back to article Web moguls ask YOU to stump up big money to STOP big money from winning in Washington

Tech moguls and financiers have clubbed together to raise a load of money to stop Washington politics from being decided by people with a, er, load of money. In an irony-laden crowdsourcing venture called Mayday, web entrepreneurs including Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, Paypal co-founder Peter Thiel and LinkedIn co-founder …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Ben Liddicott

    If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won

    This will all pay for TV ads, leaflets, and annoying robo-calls to get your message across, but if the voters don't like your message no amount of repetition will win you the election.

    1. Acme Fixer

      Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won

      It levels the playing field. It fights fire with fire by using the same method that the rich use to tilt things in their favor. But it would make more sense if the unions were doing it; this still has a bunch of rich people calling the shots. Just remember that we (U.S.) have the best government that money can buy.

      1. Ben Liddicott

        Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won

        The unions are doing it. In the US, the Dems get masses of money from the education unions, police unions, and lawyers.

    2. asdf

      Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won

      Why the downvotes? What he is saying is absolutely true. Its true whatever team you cheer for (divide and conqueror). I guess its because people think he was implying these dudes message sucked.

      1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

        Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won

        Why the downvotes? Because billions of dollars every campaign cycle goes into hiring the best minds on earth that are versed in the most up-to-date research regarding group psychology and metasociodynamics. Hundreds of billions is spent each year by advertising companies on the same minds, and on research into the fields in question.

        If you believe "people won't vote for individuals whose message they don't like" then you're an uninformed rube. Yes, they goddamned well will. We know enough about manipulating individuals and groups that we absolutely can make that happen. In addition, it has been proven empirically that knowledge of these tactics doesn't reduce their effectiveness.

        What's more, you are entirely expecting that the people running for office are going to tell the truth. There's nothing to force them to. So they can all send a different, targeted message at each group. On balance, those with the most money (and who hire the best brains in the relevant disciplines) will win.

        Getting people to vote for you has fuck all to do with laying out an honest platform and then sticking to it if you are elected. It has everything to do with lies, damned lies and statistics. And...the bigger the group size, the more effective these tactics are.

        1. Ben Liddicott

          Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won

          First, I suggest you get a tissue to wipe the foam flecks from your screen. You are basically saying:

          * Candidates can tailor the message and might be lying

          * And people are too stupid to make simple judgements and need to be protected from deceptive messages

          I agree with the first, which reinforces my point - if they lying or tailoring the message it is because they know people won't vote for a message they hate. So it in no way contradicts what I said. I never said it would be an honest message.

          But if politicians are lying who is going to point that out when everyone outside the system is effectively silenced by campaign finance rules? When the FEC and IRS investigates genuine grass roots campaigns, with the connivance of BOTH big parties, to shut them down/shut them up?

          But of course they are the campaigns of Conservatives (= free as in freedom = liberal from the latin Libre) whereas I guess you are a Liberal ( = free as in beer = socialist, from the latin socius or comrade). So that's alright. Free speech is only for Liberals! No Platform!

          But clearly I am an uninformed rube.

          (Is this a change in comments policy? Does this mean I get to call you names too?)

          1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

            Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won

            How the hell does "everyone, from politicians to advertising companies uses decades of research into psychology, psychiatry and social dynamics to ensure that they control how people vote, even when people are aware of the means employed to manipulate them" turn into a "left versus right" issue?

            What the fucking fuck?

            You clearly are an uninformed rube if you managed to somehow turn that into something partisan.

            1. Ben Liddicott

              Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won

              "everyone, from politicians to advertising companies uses decades of research into psychology, psychiatry and social dynamics to ensure that they control how people vote, even when people are aware of the means employed to manipulate them"

              So while most people are too stupid to see through this, nevertheless you are immune and your own support for curtailing free speech through the use of oppressive campaign laws cannot possibly be the product of the same types of forces? If you really take your own assertion seriously you should right now be disappearing "through the looking glass"-style into an MC Escher engraving depicting the Cretan Liar paradox.

