"The votes may have equal value on election day, but before and after election day, it is the political donations which matter.  When the process by which candidates has any chance of getting elected on election day depends on how much money a candidate can receive by contributors for his or her political campaign, and when it is the elite rather than the middle class who provide most of the contributions, the candidates who are elected by the majority to serve the interests of the majority are from day one of their position in office placed in a position of conflict of interest."

When you say that the middle class must have the majority of wealth in society to fairly contribute to political campaigns, you're saying that they're not intellectually capable of taking part in elections on their own. With the explosion of the internet in recent decades, nobody who wants knowledge of politics, candidates, or potential candidates is unable to educate themselves. No amount of money (political ads) would convince me to vote for Barack Obama or Mitt Romney, for instance.

But you're claiming that others are unable to think for themselves and overcome superior spending by establishment corruptocrats. I presumed this to be because they were too stupid. If I was incorrect to presume this from what you posted, you could correct me and explain yourself. Or you could claim lies and insults and continue to troll the forum. If you have a point, this is the place to clarify it. You claimed what I said is a lie. Why don't you explain yourself? How is it untrue? What is your actual position, that we may contrast it with what I proposed?

When you say that the middle class must have the majority of wealth in society to fairly contribute to political campaigns, you're advocating a massive government redistribution (as opposed to free people in free markets). Massive government control of people and markets is called communism. People never retain real voting rights under such a system of massive government which you openly advocate.

There are no magical fairies who will redistribute wealth and give the majority of it to the "middle class." Massive redistribution requires huge government powers and necessarily involves taking away many freedoms from people. Never has such a massive government left any sort of real voting rights with its people.

You're advocating massive government taking away people's freedoms in order to supposedly give them more money to contribute to political campaigns without addressing what, exactly, you want this to look like. You're not explaining yourself at all, let alone well.

If clarifying your vague statements is undesirable, you are a troll.

"You misinterpret what I say, slander, accuse, and insult me.  Then you ask me to clarify myself to you?"

I asked for specification of vague statements.

"The majority do not have the opportunity to stay adequately informed because they are inundated with highly irrelevant, highly censored, slanted news or even outright misinformed information by the media."

Why are they unable to discern this? Why are they unable to use the internet to seek the truth? I didn't have to spend a lot of time or money to achieve this awareness growing up in a lower-middle-class household. I certainly have had no trouble as an adult.

"Besides, people are having to work too hard for too little to have the time or the inclination to keep themselves informed."

They just don't care enough? How can you defend democratic principles while declaring that the majority of the population don't care enough to make informed decisions?

"We have discussed this, Kemp.  It is not because they are stupid.  That was your presumption you transferred into what I was saying."

You're saying they just don't care enough (it really doesn't take that much time). Presumably this is still because they're dumb. They're sabotaging their own futures/that of their children. Presumably they're ignorant to this fact out of stupidity, not horrible people. Presuming that you meant they're stupid is actually the optimistic presumption of your outlook on mankind; the alternative is that they're apathetic of and willing participants in the enslavement of mankind to powerful corporate power structures.

You're _still_ suggesting people are too stupid for democratic processes, if not directly. It was certainly not unreasonable to inquire about before.

"Your assumption that I am a communist is because I simply point out problems with the electoral process and dysfunctional effects of extreme wealth inequality"

I've repeatedly asked you what alternative you support.

This is a common device in discussions: Recap what you believe someone has said to you, and this lets them correct you anywhere you've got it wrong. It ensures that both parties understand one another before the discussion moves forward. Any time I ask for clarification, however, you get upset, pretend I've accused you unjustly, and still refuse to answer basic questions. Never do you specify where you believe I am wrong nor do you specify how.

I've asked why you think people can't take part in democratic processes without money. Seeing as you and I do it without money, I suspected that you must think other people are just too stupid. You corrected me. You've now said that they just aren't inclined enough to give a damn. Okay. But that leads us to what you propose as an alternative to our current system. Though you rail against me pointing out your communist tendencies, you do not provide an alternative to my statements.

I've explained in some detail my reasoning. You've failed to clarify any of your statements or elaborate on what you propose as a just alternative to free markets. You've made it very clear you want wealth to be distributed more uniformly, but every time I ask you how this should be accomplished you rage that I've accused you of being a communist. How am I to know, when you refuse to tell anybody how what you advocate should be accomplished?

You aren't taking the moral or intellectual high road by refusing to elaborate on vague statements. I very clearly explain what you've said and by what reasoning my questions arise. You're not being more mature than me by refusing to answer my questions or even specify what of my reasoning is flawed.

"and most of the media does present information on objective facts."

Maybe about cats up trees and auto accidents. But I do not accept this assumption at all. I like infowars.com, for instance. I think the guy running it is absolutely nuts, but I figure he's probably right about most of the things on there. These are often stories no major media outlet even touches, let alone covers responsibly. Nobody should be getting news from one source. And CNN/MSNBC/CBS/ABC/NBC vs Fox are more on one side of the spectrum than they span it.

I don't accept your argument that people don't have time to inform themselves. Even if this were the case, those without the time should know it and not vote. If you're arguing that they vote anyway, that's pretty much calling them stupid/apathetic. That's not my assumption; it's the argument that you make: That they don't have time to vote responsibly but do it anyway.

A majority of people in America aren't working 16 hour days. A majority of people have a lot of leisure; they choose not to spend barely any of it becoming informed citizens capable of voting responsibly. If they choose to only watch/read feel-good bullshit news because they don't know any better, they're stupid. If they know better but just don't care, they're apathetic. I don't agree with your notion that they literally don't have the time to spend a few hours/month informing themselves at all.

More importantly, I'm yet to see your ideas for alternatives to the status quo. As my mentioning infowars suggests, I think people across the globe are being harmed tremendously by powerful corporate interests in league with governments. But I advocate a more libertarian politic to combat this, whereas you advocate some sort of redistribution of wealth, on which you've thus far declined to specify nor explain to any extent.

World events have virtually no impact on trading, unless one is privy to insider info before the majority of other traders. Economic forecasts are more useful, but again not particularly useful in evaluating any particular trading option, beyond being aware of what trend to expect a disproportionate amount of the time at that time. Most of it is evaluating sets of numbers and charts available for a low monthly fee.

I don't disagree that it takes a bit of time to learn and keep up with; but everything does. Markets and trading aren't particularly difficult to learn about. While the rich benefit more, that's just common sense: They're rich. Of course they have access to virtually anything they want. They have more to risk and they risk more. But this doesn't make it harder for anyone else to engage in market transactions and profit. This doesn't lower anyone else's standard of living.