4 ms·

Currently, it’s evident that our political landscape lacks genuine representation for traditional leftist (liberal) or right-wing (conservative) ideologies. In

by tlogan 3y ago

Currently, it’s evident that our political landscape lacks genuine representation for traditional leftist (liberal) or right-wing (conservative) ideologies. Instead, what we’re witnessing are parties primarily aligned with interests of different companies or verticals, overshadowing the core values and concerns of their supposed political spectrums.

cogman10 3y ago
This is what happens when politicians aren't accountable to their constituents. The only people most politicians are accountable to are the big businesses that pay for their campaign finances and super pacs. We desperately need campaign finance reform and strong anti-corruption/bribery laws. After that, voting reform and ranked choice voting would go a long way to making things better.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  The Supreme Court has effectively ruled all forms of political bribery to be legal (and engages in it themselves), so good luck with that one.
  - kmeisthax 3y ago
    Not just legal, but constitutionally protected free speech. Effectively "repeal the first amendment or accept legal bribery".
    - soraminazuki 3y ago
      Paying someone is free speech? I didn't realize I was exercising my free speech rights every time I went to the grocery store. What does speech even mean in that context?
      - kmeisthax 3y ago
        Ok, please don't take this comment as a defense of Citizens United and McCutchinson v. FEC, but there is logic to SCOTUS's idea. Imagine for a moment you were, say, a certain Florida governor with Presidential ambitions and an R next to your name. A multibillion dollar mouse cartoon company that runs a local theme park in your state is complaining about a law you passed, and you want them to shut up and fall in line with the party diktat. However, it's unconstitutional to just ban political speech you don't like. So instead you decide to write a bill[0] prohibiting any out-of-state corporation with a certain asset size from spending money in the form of campaign contributions to opposing gubernatorial candidates. Did Florida Man just violate the constitution? If you think so, well, then you believe that money is speech. Or at the very least, that money used to effect political speech (e.g. by lobbying, donating to candidates you want to see elected) should be as protected as speech is. This was actually fairly long-standing SCOTUS precedent, which is probably why they were so willing to tear up campaign finance law. Where SCOTUS goes off the rails in the two cases above is that they then argue that even content-neutral restrictions on moneyspeech are unconstitutional. It's actually fairly well-established doctrine that protests can be regulated - i.e. we're allowed to shift protests at government events (say, the G7) to "free speech zones" that are carefully selected to be as far away from media attention as possible. We're also allowed to have noise laws, even though people use loud megaphones in protests. But we're, apparently, not allowed to have campaign finance laws which are the equivalent of noise laws for talking to your Congressperson. Evidently shouting so loud you speak over everyone else in the room is legal so long as you're speaking with dollars instead of words. [0] This example takes place in an alternate universe where Trump 2000 actually got the man in office, so the culture war brain rot happened earlier than the SCOTUS cases that protected bribery with the 1st Amendment
orwin 3y ago
I think traditional conservatism in the west is disappearing in profit of neo 'conservatives' (with the exception of Amishs and a few isolated communities in the Appalachians/Pyrenees and probably other very remote areas) where the new ones are virtue signaling more than 16 years old. I still know a few traditional conservatives in my hometown (home village?), but they are really old and the last of their kind in the area. That's a bit sad because it's the right wing ideology that I respect the most. I think their critics of postmodernity (the condition) are actually accurate and can be worked with (I'm pretty sure baudrillard was close to traditional conservatives towards the end of his life).
whycombinater 3y ago
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/24/politics/republicans-house-uniparty-what-matters/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/24/politics/republicans-house-un... According to billionaire-owned media, the owner of which is owned by a trillionaire investor, you are a conspiracy theorist: both parties work for their constituents.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Who or what entity is the trillionaire investor you are referring to?
  - whycombinater 3y ago
    Your question is a trap. Either you dispute that money=power or you're just waiting to capture my rant on video and find some flaw in it. Good day.

by tlogan 3y ago

cogman10 3y ago

This is what happens when politicians aren't accountable to their constituents. The only people most politicians are accountable to are the big businesses that pay for their campaign finances and super pacs. We desperately need campaign finance reform and strong anti-corruption/bribery laws. After that, voting reform and ranked choice voting would go a long way to making things better.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
The Supreme Court has effectively ruled all forms of political bribery to be legal (and engages in it themselves), so good luck with that one.
- kmeisthax 3y ago
  Not just legal, but constitutionally protected free speech. Effectively "repeal the first amendment or accept legal bribery".
  - soraminazuki 3y ago
    Paying someone is free speech? I didn't realize I was exercising my free speech rights every time I went to the grocery store. What does speech even mean in that context?
    - kmeisthax 3y ago
      Ok, please don't take this comment as a defense of Citizens United and McCutchinson v. FEC, but there is logic to SCOTUS's idea. Imagine for a moment you were, say, a certain Florida governor with Presidential ambitions and an R next to your name. A multibillion dollar mouse cartoon company that runs a local theme park in your state is complaining about a law you passed, and you want them to shut up and fall in line with the party diktat. However, it's unconstitutional to just ban political speech you don't like. So instead you decide to write a bill[0] prohibiting any out-of-state corporation with a certain asset size from spending money in the form of campaign contributions to opposing gubernatorial candidates. Did Florida Man just violate the constitution? If you think so, well, then you believe that money is speech. Or at the very least, that money used to effect political speech (e.g. by lobbying, donating to candidates you want to see elected) should be as protected as speech is. This was actually fairly long-standing SCOTUS precedent, which is probably why they were so willing to tear up campaign finance law. Where SCOTUS goes off the rails in the two cases above is that they then argue that even content-neutral restrictions on moneyspeech are unconstitutional. It's actually fairly well-established doctrine that protests can be regulated - i.e. we're allowed to shift protests at government events (say, the G7) to "free speech zones" that are carefully selected to be as far away from media attention as possible. We're also allowed to have noise laws, even though people use loud megaphones in protests. But we're, apparently, not allowed to have campaign finance laws which are the equivalent of noise laws for talking to your Congressperson. Evidently shouting so loud you speak over everyone else in the room is legal so long as you're speaking with dollars instead of words. [0] This example takes place in an alternate universe where Trump 2000 actually got the man in office, so the culture war brain rot happened earlier than the SCOTUS cases that protected bribery with the 1st Amendment

orwin 3y ago

I think traditional conservatism in the west is disappearing in profit of neo 'conservatives' (with the exception of Amishs and a few isolated communities in the Appalachians/Pyrenees and probably other very remote areas) where the new ones are virtue signaling more than 16 years old. I still know a few traditional conservatives in my hometown (home village?), but they are really old and the last of their kind in the area. That's a bit sad because it's the right wing ideology that I respect the most. I think their critics of postmodernity (the condition) are actually accurate and can be worked with (I'm pretty sure baudrillard was close to traditional conservatives towards the end of his life).

whycombinater 3y ago

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/24/politics/republicans-house-uniparty-what-matters/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/24/politics/republicans-house-un... According to billionaire-owned media, the owner of which is owned by a trillionaire investor, you are a conspiracy theorist: both parties work for their constituents.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
Who or what entity is the trillionaire investor you are referring to?
- whycombinater 3y ago
  Your question is a trap. Either you dispute that money=power or you're just waiting to capture my rant on video and find some flaw in it. Good day.