              Why do I think it is a left-right issue? Because you seem to want to use that (dubious, exaggerated, hyperbolic) assertion as an excuse to make people you disagree with shut up, by preventing them using money to reach an audience. Which is typically a left-wing preoccupation. "The poor still don't all vote for us, in spite of the welfare state! They must be indoctrinated by the Fox. Let's do something about it". No, they hate you. "But we keep offering them more and more money for doing nothing!". That's why they hate you.

              ---

              Nit picks:

              * "Manipulate" is just a pejorative term for "persuade". Hyperbole.

              * it isn't decades - it's millennia - the earliest extant academic work on the subject is 2400 years old. But pretend it is a new problem and you can pretend new measures are needed.

              * control is an exaggeration. They attempt to persuade them to vote in particular ways.

              * Commercial advertising however distasteful is trying to sell stuff not control the vote. Conflating two things only related by their methods not their objectives to make the problem look bigger. Hyperbole.

              So that's:

              "Everyone uses what they know of human nature to persuade others to do what they want, and have done since time immemorial. Advertisers try to get you to buy stuff. Politicians try to get you to vote for them. Kids try to get out of doing their homework/get you to lend them twenty to go to the cinema. This sometimes works, even though people know that is what they are doing - and they do since they do it themselves."

              Not much left after the nits are picked, is there?

              1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won

                "So while most people are too stupid to see through this, nevertheless you are immune and your own support for curtailing free speech through the use of oppressive campaign laws cannot possibly be the product of the same types of forces?"

                No, I am not immune. Science tells me that I am not immune, and to believe otherwise would be an indication of severe narcissism.

                Spending money isn't free speech. Oh, I realise that you Americans think it is, but you're wrong.

                I'm pretty sure all campaign laws that exist in the USA are the result of exactly the same sort of money-buys-influence, screw-the-actual-voters approach to politics that has rotted that nation to the core. That's why laws about how the voting process works - including campaign contribution limitations - should ideally be determined outside of the voting process itself. Regulatory capture is a thing; you can't expect people who depend on getting elected to be able to properly set up regulations that ensure elections are as fair and impartial as possible. That's asking the fox to write the rules about who gets to guard the henhouse, and when.

                Consider instead evidence-based legislation in this matter. I.E. the practical application of science to solve a problem.

                "If you really take your own assertion seriously you should right now be disappearing "through the looking glass"-style into an MC Escher engraving depicting the Cretan Liar paradox."

                Um...what?

                "Why do I think it is a left-right issue? Because you seem to want to use that (dubious, exaggerated, hyperbolic) assertion as an excuse to make people you disagree with shut up,"

                How on earth did you come to that conclusion? Nowhere here are my views on what the rules for voting, campaign contributions, etc listed. I certainly don't believe that anyone should be prevented from speaking their piece.

                "by preventing them using money to reach an audience."

                No. I want to see "he who has the most money wins" removed from the equation. This is handled in rational countries by providing a fixed amount of funding to all political parties from state coffers and disallowing private campaign contributions. Numerous studies have proven this to be a far cheaper and fairer way to run political campaigns.

                Yes, taxpayer money ends up going towards running political campaigns, but every party gets an equal amount to make their case. That means it really does boil down to the strength of the message. Additionally, I would personally make lying on the campaign trail a crime. Honest mistakes are one thing, but purposefully misleading people is another.

                " Which is typically a left-wing preoccupation."

                In case it has slipped your notice, I have repeatedly stated that everyone participates in this tomfoolery. Additionally, there are more political divisions than merely "left" and "right". At least, there are in civilised countries.

                ""The poor still don't all vote for us, in spite of the welfare state! They must be indoctrinated by the Fox. Let's do something about it". No, they hate you. "But we keep offering them more and more money for doing nothing!". That's why they hate you."

                And now you're just spouting your own bizzare strawman propaganda. Have you tried taking your meds?

                ""Manipulate" is just a pejorative term for "persuade". Hyperbole."

                Incorrect. Persuasion is the application of logic to appeal to the rational mind. Manipulation is taking advantage of emotion - typically as part of group dynamics, rather than individually - to get someone to act in a manner that is counter to their own interests and/or counter to logic and rational thinking. Our species is exceptionally vulnerable to emotional manipulation and when used in non-political contexts the exact same practices and techniques are considered crimes. In many cases they are considered forms of psychological abuse.

