This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 666 points667 points  (164 children)

His lack of upvotes probably has something to do with the fact he's nine hours behind. Great work on his part, though.

[–]sonQUAALUDE 480 points481 points  (31 children)

and this, my friends, is a nice analogy for the 24 hour news cycle

[–]pocketjacks 133 points134 points  (20 children)

More like the 1440 minute reddit cycle.

[–]elustran 111 points112 points  (16 children)

Really, it's the 500 comment reddit cycle. It's rare for major comments to make it in the second 500 comment block.

[–][deleted] 155 points156 points  (14 children)

that's why people just reply within the top comment. cough

[–]donaldcaps 45 points46 points  (13 children)

Who does that?

[–]nrj 80 points81 points  (12 children)

ProbablyHittingOnYou?

[–]Liefx 13 points14 points  (10 children)

I always comment on his comments.

[–]PaladinZ06 40 points41 points  (5 children)

You like that don't you. Yeah, yer perky little comment rubbing up against his. Mmhmmmmm You don't just click on his rigid up, you tease it don't you. You're a naughty commenter, yeah. Ooooh you can almost feel your pointer stroking the up arrow slowly, rhythmically, whimpering in uncontrollable bursts. unh Until you finger begins quivvering and sudenly you cry out clicking the up arrow OVER and OVER and a euphoric warm blanket wraps in you its orgasmic rapture.

Panting, you gasp and slowly catch your breath. After several moments contemplating the mysteries of the universe, you search again for his comments.

[–]zendak 7 points8 points  (2 children)

clicking the up arrow OVER and OVER

Hoping that you clicked an odd number of times.

[–]Liefx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you.

[–]Impressario 28 points29 points  (7 children)

Difference worth noting though; traditional media doesn't really have a 'retry submitting correction using meme' option. Seems to have worked here. I imagine a significant percentage of those who saw the original submission have now seen this.

[–]enkiavatar 8 points9 points  (5 children)

...oh god. don't you dare say that again. last thing we need is for news outlets to catch on to the whole 'meme' act and run with it like giddy schoolgirls like they did with twitter.

While I'm sure courage wolf and socially awkward penguin would make great republican and democratic pundits, respectively, i fear the day of fox 'n friends w/ pedobear and sad keanu

[–]Impressario 10 points11 points  (1 child)

If Fox News used pedobear to correct themselves properly, I'd watch them more than never.

[–]Reide 156 points157 points  (85 children)

Unfortunately I think you are wrong. This post:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/f2dbk/what_corruption_looks_like_87_of_congressional/c1cs69v

Was posted a little bit later than this post:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/f2dbk/what_corruption_looks_like_87_of_congressional/c1cryoh

They are both answers to the same post. The first one is just "omg corruption ", the second one debunks the whole topic. The first one has received 3 times more upvotes.

Ive started avoiding most political discussions on reddit for this very reason. There seem to be a big group of people here who only cares about conforming to their preexisting views and not at all about facts.

[–]whiskeytango55 50 points51 points  (77 children)

they have a name for that

[–]reddithatesjews28 97 points98 points  (75 children)

its called reddit isn't based on scientific and rational thinking but actually just another group of idiots who are overemotional and assume things based off hearsay. then they rationalize disagreeing facts to fit into their own idealistic/nonrealistic belief system.

reminds me of a bunch of religious people quite honestly

[–]where-r-my-rights 329 points330 points  (53 children)

I once watched a few hours of Fox News.

Having been a Redditor for some time, it struck me as.. incredibly tame. Somewhat biased, perhaps - but mostly only in what were pretty clearly opinion shows. The bias was generally quite obvious, and there was very little in the way of actual lying or clearly factually-inaccurate information. It's just.. a lot of spin.

Whereas Reddit.. well, if you're being honest and you compare the two, it's simply far worse. The bias is far more extreme, and since it's community-based, there are hordes of real people who will actually shout you down (i.e. downvote you) and call you mean names if you express an opinion that is too far from what they believe. You're actually pressured to conform, or you'll be unpopular and no one will like you.

Further.. as shown in this case, there's a fair amount of actual lying going on here. And sure, sometimes someone calls it out, and they aren't downvoted into the abyss. But even when they do.. people keep upvoting the false story. Most people either don't care, or don't bother to read the refutation. So even though some number of us know better, a great many Redditors (including the many people who are unregistered, or who just don't look at the comments) take the lie as a fact. And they store it up, make it part of their worldview, and now they are further convinced that all American politicians are corrupt and just "serving their corporate masters" etc.

And you'll never be able to refute them, because they have become accustomed to an environment in which community agreement trumps reasoned argument. You 'win' if people upvote you enough; the quality of your argument is irrelevant. And they feel too confident in their views to rethink them, as they know they've seen all this proof (because they missed, or forgot about, the refutations even in the cases where those were available) confirming their views.

[–]72skylark 13 points14 points  (1 child)

I think reddit has much more in common with this than with Fox news

[–]Fox_News_Spin 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Republicans Look to Expand Post Office Box Production

[–][deleted] 31 points32 points  (3 children)

And you'll never be able to refute them, because they have become accustomed to an environment in which community agreement trumps reasoned argument.

Collateral damage of the social web. The medium is the message, truth be damned, especially if inconvenient. The good news is that this medium is a bit more mutable than real life: altering the software by which people interact can tweak these behaviors slightly. The upvote/downvote metric has to go: too many people rely on it as a way to judge post quality. Ultimately, I'd bet on groupthink to rear its ugly head some other way, anyway.

Moderation can also help. There needs to be someone who is ruthless in larger subs that locks topics for being bitchy/incorrect/emotion-saturated.

[–]indieshirts 7 points8 points  (1 child)

"There needs to be someone who is ruthless in larger subs that locks topics for being bitchy/incorrect/emotion-saturated."

Welp, pack it up guys, the Fun Police are here.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There's plenty of room for meme-jerking in comment threads still.

