5 ms·

Yes, it’s triggering but keep reading. The author explains their phrasing. The author feels there is a double standard where the “white” US perpetually demoniz

Yes, it’s triggering but keep reading. The author explains their phrasing. The author feels there is a double standard where the “white” US perpetually demonizes black and brown countries corruption while excusing their own corruption under the guise of “lobbying”, “speaking fees” and “dinners.” To the author, it appears to be racism when in fact it may just be hypocrisy (ie. Russia).

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> The author feels there is a double standard where the “white” US perpetually demonizes black and brown countries corruption while excusing their own corruption under the guise of “lobbying”, “speaking fees” and “dinners.” Its sad because many people are not happy with all this lobbying, speaking fees, dinners, etc., but the author ignores this and acts like people in the US approve when. They really just don’t have any say in the occurrence.
- WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
  > They really just don’t have any say in the occurrence. I feel this isn't correct. People have their vote and Americans overwhelmingly vote for people who trade law & Fed power for campaign cash.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    > One say that people have is their vote. Americans overwhelmingly vote for people who trade law & fed power for campaign cash. That’s because there isn’t another option. Voters are villified for voting third party.
    - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
      > That’s because there isn’t another option. Voters are villified for voting third party. Voters could also choose to not reelect officials who trade in bribes.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        How? Both viable candidates are guilty. We can’t elect a third party candidate. And if you don’t vote, your opinion doesn’t count.
        wpietri 6y ago
        This is only true if you think there's absolutely no difference between any candidate in their stance on, say, campaign finance reform. That seems like an extreme claim.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > This is only true if you think there's absolutely no difference between any candidate in their stance on, say, campaign finance reform. No, thats irrelevant. The relevant factor is which viable candidates have accepted contributions. And the answer is “all of them.” The part where one of the guys accepting bribes tells you “I’m opposed to bribes” is marketing.
        wpietri 6y ago
        That's definitely not true. Some politicians have worked very hard and have expended significant political capital on campaign finance reform. Setting an impossible standard and then decrying anybody who doesn't meet it is more about you than the system. Politics is the art of the possible.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > Some politicians have worked very hard and have expended significant political capital on campaign finance reform. They’ve no doubt received campaign contributions and remember those when they propose changes to the law. > Setting an impossible standard and then decrying anybody who doesn't meet it is more about you than the system. Politics is the art of the possible. I think the fact that you agree its impossible to elect someone who hasn’t already been bribed makes my point. I don’t trust people to take bribes and then betray the briber.
    - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
      The failsafe is supposed to be US news orgs, who's reason for existing is to be an adversary to power interests. The top of their priority list ought to be exposing bribery in a meaningful and consistent way. However, news orgs find broad system betrayal+corruption much less interesting than, oh say, sportball. Or literally anything else at all.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > The failsafe is supposed to be US news orgs, who's reason for existing is to be an adversary to power interests. In reality they are just another power interest. > However, some things are simply far, far, far less important than sportball. True

chordalkeyboard 6y ago

> The author feels there is a double standard where the “white” US perpetually demonizes black and brown countries corruption while excusing their own corruption under the guise of “lobbying”, “speaking fees” and “dinners.” Its sad because many people are not happy with all this lobbying, speaking fees, dinners, etc., but the author ignores this and acts like people in the US approve when. They really just don’t have any say in the occurrence.

WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
> They really just don’t have any say in the occurrence. I feel this isn't correct. People have their vote and Americans overwhelmingly vote for people who trade law & Fed power for campaign cash.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > One say that people have is their vote. Americans overwhelmingly vote for people who trade law & fed power for campaign cash. That’s because there isn’t another option. Voters are villified for voting third party.
  - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    > That’s because there isn’t another option. Voters are villified for voting third party. Voters could also choose to not reelect officials who trade in bribes.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      How? Both viable candidates are guilty. We can’t elect a third party candidate. And if you don’t vote, your opinion doesn’t count.
      - wpietri 6y ago
        This is only true if you think there's absolutely no difference between any candidate in their stance on, say, campaign finance reform. That seems like an extreme claim.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > This is only true if you think there's absolutely no difference between any candidate in their stance on, say, campaign finance reform. No, thats irrelevant. The relevant factor is which viable candidates have accepted contributions. And the answer is “all of them.” The part where one of the guys accepting bribes tells you “I’m opposed to bribes” is marketing.
        wpietri 6y ago
        That's definitely not true. Some politicians have worked very hard and have expended significant political capital on campaign finance reform. Setting an impossible standard and then decrying anybody who doesn't meet it is more about you than the system. Politics is the art of the possible.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > Some politicians have worked very hard and have expended significant political capital on campaign finance reform. They’ve no doubt received campaign contributions and remember those when they propose changes to the law. > Setting an impossible standard and then decrying anybody who doesn't meet it is more about you than the system. Politics is the art of the possible. I think the fact that you agree its impossible to elect someone who hasn’t already been bribed makes my point. I don’t trust people to take bribes and then betray the briber.
  - WarOnPrivacy 6y ago
    The failsafe is supposed to be US news orgs, who's reason for existing is to be an adversary to power interests. The top of their priority list ought to be exposing bribery in a meaningful and consistent way. However, news orgs find broad system betrayal+corruption much less interesting than, oh say, sportball. Or literally anything else at all.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      > The failsafe is supposed to be US news orgs, who's reason for existing is to be an adversary to power interests. In reality they are just another power interest. > However, some things are simply far, far, far less important than sportball. True