                Intent matters. Someone who is persuaded is left feeling like they had a say in reaching that decision, that they are satisfied with the decision made and that a level of trust exists between them and the persuader. Manipulation leaves the individual feeling dirty or used. The equivalent of "buyer's remorse" sets in almost immediately.

                Truthfulness and transparency of the process and arguments also plays a part.

                And if you have a problem with that assessment, don't take it up with me. Take that up with Robin Dreeke, head of behavioral analysis at the FBI.

                " it isn't decades - it's millennia - the earliest extant academic work on the subject is 2400 years old. But pretend it is a new problem and you can pretend new measures are needed."

                Actual science on the matter - very specifically the use of double-blind studies into group dynamics - only really began in the early 1900s. The early results of which were used most effectively by the Nazi party of Germany to win over a significant chunk of the German populace. They went on to win an election against what were considered to be very long odds.

                There is a difference between philosophers writing down their thoughts on a topic and actual science.

                "control is an exaggeration. They attempt to persuade them to vote in particular ways."

                Incorrect. It is entirely possible to control people through manipulation of their emotions. That isn't persuasion. It isn't appealing to rational, conscious thought. It's grabbing someone by the instincts, and leading them around. This covers all sorts of topics ranging from "think of the children" to "save the pandas" to "don't tread on me".

                "ommercial advertising however distasteful is trying to sell stuff not control the vote. Conflating two things only related by their methods not their objectives to make the problem look bigger. Hyperbole."

                Who is conflating anything? I only mentioned that both practices employ the same techniques and the same people. Money flows from both the advertising sector and the political campaign sector into the same research. The results of that research benefit both practices. They share techniques. More importantly, it means the research going into "how to manipulate and control entire nations worth of people" is funded by coffers much - much - larger than those of mere political donations. It's relevant information to the discussion.

                As for your summary, let me pick some nits of my own.

                "Everyone uses what they know of human nature to persuade others to do what they want, and have done since time immemorial. "

                Wrong. Sociopaths use what they know of human nature to manipulate others. Humans with a conscience and some form of empathy use logic to attempt to persuade others. Those who seek to manipulate rely on the emotive arguments to convince people to do things that are not in their best interest. Those who persuade rely on logic and truth to convince people to do something that is in their own interest.

                Sociopaths only make up about 10% of the population.

                "Advertisers try to get you to buy stuff. Politicians try to get you to vote for them. Kids try to get out of doing their homework/get you to lend them twenty to go to the cinema."

                Interestingly enough, you have indeed struck upon something here, however unintentionally. All of your examples are of individuals using emotion - and more often than not falsehoods - to get someone to do something that not in their best interests. You don't even have an example in your summary of someone using truth and logic to get someone to something that is in their own interests.

                To me, this speaks volumes not only of how you view the world, but how you treat others and the level to which you are capable of dehumanizing others.

                "This sometimes works, even though people know that is what they are doing"

                This almost always works, when the craft is employed by a skilled practitioner. This is because our species is exceptionally vulnerable to emotional and instinctual manipulation. Rational thought and logic are still relatively new evolutionary adaptations and they can be easily overridden by emotion.

                "and they do since they do it themselves."

                Actually, research shows that about 90% of people generally refrain from manipulating others once into adulthood*. Empathy is something we develop as part of regular socialization. Part of this empathy is that we consciously avoid both attempting to convince people to do things that are not in their best interest and using people's emotions and instincts against them.

                And none of this is a "left" or "right" issue. There are sociopaths on both sides of that particular divide, gleefully ready to manipulate others without remorse. You seem perfectly okay with this. Frankly, that makes me not at all okay with you.

                *The exception to this is child rearing; especially at a young age, children only respond to emotional triggers, not logical ones. By age six or so they are generally able to respond to logic most of the time, but will still remain vulnerable to emotive manipulation for the rest of their lives.

                1. Ben Liddicott

                  Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won

                  "To me, this speaks volumes not only of how you view the world, but how you treat others and the level to which you are capable of dehumanizing others."