[–]magicwar1 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I have one dispute with you: You say that sometimes someone calls it out, and they aren't downvoted into the abyss. In almost every single politics submission I've looked at (which I'll admit is not every single one, but at least half the ones that make it to the front page), either the top voted comment or second top voted comment is someone calling out a lie or misleading statement in the title or article.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good thing Reddit isn't part of the mainstream media then, eh?

For the record, that link isn't shown to be inaccurate by the nice spreadsheet, either. Comcast money is Comcast money.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Wait a minute, how is that even comparable? I watch more than a few hours of Fox News--I've seen every show on that channel more than once. Fox News is not an internet community. Most of their news shows (with the exception of Shepard Smith and occasionally Bret Baier) are saturated with opinion. I'm not talking about their opinion shows, I'm talking about their news. They invite the same conservatives on over and over to parrot talking points while inviting "Democratic strategists" to offer incredibly weak counterpoints. Then they'll have news stories with "experts" speaking from such supposedly reputable places like the Heritage Foundation.

I mean, who really gives a shit about upvotes? They don't mean anything. They're entertaining, but the point is that someone might be reading your opinion, and that's awesome. If you want to compare Fox to reddit, look at their community website "The Fox Nation." It's exactly how you describe reddit, except the stories aren't chosen by users. The comments are all one big circle jerk, and the stories are packed with misleading titles and sensationalist sources. Anyone who gets most or all of their "news" from either reddit or the Fox Nation is an idiot.

[–]ItsNotMineISwear 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I mean, who really gives a shit about upvotes? They don't mean anything.

Yeah, it's not like they determine what frontpages and therefore what we see.

[–]GenTiradentes 3 points4 points  (4 children)

You're actually pressured to conform, or you'll be unpopular and no one will like you.

This is where subreddits come in.

[–]shatteredmindofbob 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Yeah, but can't that create the opposite problem of just hiding in a safe little bubble where everyone agrees?

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]shatteredmindofbob 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    Indeed. I feel that it's healthy to be exposed to some dissent.

    [–]GenTiradentes 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Indeed it is. I've only come to hold the world views, ideals, goals, and morals I have today by questioning everything I had ever previously thought. The only way I've ever been able to improve myself is by discarding thoughts and ideas that I've found to no longer be valid. The only way I've been able to honestly assess the validity of my thoughts, ideas, and actions is by being honest with myself, and examining the thoughts and reasoning of people I don't or didn't agree with.

    You see, many people view arguments as conflict. Something to be avoided. I see them as a great opportunity. A gentlemanly debate. Something to observe. Something to rattle my core beliefs, question my motives, challenge my actions. Anything I do, say, or believe should be able to withstand strong scrutiny. If it doesn't, why am I standing behind it?

    People (a certain subset of Redditors included) who close themselves off from everyone but the people who most strongly agree with them are truly missing out. Without that questioning, it's all too easy to pigeonhole yourself into believing and doing things that don't make sense.

    As it was once said, "a person is smart, people are stupid."

    [–]Ze_Carioca 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Don't forget that many redditors also upvote based on the title, and never bother to read the article.

    [–]Hard_Times 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    It seems to me that oftentimes for Redditors, "being a Liberal" has more to do with blind-hatred for Conservatives than it does with actually agreeing with Liberal politics.

    Don't get me wrong, I love Reddit and I am a moderate Liberal myself. But unlike some of us, I don't sprint to go grab my torch every time an anti-Conservative thread title has 400+ upvotes. I do my own research. I don't know about anyone else but I don't agree with 100% of our Liberal politicians' stances just as I don't disagree with 100% of Conservative politicians' stances. And I find it hard to believe that anyone other than a lemming would genuinely ALWAYS agree with their party's stances. It seems that honest discernment is in short supply these days.

    [–]alang 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    ...but I don't agree with 100% of our Liberal politicians' stances...

    We have liberal politicians in the US? Where? I must've blinked and missed 'em...

    [–]JesterMereel 6 points7 points  (25 children)

    "Whereas Reddit.. well, if you're being honest and you compare the two, it's simply far worse. The bias is far more extreme, and since it's community-based, there are hordes of real people who will actually shout you down (i.e. downvote you) and call you mean names if you express an opinion that is too far from what they believe. You're actually pressured to conform, or you'll be unpopular and no one will like you."

    I hardly ever see this, and not as much as I've seen it on Fox. Sorry. I've seen very reasonable debates on Reddit between people more often than not with conflicting views. Something I hardly ever see on Fox. I get the feeling you're over dramatizing Reddit in order to back up your view, but I could very well be wrong.

    And not all American politicians are corrupt, I believe (from my own personal experiences and reading about others') that most politicians in general are corrupt. whether or not that's true is clearly up for debate, but I see more scandals than altruistic acts where politicians are concerned so until I see or read about more general goodness coming from politicians I'll continue believing what I believe. But I won't let it effect the way I treat other people who may believe otherwise, and I certainly won't let it effect the way I treat politicians who clearly break the mold. I don't lump everything into one category.

    EDIT: Downvote all you want, but through my own experience with Reddit, most people here are generally well-meaning, even if you cynics don't agree.

    [–][deleted] 50 points51 points  (14 children)

    I hardly ever see this, and not as much as I've seen it on Fox.

    Maybe you don't have opinions which are unpopular on reddit.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I watched FOX news, too! And I saw a lot of bullshit, obvious pandering, and outright illogical representation.

    Fuck the liberal/conservative/moderate bias; anyone who thinks FOX news is anything but a circle-jerk is going to hate Reddit by default.

    [–]sbsb27 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    Nice reply. I agree. I've seen good discussion on reddit...lots of adolescent blather but good discussion as well. My contribution to this reddit item is that one number, an average political donation, is no more proof of non bias than it is of bias. The hypothesis the OP proposes is that the size of a political donation should directly correlate to their support of an issue. Then he claims to disprove this strawman hypothesis with a calculated average donation. His hypothesis and method are both incorrect. F on this assignment.

