me keeps changing my position to secure his point, but no - more isn’t any better than no choice. We have to choose for people with a plan, not a platform, and one that works for all of us and not at the expense of any of us (because one day they’ll come for you).
Regardless of the number of choices that we appear to have, it doesn’t matter if the real choices are ultimately made through other means (e.g. lobbyists in the US).
Not sure why the downvotes on OP, it’s a reasoned opinion and worthy of discussion.
I think you’re saying that if you have too many political parties then the whole system gets watered down so much that nothing happens and the direction of the country can change at any time because there’s no unified agenda. Isn’t there a system to elect a leader who’d set the agenda and coordinate?
One would hope that through conversation we’d have more reasoned information but it appears camping on a platform is where people go to “win”.
We’ve dozens of parties trying to win to form a coalition, so sheer numbers don’t help. You can easily argue that our politics have grown stale and ineffective here in the recent years, and there’s a growing need for change.
For instance we’ve already had a few elections where a farmers collective party and the far right party have won their elections, but immediately afterwards (sometimes within a day, as in the farmers (BBB)) they’ve abandoned key parts of the platform that helped get them elected. Or their positions are so vile that no other party will work with them.
I’d argue that there are the side effects of taking a position first and wanting change at any cost. This is the cost - only more stagnation.
My point is “more” does not mean “better” - often, it’s just more of the same. Vote for and demand “Better”.
Just imagine if all we had were FvD and VVD. Because that’s what the US has. You can vote between far right, and regular right.
Yeah, we don’t exactly have the best government here right now, but at least we have options. There’s a surprising amount of fluctuation in dominant parties over the years, something you’ll never see in a two-party system.
You could do what Mike Bloomberg did in 2020 and try and buy your way into an election. Then again when he spent $500,000,000 on his campaign that got him no where.
Be fair, he also spent a couple hundred million dollars buying seats for the Dems so they’d push his favorite policy of disarming the plebs. He slipped up and said it and there should still be a YouTube video up with that exact moment recorded for posterity, though I know YouTube has taken down a lot of them.
My first move is to think about safety and longevity. I'm going to need a private island as a base of operations. Caution also dictates having a few backup homes, so my enemies never really know where I am. Beyond that, I need to spread my message, so I'm going to need a private plane. Something modest and a few years old is fine. This is a charitable effort. It isn't about me. And in the name of charity and effectiveness, let's go ahead and add a boat on there, too. Now, to really clear our heads before we get going and make sure we're enacting the right policies, we're going to want to bring in some girls...
I think some of y’all are really overestimating how much politicians cost. I don’t have a photogenic memory but I remember a few years ago on an article like this politicians were being paid like $70k.
Nuke the entire landmass. Enjoy not having to worry about what stupid shit the US political dumpster fire will regurgitate and manipulate this week. Be loved by almost every country on the planet for doing it. Gals and guys alike will be tripping over each other to suck you. Police stop being penis-waving fucks and start obeying the law, NK shits themselves and rejoins SK, Putin has a heart attack, and everyone starts buying electric cars because you threaten to do it again if not. World peace out of sheer terror. Rainbows and unicorns spawn randomly. And as a gargantuan meteor is about to crash into earth and kill all remaining sentient life, you are deemed the one true god.
Hello fbi, late today aren’t you?
(just let me know before you do this, I have some things I need to pack first)
I think the best thing you could do with that amount of money would be to start a community organizing non-profit. Things like registering voters, tenant advocacy, helping people gain access to benefits, etc. etc. Basically, just organizing and connecting people to the system.
If you’re restricting things to just electoral politics, though, I’d say focus on close elections at the state level. A half billion dollars isn’t much in the context of a modern presidential election but it’s an absurd amount for state legislature elections. You’re probably not going to turn Mississippi blue or Massachusetts red (or whatever your goal is) but control of a swingy state like Virginia usually comes down to a handful of close elections. You could probably make a meaningful difference in 20 states just with get out the vote funding.
Add comment