                  Um, yes. Because I view people as being capable of making up their own minds having listened to different opinions and decided who to believe, I am dehumanising them and I am a sociopath.

                  "This almost always works, when the craft is employed by a skilled practitioner. This is because our species is exceptionally vulnerable to emotional and instinctual manipulation. Rational thought and logic are still relatively new evolutionary adaptations and they can be easily overridden by emotion."

                  You don't trust people to decide what to allow into their own heads. So you want to try to control the process. That's what dehumanising looks like.

                  I think as a discussion this has gone as far as it can go without degenerating into those long usenet discussions where we each respond to each counter-point with two counterpoints, and post-lengths blow up exponentially until each reply takes a whole day and we both forget where we got to. Happy days, many an hour spent etc...

                  But this: If we are all being manipulated so our beliefs come from omnipotent/omniscient evil social scientists we need to be protected from, then where did you get your belief that that is the case?

                  "I checked out the studies". Did you? Did you check the press release matched the abstract? That it matched the conclusions? That they matched the data? "Of course!" Liar. Check one out, any one (I'll wait) and you'll find that at each stage you dig down from press release to the conclusions and find the effect is only 20% (p> 0.97, sample size 23), and brush aside a tear, then dig down further as the evidence gets weaker at every stage, and when you hit the bedrock of actual data and find it is composed of compressed college students average age 21 will you ask yourself "I wonder if this generalises to 48 y/o slaughterhouse workers in the Midwest?". You will not.

                  People can't be trusted to make their own decisions because the media manipulates them. You know this because the media told you. "But not Murdoch media" So that's OK right? MC Escher calls. He's ready for your close up.

                  1. Trevor_Pott Gold badge

                    Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won

                    Yep, you're full bore crazy. You're just actually making stuff up, attributing it to me and then rebutting your own bullshit.

                    My entire family - parents, sister, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc - are shrinks or sociologists. Some clinical, some research. I have not only read various papers on the subjects under discussion, I've helped design experiments. I've spent a lifetime immersed in this. Dinner discussions with enough PhDs to start a post secondary institution are perfectly normal, and virtually all of them study these exact topics professionally.

                    You believe that people "can make up their own minds", based on nothing. All you have to offer to this conversation is assertion, vitriol and hatred. So you know what, I'm out.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If you could buy elections Ross Perot would have won

      You can always, you know, lie through your teeth. Obama did it in 2008 when he claimed he'd stop government spying on citizens, when in fact he increased it to unprecedented levels.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    No list of candidates?

    No contribution.

    I want to see a list of the candidates that will be backed and their positions on all the issues before I donate any money.

  3. William Donelson

    Amazing, getting the customers to pay for Corporate Lobbying

    Amazing, getting the customers to pay for Corporate Lobbying.

    This is real chutzpah!

  4. Chad H.

    John Oliver had a good example of why this is needed - Big Money has resisted and thrown out regulations on the "Complementary "Medicines"" (Double quote on medicines intentional) industry, with scary advertisements staring Mel Gibson about "government taking away your vitamins" generating more letters to congresspeople than the vietnam war did.

    Meanwhile, one third of the products sold dont contain what the container says it does. Good job Democracy.

  5. PeterGriffin

    Laudable but flawed

    The proposal is wholly sound. One hopes some of the plutocratic vanguard are inwardly feeling nervous. The way I see it the majority of American politicians aren't corrupt but a notable minority react so readily to their strings being pulled by their "sponsors" and Big Business™ they appear afflicted by Marionette Syndrome. Attempts to halt the creep of plutarchy are therefore welcome. Flawed though as I suspect more than 14 politicians will be required to deflect the deluge of spin headed their way and vote the relevant changes in to law.

  6. Tam Lin

    Frat Pack - all shysters and politicans

    With the exception of professional clown Steve Wozniak, there's not one person on that list that I wouldn't cross the street to avoid.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You couldn't be more wrong

    Most of the reasons that elections are lost by the biggest spender can be summed up with the following: the candidate is an absolute and obvious moron; socially incompetent; and/or the electorate is so upset that it actually gets off its collective ass and votes.