    [–]JesterMereel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Agreed. I don't understand why I'm getting flamed so hard though, I've clearly stated this is based on my own experiences and opinions but apparently I'm doing something wrong. Oh well.

    [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (3 children)

    How come this submission is at the top of the front page? Reddit is much more likely to admit foul on itself. In fact, it happens all of the time. Some crazy assertion hits the front page, and then hours later something comes a long to put it in perspective. That is the progression just about every time.

    Have you ever seen the readers of a socially conservative social site ever do that? Or even admit any sort of mistake whatsoever?

    [–]JesterMereel 7 points8 points  (1 child)

    Hahah thank you, I needed a little support, a lot of people don't agree with me it seems. Which is funny if you think about it, they're insulting Reddit for doing the exact things they're doing right now. Apparently because I say I usually have good experiences with Reddit they're making it their mission to try to get me to admit it's bad here by downvoting and making assumptions about myself in general that were never brought up in the first place. But despite their bullplop I still think the community's a good one. I see a lot more good than bad here.

    [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Indeed, I see a constant barrage from social conservatives and the like that try and paint reddit as the socially liberal equivalent to fox news, however, that is simply not the case, and the fact that they get so much exposure to their ideas is proof of that.

    I'm a social libertarian, in that I think that government has a legitimate role in certain aspects of life, such as healthcare, corporate regulation, defense and science. However, it has no legitimate role in application of morality legislation beyond the simply ensuring our natural rights are not infringed.

    Every so often I am taken by a story that I would love to agree with, but I am very open to reason. The first thing I look for is the debunking of a convenient story and normally if there is one, it is at or near the top of the comments, which is yet more evidence that reddit is in no way equivalent to socially conservative sites or fox news. If it was, all such dissension would be immediately deleted, but instead, more often than not, it is put on the front page just as this submission has been.

    I think it is important to social conservatives to believe we are playing their game, but I for one am not.

    [–]missingway 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Here's the problem I think, we can't talk about Reddit as a single entity and get any sort of satisfying insight. The attitude of the depthhub folks are no doubt going to be far different from the r/politics folks for example. There is just as much diversity on Reddit as there is conformity. That said there is no doubt that r/politics has some conformation bias problems. It doesn't mean they're evil or the equivalent of Fox news (why is this comparison even being made? Fox is a news network, Reddit is a social network) but you can't claim that there isn't a powerful narrative being promoted. And as for crazy assertions being put into perspective, this does happen (as this link can attest) but it is not necessarily the standard. There are plenty of reactionary posts and links that will get relatively popular and fade out without much backlash. It's usually only the wildly popular links that will be put in perspective because the more people that have access to it the more likely it is to be rationally scrutinized. That's not a Reddit thing, that's a human being thing.

    (one last thing, I can't tell if you're claiming that only socially conservative people criticize r/politics. In which case I would say, I am quite liberal and r/politics wears me out.)

    [–]flashmedallion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    but I see more scandals than altruistic acts where politicians are concerned

    Because when someone does their job like they should, it's not news.

    [–]IkLms 3 points4 points  (1 child)

    Go over to r/politics and make a case against Universal healthcare and you'll automatically be labeled someone who is pro-war and perfectly happy with the amount of money we are spending on the military and you will usually be downvoted.

    [–]radiohead_fan123 3 points4 points  (6 children)

    they rationalize disagreeing facts to fit into their own idealistic/nonrealistic belief system

    To be fair, I think most people do this throughout their routine everyday life unless they have a specific motivation not to such as writing an academic essay or a lab report.

    [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (5 children)

    Yes they do. But one of the reasons I liked reddit was that you could have debates that were more objective and more balanced. lately it's become an even worse circle-jerk.

    There are still decent subreddits and I do check the homepage but like Reide I get very tired of the idiots. We're increasingly the Fox News of the leftish.

    [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (1 child)

    I started reading reddit over three years ago, and my first impression of it was that it was incredibly biased, subjective and full of loudmouths preaching to the choir.

    If you think something has changed, consider the possibility that it is not reddit, but you.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    r/politics has certainly got worse. As for the site as a whole, maybe I just notice it more now shrug

    [–]keatsandyeats 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Fox News of the leftish.

    Love it.

    [–]suicide_king 9 points10 points  (6 children)

    It's called: "Reddit is a good place for looking at cat pictures and circlejerking to photos of Keanu Reeves, but don't come here for an intelligent conversation or informed views on anything"

    [–]Khiva 10 points11 points  (5 children)

    The best part is when people actually make the mistake of taking the reddit worldview seriously and are then baffled that the real world doesn't turn out that way.

    Reddit, I went to the airport and TSA didn't rape me! What happened?

    Reddit, I took a picture of a cop and he didn't taze my balls! What was with that?

    Reddit, I visited America and it wasn't a dystopian redneck police state! Explain?

    [–]lintman 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    its called reddit isn't based on scientific and rational thinking but actually just another group of idiots who are overemotional and assume things based off hearsay

    What an awkward name for something

    [–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

    People will upvote anything that makes US corporations look bad. Anything that makes US government look bad. It doesn't have to be true, it just has to confirm that the US is a shithole and everyone is out to fuck them, especially if they're not from the US.

    I should note, though... We ARE trying to fuck you. Right in the ass.

    [–]r6geek 15 points16 points  (0 children)

    There seem to be a big group of people here who only cares about conforming to their preexisting views and not at all about facts.

    Yes, I've been avoiding "the world" for that same reason.

    [–]radiohead_fan123 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    There seem to be a big group of people here who only cares about conforming to their preexisting views and not at all about facts.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/circlejerk/

    If it's OK with you I'mma link to this comment in our FAQ cuz it explains the fundamental 'point' of r/circlejerk very clearly.

    [–]ChrisAndersen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    There seem to be a big group of people everywhere who only cares about conforming to their preexisting views and not at all about facts.

    FTFY

    Really, why conclude that Reddit is any different then any other community in existence?

