4 ms·

> the legislators clearly think the system is fine and workable as evidenced by the legislature passed to allow profits over, quite literally, anything else in

by braza 2y ago

> the legislators clearly think the system is fine and workable as evidenced by the legislature passed to allow profits over, quite literally, anything else in this country. But don't you think that a more civilized way to solve it is by voting and changing the legislators who think this is right? I mean, the issue is when it goes from a sacrificed lamb CEO from a very disgraceful industry and replicates to the rest of society.

coldpie 2y ago
I've voted every single year of my adult life. It doesn't seem to be working.
JohnBooty 2y ago
But don't you think that a more civilized way to solve it is by voting and changing the legislators who think this is right? Absolutely, but corporations effectively control the government and who gets campaign funding.
- w4 2y ago
  The 2024 presidential election was won by the candidate who spent about 1/3rd less than their opponent, and we’ve seen many successful campaigns in the past decade funded by small donations beat corporate backed candidates. Funding isn’t everything, and it’s a cop out to co-sign vigilantism on such a glib basis: https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race Rule of law is a precious thing, even if it’s imperfect, as all human systems will inevitably be. We shouldn’t be cavalier about discarding it. The alternatives are much worse.
  - harimau777 2y ago
    Is that the case if you include the fact that Fox News is effectively a wing of the Republican party? It seems to me that Republicans don't need to spend more since they have an entire outside propaganda apparatus. It's also not just funding. It's funding, gerrymandering, the electoral college, lobbying, the Supreme Court, voter suppression, etc.
  - JohnBooty 2y ago
    Nobody is claiming that outspending your rivals is some kind of automatic electoral win but nice job, uh, over there. (gestures at the remains of the strawman you tore apart) Back on topic... The relevant campaign spending figures here would be "minimum amounts of funding to run a viable campaign" and not "how much did the winner spend." What I, unlike our recently deceased strawman, was pointing out is that without backing from corporations and the people who own them, your chances of winning elections to higher offices (congress, presidency) are close to zero. And the odds of enough similarly-untainted, like-minded people getting elected concurrently (or at least running campaigns popular enough to pressure those in office) is even more astronomically low. But.... Campaign funding issues only scratch the surface of what it would take to achieve any kind of real reform re: freeing the government from corporate influence. Because even if you, say, pull off some kind of underdog miracle and get elected to Congress without completely selling out... you're not going to accomplish shit without political capital, somehow bucking the other 534 members of Congress who have sold out.
  - ahahahahah 2y ago
    > was won by the candidate who spent about 1/3rd less than their opponent I guess the truth of that statement depends on whether or not you consider the $36 billion dollars that Musk has lost on Twitter to have been "spent" or not.
mostlysimilar 2y ago
The wealthy have captured the levers of government and wield them against the working class, and it's only getting worse.
- NoGravitas 2y ago
  Captured them? Made them, they did.
consteval 2y ago
When democracy doesn't work, the citizens have a duty to turn to violence against their government. They not only SHOULD do it, they MUST. That is the fundamental principle this country was founded upon.

by braza 2y ago

coldpie 2y ago

I've voted every single year of my adult life. It doesn't seem to be working.

JohnBooty 2y ago

But don't you think that a more civilized way to solve it is by voting and changing the legislators who think this is right? Absolutely, but corporations effectively control the government and who gets campaign funding.

w4 2y ago
The 2024 presidential election was won by the candidate who spent about 1/3rd less than their opponent, and we’ve seen many successful campaigns in the past decade funded by small donations beat corporate backed candidates. Funding isn’t everything, and it’s a cop out to co-sign vigilantism on such a glib basis: https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race Rule of law is a precious thing, even if it’s imperfect, as all human systems will inevitably be. We shouldn’t be cavalier about discarding it. The alternatives are much worse.
- harimau777 2y ago
  Is that the case if you include the fact that Fox News is effectively a wing of the Republican party? It seems to me that Republicans don't need to spend more since they have an entire outside propaganda apparatus. It's also not just funding. It's funding, gerrymandering, the electoral college, lobbying, the Supreme Court, voter suppression, etc.
- JohnBooty 2y ago
  Nobody is claiming that outspending your rivals is some kind of automatic electoral win but nice job, uh, over there. (gestures at the remains of the strawman you tore apart) Back on topic... The relevant campaign spending figures here would be "minimum amounts of funding to run a viable campaign" and not "how much did the winner spend." What I, unlike our recently deceased strawman, was pointing out is that without backing from corporations and the people who own them, your chances of winning elections to higher offices (congress, presidency) are close to zero. And the odds of enough similarly-untainted, like-minded people getting elected concurrently (or at least running campaigns popular enough to pressure those in office) is even more astronomically low. But.... Campaign funding issues only scratch the surface of what it would take to achieve any kind of real reform re: freeing the government from corporate influence. Because even if you, say, pull off some kind of underdog miracle and get elected to Congress without completely selling out... you're not going to accomplish shit without political capital, somehow bucking the other 534 members of Congress who have sold out.
- ahahahahah 2y ago
  > was won by the candidate who spent about 1/3rd less than their opponent I guess the truth of that statement depends on whether or not you consider the $36 billion dollars that Musk has lost on Twitter to have been "spent" or not.

mostlysimilar 2y ago

The wealthy have captured the levers of government and wield them against the working class, and it's only getting worse.

NoGravitas 2y ago
Captured them? Made them, they did.

consteval 2y ago

When democracy doesn't work, the citizens have a duty to turn to violence against their government. They not only SHOULD do it, they MUST. That is the fundamental principle this country was founded upon.