    Why else do you suppose that the super wealthy have bought enough support to push through legislation that allows them to control Congress and the Senate by having the ability to give unlimited financial support to those representative that will do what their wealthy patrons tell them too?

    1. Acme Fixer

      Re: You couldn't be more wrong

      Why don't you stop asking questions and state your position, anonymous coward? Perhaps then we could understand your obliqueness.

    2. Dan Paul

      Re: You couldn't be more wrong (Bipartisan Idiocy!)

      The super wealthy ON BOTH SIDES spent alot of money last election cycle to get the candidates they hoped for. It's not just the KOCH brothers but George Soros, Mike Bloomberg and others (Hollywood celebrities like Clooney) on the Democratic side too.

      The fact is that ALL of them are idiots, not just Obama. Here's a reminder to the Republicans that they should pick someone who wasn't born with a platinum spoon in his mouth and didn't make a living taking peoples jobs away. For some reason that makes you unelectable.

      On the other side, the days of the Clinton dynasties are over. Pick someone NEW. The Clintons have TOO much baggage.

      Want hints on voting subjects that cross all barriers? Try a 10% Flat tax (on everyone), abolish the IRS, control the cost of food, fuel and prescriptions, reign in anyone who thinks they are above the Constitution and make it the major law in the USA, oh and stop buying votes with my tax dollars.

  8. Acme Fixer

    The old adage...

    still holds true: that you should never watch how hot dogs and laws are made.

    ;-)

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    more anonymous money..

    more anonymous money and no accountability from the "leadership" to the contributors, except when they say so.

    Sure nice to see the uber rich finally admitting that they give not a single f**K about the rest of us. Now they and all their overseas mogul buddies can pipe as much cash as they want without ever having to try to hide it. How much is it worth for some podunk warlord to keep the US out of his country? Or to have the US take out his competiton? Now we don't need elaborate "bundling" schemes, just a face to face meeting with one of the "leaders" of this program and a quick electronic transfer. Suddenly that "cause" is a 24/7 campaign blitz.

  10. asdf

    go team go

    My teams %1ers are better than your teams. Funny how much they both want the peon's money.

  11. Don Jefe

    Not About The Money

    Contrary to popular belief, politics here in the US isn't about money. Politics is about power and influence, the money is just the cover charge that gets you in. Once you're in you've actually got to have something the Lizard People in office want.

    They'll take your money, sure, but that's not what they want, there's plenty of money for everybody. They want to use your plane, put their 'special friends' up in 5-Star resorts, get their buddy choice seats for the ball game, torpedo a development deal for them because their friend wasn't making enough money on it, kidnap their opponents dog, or child. Whatever, it doesn't matter what it is, but it'll be something. They already know what they want when you meet them the first time.

    It's not understanding the difference between money and power that sees this city chew up so many people. It happens here all the time, and it's happening with the mess covered in this article. Tech people have lots of money, but absolutely no influence. Not only are they just not cut out for politics, tech people tend to be smart enough not to jeopardize their commercial opportunities. You can't play big business and big politics at the same time, and it's nearly impossible to cross back over once you've switched.

    None of that is a bad thing, at all, but it also means giving these guys your money is as useless as giving it to the regular 'representatives of the people'. You're covering someone else's ticket to the ball, and they won't get anything except incredibly overpriced pictures of themselves with some of the most undesirable Humans on Earth. What's the point?

  12. Infernoz Bronze badge
    Joke

    Farcical and so /very/ dated!

    You don't bribe some bad people, you simply kick out the bad people; you sack the dinosaur Status Quo!

    Working inside the system is not the solution, the current parties system is broken; the solution is to trash the current system. The booting out of Cantor and the election of so-called 'extreme' parties in Europe are how justifiable pissed-off people are trying to sack the Status Quo.

    Frankly representative politics is obsolete; we have the technology now for the people to choose areas where they want direct democracy, so bypassing corrupt representative middleman! It's about f'ing time politics was upgraded for the 21st century, and using fake proof auditable distributed network technology e.g. like bitcoin blockchains!

    1. Swarthy Silver badge

      Re: Farcical and so /very/ dated!

      Why the joke alert icon?