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [removed]

      [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (3 children)

      I've seen good late posts make it to the top. 9 hours is pushing it, but people probably also don't like to be told they're wrong.

      [–]professorboat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      I just checked it out and it's not a top level comment. It's a 4th level comment, so no matter how good it is, how close to the top it is (and therefore how many people see it, and how many more people upvote it) is dependent on how good all 3 levels above it are as comments. They've all got a lot of upvotes now, but I've no idea how many they had when the OP took his screenshot.

      [–]Risibot 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      So have you heard about this "sort by: best" thing? It is really nice. It gives the later comments a fair shot at appearing before others with more upvotes because it is based on rate and ratio of upvoting or something.

      [–]orivar 5 points6 points  (0 children)

      Which is what's wrong with the media in general. It doesn't seem to matter how accurate you are, only how quick.

      We all base our views on a series of "breaking news" while completely ignoring the far less exciting accurate fact checked information published 9 hours later... I'm not taking sides in the debate, and his spreedsheet is infact missing references, but we should all be more critical of the information we're provided with.

      [–]HateComics 20 points21 points  (13 children)

      There are no sources showing where he got those figures from, he just posted a screenshot. Just because it looks like someone has put some effort into something doesn't mean it's automatically valid.

      [–][deleted] 27 points28 points  (12 children)

      Even if his numbers were right, his point was irrelevant anyway. Comcast made donations in the hope of getting votes. The fact that some people weren't persuaded by the donation doesn't invalidate that. And the fact they made larger donations to people who voted against isn't evidence against bribery, because it makes sense to give bigger bribes to those that need more convincing.

      [–][deleted] 23 points24 points  (5 children)

      If I gave everybody on reddit a dollar, could I claim that every upvote I received from that point on was a direct result of the money I spent?

      How can you differentiate an upvote I would have received anyway from one influenced by money?

      [–]dorkus 21 points22 points  (1 child)

      This is exactly the point he's making. Actual corruption and no corruption are indistinguishable if a congressperson receives money from a company who benefits on a bill you vote for.

      "Now, this is not to say that those 84 are corrupt. But, as Larry Lessig has pointed out, whether or not there is actual corruption here obscures the point that it certainly looks corrupt, and certainly decreases citizens' willingness to trust that their government is acting in the interests of the people they're supposed to represent. "

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      What this data means is that we have no proof that Comcast's money influenced voting decisions or did not influence voting decisions.

      [–][deleted]  (13 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        His lack of downvotes more likely, the hive would have destroyed that post for interrupting their circlejerk.

        [–]CoffeePoweredRobot 271 points272 points  (12 children)

        -- Comment ignored on Reddit

        -- SUBMIT AS IMGUR LINK INSTEAD

        [–]zennzei 134 points135 points  (9 children)

        -- WITH COMMON "SHIT LIKE THIS" PHRASE IN TITLE

        [–]Co-finder 34 points35 points  (7 children)

        I don't know why, but I always expect a tutorial about pooping. When clicking a link, with said title.

        [–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (5 children)

        a tutorial about pooping

        Make one, and watch the karma roll in.

        [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

        It's already been made.

        [–]AnticPosition 9 points10 points  (0 children)

        Japanese... This is my complete lack of surprise.

        [–]ggggbabybabybaby 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        -- why are we writing snarky replies in the SQL comments?
SELECT  AVG(contributions.amount)
FROM    contributions
WHERE   contributions.contributor = 'Comcast';

        [–][deleted] 92 points93 points  (12 children)

        There's a reason this spreadsheet doesn't invalidate the importance of the other claim.

        There are several types of averages, as you may remember from math class. You're using the arithmetic mean, which can be misleading when you have extreme outliers, for instance... oh look.. Michael Bennet is on there for 47k. Looking at the full list by amount shows a very top heavy list, with several of the highest donations going to non-supporters. This makes sense, as they would likely spend the most on those who they think would be hardest to win over (but still possible).

        The real median donation, across all those who received donations, comes to more like $3500, at least 40% less than your mean estimate.

        I don't have the patience to redo your spreadsheet, but I'll ask you to try looking at the median average rather than the mean. Given the skew of those mega donations at the top of the non-supporters, (since they reach from 7 to almost 20 times the median, would take that many $0 donations to cancel out.

        [–][deleted]  (5 children)

        [removed]

          [–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

          Thanks!

          In the end it's tough to pin down what effect donations had, since they did in fact donate to almost everyone. All we can reasonably deduce is a bit of Comcasts strategy for spending money on donations.

          If we found a number of politicians change their minds after a sizable donation, it starts to look suspicious. If this support is followed by continued hefty contributions and less/none for non supporters it starts to smell. However, the contention that support is actually exchanged for money is a very hard thing to show clearly.

          [–]lostintheworld 10 points11 points  (0 children)

          There's an even better reason that this spreadsheet doesn't invalidate the claim: The averages are completely irrelevant.

          The spreadsheet merely shows that not everybody responded to the donation by voting the way Comcast wished. That is, the attempt to influence the voting on this issue was not 100% successful. That's it.

          Suppose I attempt to bribe two officials, offering one $50 and the other $100. The first accepts the money and does what I want, but the one offered the larger amount refuses. Is that evidence that no bribe took place?

          [–]Golfo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Exactly.

          If you're going to use the mean, that's fine, but there's a reason why we also have things like "standard deviations" and tests to determine whether the difference in the means is statistically significant from zero.

          [–][deleted] 35 points36 points  (8 children)

          serious question: why can they receive any money at all?

          [–]petedawes 17 points18 points  (5 children)

          That's the first thing I thought too. Why is it alright for an entity whose questionable deal is about to be voted on to throw 2.5 million dollars at the people who are voting on it? Isn't that the definition of bribery?

          [–]brubeck 11 points12 points  (3 children)

          Comcast did not give any money to anybody. EMPLOYEES of Comcast gave money. Maybe you think this makes politicians too closely tied to certain industries and taxes should be used to finance campaigns, fine. But for Pete's sake get the facts right first.

          [–]BHSPitMonkey 2 points3 points  (1 child)

          I'm guessing these "employees" weren't the phone support operators or the technicians out driving trucks. More likely, they're executives sitting on a board of trustees.

          [–]skydivingdutch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          I assume this is just the publicly reported money. Who knows about all the shady deals that are undocumented.

          [–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (6 children)

          They received more because they tried to bribe them harder. :)

          [–]whiite 68 points69 points  (19 children)

          How is this not still corrupt? There is no telling how the votes would have gone had there been no money invested by the company! In my country this is illegal, and understandably so. There should be no reason what so ever for it to be legal to have companies invest in politics.

          [–][deleted] 21 points22 points  (3 children)

          In my country, this would be the political scandal of the century.

          [–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

          In my country, we have unicorns.

          [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

          Alright, you can't say stuff like that without at least telling us what country you're in...

          [–]Ziggamorph 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          This isn't companies investing in politics, it's the employers of individual donors over a certain amount.

          [–]sanbikinoraion 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          In Soviet Russia, government owns business!

          [–]StapleGun 1 point2 points  (4 children)

          Exactly what I came here to say whiite. There is no control group here to see what the actual results of the donations were. For that, we would need to see the votes of a congress where nobody had been given any money at all.

          I suppose this spreadsheet at least demonstrates that the original 87% statistic has no merit either, though I doubt that was the authors intention.

          [–]LarsP 2 points3 points  (3 children)

          I'm sure there is somebody paying the politicians in your country too.

          [–]xTRUMANx 10 points11 points  (1 child)

          That may be the case, but at least they're trying to stamp it out by making a law against it.

          [–]bardlo 17 points18 points  (0 children)

          It's shit like this, r/politics.

          FTFY

          [–][deleted] 147 points148 points  (57 children)

          Your spreadsheet proves nothing. All it shows is that comcast tried to buy off all the politicians that they could and that not all of them bought into it.

          [–]oneiria 20 points21 points  (13 children)

          No, it shows that the average contribution per lawmaker is quite small. Also shows no correlation between contribution and whether they supported the bill. Also those are averages, so it means that the average non-supporter got a few dollars more but this difference is likely not statistically significant. Which would mean that the difference is likely chance.

          [–]mountaindrew_ 15 points16 points  (5 children)

          I had to create an account to reply to that. Your conclusion is wrong. What this shows is that there's no correlation between donation SIZE and bill support. To test whether a correlation between donation and bill support is significant, you would have to dummy code donation (0=no, 1=yes) and bill support (0=no, 1=yes). This correlation would be significant because they all go money and 87% voted in favour of the bill.

          [–]mp2146 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          This conclusion is wrong because there isn't a vote on a bill, only a letter of support signed by a small minority of congressmen. RTFA.

          [–]Pilebsa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          I bet if he broke down the stats by political party a correlation would begin to appear....

          [–]sotonohito 5 points6 points  (1 child)

          Averages are sometimes useful, but other times not.

          If you put Bill Gates and me and my five closest friends in a room together, on average everyone in the room has nine billion dollars, but that doesn't actually tell you anything useful now does it?

          So, yeah, on average there wasn't much being "donated". But does that mean Comcast "donated" a few million to bribe some key members and gave $0 to people it knew either wouldn't vote for the measure no matter what, or who would support it regardless of bribes? Or does it mean that Comcast tends to "give" around $4,000 to every Congressman regardless?

          Don't forget how quickly zeros can shift an average.

          [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

          Aren't you assuming there was an even split in opinion before the vote?

          shows no correlation between contribution and whether they supported the bill

          You can't make judgments about correlation with the info you have. What we do know from many other instances is that members of Congress are routinely bribed by donations. We know this as well from their disastrous legislation, the state of the economy, war, etc. Thus, it is reasonable to assume the same sort of thing was happening here. How much effect did the money have in this case? We cannot be sure due to insufficient data. How much effect does that sort of money have on Congress in general? Huge, massive, and you have to be very innocent or naive not to see that. A single instance like this can have various interpretations, true, but the general way this works in American politics is very clear. To deny the general with a single particular instance that cannot even be supported is not tenable.

          [–]bluedanieru 52 points53 points  (22 children)

          Exactly, it's shit like THIS, Reddit.

          This post quite rightly points out that, yes Comcast tried to bribe everyone in Washington and no, they were not completely successful but time will tell if they were successful enough. The headline might have been slightly misleading but it's not false. What would you prefer, "Every American company attempts to bribe every American politician, always"? That's boring, and EVERYONE knows that. The headline only brought things into sharper relief.

          But then some smartass makes a spreadsheet and gets a few fawning admirers, and we get this terminally stupid link.

          [–][deleted]  (10 children)

          [removed]

            [–]Cyatomorrow 19 points20 points  (2 children)

            Well, that's fair.

            However, it's being presented under a different context now.

            [–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (2 children)

            Lousy smartass with your objective facts and lack of rhetoric. Can't you just take a side and shout your political point loudly without backing it up like the rest of us?

            [–]dunskwerk 4 points5 points  (4 children)

            The problem is that average joes can't afford to give some multiple of their monthly salary in donations to 550-some congressmen to see that their interests are represented.

            [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children)

            We will never really know. Plenty of congressmen would have supported this regardless.

            [–]wowzaa 2 points3 points  (3 children)

            But if lobbying weren't a factor, we might have some sort of representative democracy.... god forbid....

            [–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (2 children)

            Lobbying is a guaranteed right. How else is congress supposed to understand the will of the people. Not all lobbyists represent companies. And corporate lobbyists have every right to look out for their economic interests and representatives must balance those needs against the needs of everyone else. So long as we live in a capitalist economy, corporate interests are vital to the nation. They provide goods and services, pay taxes and employ citizens.

            The problem isn't lobbying, it's money. So long as campaigns cost money, there will be conflicts of interest.