  13. Hud Dunlap
    Trollface

    Look at how Eric Cantor lost

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/11/Cantor-Campaign-Spent-More-at-One-Steakhouse-than-Brat-Did-on-Entire-Campaign

    Brat would not have won without the support of Drudge and Brietbart.

    It works both ways. You need money to fight the Media. During the 2012 GOP primaries there were complaints that the Drudge Report only linked to positive stories about Romney and negative stories about his opponents. Drudge linked to that article too.

    The CNN's, MSNBC etc are also as bad but from a different political viewpoint. They never would have allowed Bush to get away with the IRS shenanigans the Obama is.

    Money is very much a part of free speech. You have no right to take away my ability to use it to support whoever I want.

    The PAC's were designed to allow the rich to get around the Campaign Finance laws anyway.

    Laws are for the little people.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Look at how Eric Cantor lost (Unfortunately you are correct)

      The laws ARE only for the "little people" and it's long past time that they got changed to reflect the changing times.

      Obama is nothing more than a criminal, no better than the previous President he blames everything on. He directly influenced the IRS to prevent money and influence shifting to the Tea Party PAC's. He and his Chicago cronies bought the votes of the poor, unemployed, sick and gay voters at MY expense. He has socialist, almost communist leanings. He is a studied liar.

      This is all fact, not conjecture. Why else would all relevant emails be "lost" right after getting the subpoena? Smells like the Nixon tape gaps only worse.

      We don't need any more "career politicians" playing games. No more "I have a pen" crap. The law of this land is the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Everything else is BS including "legislation" produced by these fools and their friends.

      I should be able to vote with my taxes. They should go to the political party I support, not the criminal in chief so he can buy more vote(rs). It's the only way to fix this system.

      1. Don Jefe

        Re: Look at how Eric Cantor lost (Unfortunately you are correct)

        Obama is no bigger criminal or more untrustworthy than any of the other Presidents we've had. His problem is he's a big pussy. He's very smart, so he realizes just how precariously any US President is balanced on the edge of disaster, but he's immobilized by that knowledge, which makes him a great, weeping vagina of a leader.

        His softness is so profound it carries on the airwaves, you can smell it. Watch him speak, when he talking 'tough' he changes his stance, straightens his back and extends his neck in a weird way. But he didn't always do that. Compare his posture during his two election campaigns. His unnatural posture looks so unnatural because he's been coached (alternatively he's a clone planted by the Lizard People, but my money is on coached).

        Every last bit of his bearing is straight out of the coursework used to help non-assertive people appear assertive. It's taught to female police officers, inner city teachers, engineers and other technical folk who find themselves in situations where control is always being tested by people who want you out of their way. It's very disappointing, because he used to be such a strong speaker. I guess his minions could smell his fear too, so they've taught him how to act like a pussy, which is, presumably, the opposite of what they intended.

        1. Dan Paul

          Re: Look at how Eric Cantor lost (Unfortunately you are correct)

          Obama is as big a criminal as you could ask for (as bad as Nixon deliberately wiping tapes or worse) AND he's a wimp, always afraid he'll do wrong and unbable to live without constant approval.

          His wife carries his balls in a bag and he's never getting them back.

          He is completely culpable in the IRS tape debacle and everyone knows it otherwise the backup tapes (pretty much required by law since Nixon) would still be there.

          Putin just laughs at him, sanctions or not. Russia will simply become self contained and not care about the outside world. They have too many resources others need to care what sanctions are applied. They ONLY respect a strong military reaction.

          Obama just can't hack it when the hard questions or situations come along. Now look at his "pussified" handling of ISIS in Iraq and the Russian seperatists in Ukraine.

          BTW, What would the IRS say to you or I if our computer hard drives with all our receipts went missing?

          Tough luck, you're still f@cked!

  14. dan1980

    It's actually quite an odd proposition.

    The reason Super PACs are effective in influencing governments is because the politicians want something and are willing to sell their support for whatever currency* they are looking for.

    The idea that you could buy your way to a system that doesn't accept your money is not so much ironic as a misunderstanding of what is actually happening.

    * - Favours, preferential treatment, investment opportunities, promises of fat paychecks in comfortable jobs, etc...

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022