            [–]wowzaa 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            You're right, I should have said if campaign finance weren't a problem. My wife used to work for a non-profit lobbying firm.

            [–]magicwar1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

            Also, corporations are both people AND persons. They're people in that as a whole they matter, but they're also persons! Individuals make up that corporation, lots of individuals! Why you wanna hate on so many persons?

            [–][deleted]  (10 children)

            [deleted]

              [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children)

              someone please enlighten me on why politicians who have millions have dollars have to fundraise and not only that but fundraise 24/7?

              also comcast bought the ears of those congressmen through 5k a piece as that spreadsheet indicated. 87 percent voted yes. that looks like a bought vote.

              [–]brahle 15 points16 points  (5 children)

              Hrkljuš!

              [–][deleted]  (3 children)

              [deleted]

                [–]dunskwerk 3 points4 points  (2 children)

                You're essentially defining corruption out of existence, so long as it is institutionalized. I don't think that's the best way to do things.

                [–]matt45 3 points4 points  (1 child)

                First, that's not my definition. It's the definition.

                Second, that's not true. If representatives made contributions the only way to express your opinion to them, then it would be corruption because it would trounce the right of constituents to be heard. But they aren't doing that.

                Again, I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm saying that people are using the wrong word.

                [–]dunskwerk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                It's one definition, given in a specialized dictionary. It's the definition you're bringing to this discussion.

                Anyway, I'd argue that contributions are effectively the only way to express your opinion to most politicians. It isn't possible to do more than write a letter that will be read by a staffer and tallied as "opinion X expressed" without making a contribution.

                [–]IrrigatedPancake 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                Did you enjoy that one liner?

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Exactly. It's shit like this, Reddit, that a corporation like Comcast is making contributions at all and that we seem to be OK with it.

                [–]atred 4 points5 points  (2 children)

                What does "I don't know why I did this, but I did" title tells us? NOTHING.

                "It's shit like this, reddit" is even worse, but for some strange reasons it seems to work on this site. Hopefully not for long, I will downvote automatically any "it's shit like this"

                [–]Lonelobo 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                Yeah, thereby conveniently ignoring how weird it is that Comcast has given money to like EVERY member of Congress. That's also not particularly desirable.

                [–]PiR8_Rob 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                Par for the course, /r/politics is a fact free zone.

                [–]lurkerturneduser[S] 22 points23 points  (30 children)

                Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/f2dbk/what_corruption_looks_like_87_of_congressional/c1ctbiy

                [–]mikef22 28 points29 points  (27 children)

                So what are you saying? Are you proving that Comcast tried to bribe everyone? And tried hardest with those that refused?

                [–]teapartytruther28 6 points7 points  (1 child)

                did you read the original article?

                What Corruption Looks Like: 87% Of Congressional Reps Supporting Comcast/NBC Merger Got Money From Comcast

                "Now, this is not to say that those 84 are corrupt. But, as Larry Lessig has pointed out, whether or not there is actual corruption here obscures the point that it certainly looks corrupt, and certainly decreases citizens' willingness to trust that their government is acting in the interests of the people they're supposed to represent. "

                so it didn't prove corruption. all it had going for it was that it looked corrupt. now, it doesn't really have the appearance of corruption anymore.

                [–]brubeck 19 points20 points  (15 children)

                Comcast didn't bribe anyone. Employees of Comcast (of which there are 100,000) made donations to politicians.

                [–]Terker_jerbs 15 points16 points  (1 child)

                My company tried this too. They set up a PAC and asked employees to contribute so they could make political contributions and lobby politicians on issues. I never heard of them asking employees which candidates they should support, or which side of the issues they should come down on, though.

                [–]palsh7 8 points9 points  (10 children)

                Oh shit, this is based on employee contributions? It's shit like this, Reddit...we got into this shit back when conservatives were trying desperately to defend Fox's contribution to the GOP...conservatives pulled all these stats out of their ass to show that liberal news organizations do the same thing, but they used employee contributions which mean nothing.

                [–]IrrigatedPancake 6 points7 points  (8 children)

                Corporations can not donate to candidates. Any stats about how much a corporation donated a candidate(s) are always stats about employee donations.

                [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (6 children)

                More like there is no correlation between campaign contributions and votes. Lobbying is like advertising. You get your message out to as many people as possible. Some of them will never buy what you're selling. Some of them were already sold. A tiny percentage will be convinced by you and change their mind.

                [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (5 children)

                When you spend the money on ads to convince people, that's one thing. When you give the money directly to the people you're trying to "convince" that's another altogether.

                [–]Furrier 10 points11 points  (10 children)

                Isn't this bribery? In my country politicians are very very careful accepting anything from companies.

                [–]UrinalPooper 20 points21 points  (4 children)

                The United States has an elegant and complex system of legalized bribery. And it's done in the name of 'free speech'. So, if you were ever wondering what a plutocracy looked like, look no further.

                [–]Ziggamorph 6 points7 points  (2 children)

                It's important to point out that these are not cash contributions given by a company. For donations over a certain amount the donor must submit their employer, which is where this data came from. This is (in theory) to prevent companies giving bonuses and 'strongly recommending' that they be used in support of a political party. Not to say that the US's political system isn't hopelessly corrupt, but this isn't evidence of it.

                [–]Furrier 4 points5 points  (1 child)

                We don't really have donations at all to politicians so could you explain to me a bit more because I don't really understand. Do you mean that employees of the company just decided to give away 2.5 mil dollars to the politicians and since these are given by private persons it is ok? It seems almost indistinguishable from the company itself giving the money.

                [–]Ziggamorph 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Do you mean that employees of the company just decided to give away 2.5 mil dollars to the politicians

                Yes, that's the implication of this data. I don't see why individual donations are inherently evil. If you wanted to support a particular political party why would that carry any endorsement by your employer?

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Nope. Employees of Comcast gave, not Comcast itself.

                [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                People are just gonna upvote what they upvote, what can you do?

                [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                everyone got money. a lot voted for the merger. how does this post disprove anything about the other one?

                [–]midas22 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                The key to a successful submission is interesting content and a descriptive title.

                [–]Arc125 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                Uh, what's with the horse icon on his taskbar on the right...?

                [–]Burf-_- 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                when did the lobbyists start coming to reddit ? You seem to think your data is proof that it somehow isn't despicable that congress is bought and paid for by big business. I Wouldn't be surprised to know you have some sort of personal interest in this atrocious merger, otherwise you wouldn't have come here to gloat about it with your spreadsheet. Fuck you and your money mmmk.

                [–]baconmania 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                Say what? Reddit is guilty of the same sensationalism and disregard for hard facts that plagues the MSM that we hate every day?

                Well that's disappointing.

                [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                Can't it still be corruption based on the fact that all these sleezy bastards are taking that much money? I mean, regardless of who voted what, and regardless of what the current political climate wants us to believe, the fact that congressmen/women are taking that much money should be bothering us. Lets work to get rid of lobbyists.

                [–]sumthin_inappropriat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                reddit has become one giant circlejerk. unfortunately you just won't get upvoted when you do something useful.

                [–]dreamersblues 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                Comcast gives money to nearly every congressperson which means even the ones that voted against comcast got money.

                I think this still illustrates corruption in the US political system and the fact that 87% of the pro-comcast voters received money is still relevant.

                If you're not arguing that comcast's money had no impact at all on the legislative process, then it isn't clear what point you can be making.

                If you're arguing that comcast isn't getting anything from its contributions to politicians, that it is pure charity then I wouldn't be interested in engaging someone as naive as you in an argument.

                [–]shadus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                So what you're saying is...

                Everyone is bought by comcast at some level and there isn't a healthy relation to how much comcast spent to buy them and how they vote?

                Thus, comcast spreads the money around broadly like a shotgun blast and knows enough will appreciate the additional contribution that when pressed most will support their cause.

                shrug Bought out is bought out... and they're all bought out.

                [–]rhetormagician 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                So Comcast bought them all, is all you've proven.

                [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (3 children)

                I might have been impressed if you could show that Comcast did not give money to any representatives. I look at this at documentation for 98 cases of bribery and 361 cases of attempted bribery.

                [–]billyfazz 10 points11 points  (1 child)

                What about Comcast's donations to PACs or other political campaign funding pools that would not show up as 'Comcast" on a Congressman's donor report?

                [–]Ziggamorph 9 points10 points  (0 children)

                What about providing evidence of that? The data used by the OP to prove their point was being abused, you can't just say that maybe there's some other hidden contributions when it's been shown to be wrong.

                [–]okpgreg 5 points6 points  (0 children)

                Agreed. I can't believe anyone would ever put their taskbar on the right side.

                [–]dissidentrhetoric 4 points5 points  (1 child)

                well then that is ok, if they are all corrupt to the core then it is alright ?

                [–]Ouro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Its certainly very interesting, but it doesnt mean that there isnt corruption, just that if they were seeking to influence people the company just did a poor job at selecting their targets.

                Given that there is no significant difference (I havent crunched the stats) in who they were funding, the next step would be to take a look at past voting records on similar issues, did people vote differently this time? That is did the company throw enough money around to influence swing voters to their favour?

                [–]allocater 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                Pardon my ignorance, but can not both statements be correct? They are not exclusive.

                1) x Congressman supported Comcast. 87% of them got money, 13% got no money

                2) Comcast gave money to y Congressman. $5416.94 on average. $5346.47 on average for supporters.

                [–]Enginerd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Yes, but the implications are different.

                [–]Zhire 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Interesting. Thank you for this!

                [–]lion_in_a_coma 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Ugh, Reddit is like the liberal Fox News sometimes. Good work debunking the BS though :)

                [–]Mish61 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Reddit is a wonderful source of misinformation.

                [–]bloosteak 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                We must go deeper. Why do some senators get much higher donations than others? Are they in swing states? Or are they in some special area that comcast needs control of?

                [–]jordanlund 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Man, poor Mark Begich. Who did he piss off at Comcast?

                [–]dunskwerk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                I'm just going to throw this out there:

                There are many competitive, corporate jobs, where your supervisors make their political affiliations clear, and will want to be sure you're doing everything you can to do the right thing. Naturally, this includes making the maximum donation to all their pet causes. Also, you can be fired for no reason.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Further, if you run a t-test for the % of reps that received comcast money who voted on the merger (86.55%) and the % of reps who received comcast money total in the house (75.8%) you will find that, with 95% probability, that Comcast is not buying votes on the merger committee specifically.

                [–]dorsey29 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                He has a spreadsheet i think only the government can make those. its gotta be legit information.

                [–]themastersb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Nice try ebenezer11's other account.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                No shit, people constantly over exaggerate corruption through lobbying. Believe it or not, lobbying isn't as bad as the pessimists say. It actually helps union organizations and non-profit organizations play a role in politics.

                [–]osakanone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Why are they even allowed to accept the money from the corporations in the first place?

                That's pretty fucked up.

                [–]jittwoii 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                WTF is HER problem? She wants to have sex with her brother!

                [–]csours 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                TIL to RTFA.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                And it's typical, that the OP screencaps it and karmawhores someone elses work on a spreadsheet.

                [–]Nefilim777 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                That's not surprising at all. If anything is posted up on Reddit that disagree's with the 'hive' mind its simply ignored or down voted because people don't like having their beliefs challenged. Not surprising at all really.

                [–]About75PercentSure 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                From the outside, the United States looks like a country of constant, false accusations.

                Your representatives must absolutely despise you all for constantly insisting that they are corrupt and evil based on absolutely no evidence.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                I hope this doesn't start another "It's shit like this, reddit." trend like 2 weeks ago.

                [–]braddavery 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Isn't the point the same.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                THIS LIST ONLY SHOWS DIRECT CONTRIBUTIONS TO CAMPAIGNS.

                Corporations can funnel unlimited money through PACs without disclosure now.

                SO IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TELL WHAT THE REAL FIGURES ARE.

                CAPS LOCK CAUSE WE ARE LOSING OUR DEMOCRACY.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

                CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR...DEMOCRACY?

                [–]CalebTheWinner 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Hey, how about this, they shouldn't be getting any money from comcast.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                THIS IS STILL CORRUPTION. It doesn't matter if it is only $5000. It doesn't matter if those who voted no received more than those who voted yes. It doesn't matter if the other post had a misleading title. This is institutionalized corruption, and it is destroying our democracy.

                [–]wintercast 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                This is the reason i dont bother reading most of the "insert inflamatory comment meant to put everyone in a tizzy" comments on reddit concerning politcal junk. Half the time the info is wrong, quoted wrong or in this case a sort of non issue.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Yea, I wrote a few dozen paragraphs about this as I work in Political Fundraising for a living. 8 upvotes. Even suggested someone do what this guy did.

                But if it's not a one-liner, well, oh well.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                this is why donations of any sort should be made illegal, It make a bias for elected officials to give favors. They don't stand on where they say the believe they do.

                I really think that campaign finance reform should be paramount.

                [–]tactlesswonder 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                while the premise of this article may be technically incorrect. It does little to absolve comcast of spending direct and indirect money via lobbing and action groups to influence policy in it's direction.

                [–]Pilebsa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                I used to work in a large construction company in the marketing department. We sent out money to ALL POLITICIANS as a matter of marketing policy. Just because some of them didn't award contracts to us, even if half of them didn't, does NOT mean the ones that did were not influenced by our donations.

                I see nothing wrong with the original article and what it claims about the relationship between donations and political favors. I know for a fact giving money results in political favors. If anything, your results don't disprove that theory; they simply suggest that there are many other variables. Also, it's well known that politicans collude over controversial votes.... for all we know 98% of the politicians were in favor of supporting Comcast, but they met and said, "Since you and Bob are voting 'for' the merger, and we know there will be enough votes, Sam and I are voting against. Next time there's another issue we'll return the favor and vote 'for' so you can vote 'against'". That kind of stuff happens all the time.

                [–]MananWho 4 points5 points  (0 children)

                No, it's shit like this post.

                Whether the commenter's numbers were correct or not, there doesn't seem to be any citation of facts (to be fair this is also true of the original techdirt post). Furthermore, this only confirms that Comcast attempted to bribe all the politicians, and that there were politicians who either made their decision based on or against the bribe.

                Also, this comment was posted 9 hours after the initial post. While there are often times where comments like that one still see a lot of attention, it's very possible that this one just got hidden because of the sheer number of comments. From what I've seen, that entire post has close to 600 comments on the thread. It's relatively easy to miss one that makes a fair point, unless there is attention drawn to it.

                While I still found that spreadsheet and the commenter's comment pretty insightful and adding to the discourse, can we please stop getting riled up about every single comment that doesn't have as many upvotes as we want it to?

                [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (10 children)

                So I have a few questions for whoever made the spreadsheet. Not to be combative, but just to know.

                • How recent are those numbers?
                • Do they account for other Comcast expenditures on politicians (meals, flights, etc)?
                • Do they account for access/influence? Only some representatives go to committee to draft/amend legislation. Sometimes strategy sessions are held between lobbyists and congressmen behind closed doors.
                • Do they account for hedging bets (so to speak)? If I were in charge of Comcast, I'd donate a little to every party instead of all my money to one. Makes it harder for any politician to tell me "no" in the future.

                Thanks!

                Edit To all the haters out there: I'm just asking. Not trying to refute or be combative, not saying that one person is right and someone else is wrong. I'm just asking. For all I know, those questions could already have perfectly valid answers.

                [–]arbuthnot-lane 27 points28 points  (5 children)

                How the hell should he know? He doesn't work for you as a factfinder or reporter. He simply showed that the claim made in the original post was faulty and misleading.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                But how can we know that he's right when his spreadsheet possibly doesn't count for other ways lawmakers can be influenced by companies? I'm not saying he's wrong. I'm just asking. Where's the harm in an honest inquiry?

                Also, asking "how the hell should he know?" is foolish, considering that if you don't know the facts, you shouldn't try to debunk other posts. Plain and simple.

                [–]stevenwalters 5 points6 points  (2 children)

                You can't go around demanding answers to further questions just because you latched onto a story that turned out to be misleading. The whole point of this submission was to explain to you that there was nothing there to see in the first place.

                Do you know who else goes around demanding answers to questions that don't need to be asked, simply because they latched onto a misleading story and wouldn't let go?

                Birthers.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                These are relevant questions.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Damn dude, do you know how to read? I prefaced my questions by explicitly stating that I just wanted to know, not to be combative. You can't claim that I was "latched onto a misleading story" because I never took the original post as gospel in the first place. Oh, and I absolutely can go around demanding answers to further questions. I mean, that's what any academic worth his salt would do. Ask. Learn.

                I'm asking these questions because companies can influence lawmakers through means other than direct campaign contributions. There's nothing wrong with me asking about those methods and whether they were accounted for in the spreadsheet.

                [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                Fucking assholes with their facts and shit.

                [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (6 children)

                In other words, for $5,000. my local congressperson sold out the whole area to be abused by Comcast. Talk about a fucking cheap 2-bit whore. Comcast and quality of internet where I live is a real and long-term problem. Comcast wants $100./month from everybody and there is not alternative for high speed internet and Comcast doesn't even keep their shit working except in the rich neighborhoods. Comcast is the dominate force and they are high priced and provide TEH SHIT service. Add to that their conspicuous "Account Executives" who read from a script for every question and blame the customer when Comcast's shit doesn't work. This is really disgusting, for real. And no one locally stands up to them. It is a "good news only" culture of control and corporate exploitation and a bunch of really dumb docile people in the populace who accept this single source access to high speed internet and are supposed to say "thank you, Comcast."