3 ms·

Is it a "schtick" to report such brazen cronyism? I agree with the parent that Americans in general seem not to mind corruption, but we can't become so jaded a

Is it a "schtick" to report such brazen cronyism? I agree with the parent that Americans in general seem not to mind corruption, but we can't become so jaded as to think that it's not even worth mentioning that this is a problem.

tptacek 2y ago
Referring to public company CEOs warmly greeting the newly elected president as "brazen cronyism" is a schtick, yes. It annoys me a lot that I have to point things like this out, because I think Trump is a grave problem for the country, but you have to beat him at the ballot box, and the schtick obviously isn't working there.
- xorcist 2y ago
  Moving employee jurisdiction to suit the incoming administration is hardly the same as a warm greeting though, is it? In my country we have a different word for people giving large sums of money as gifts to incoming politicians, yet we seldom impose that definition on others. US politics is different and affects the climate here too, even though that population is around 20% or less of all Facebook users.
- mythrwy 2y ago
  The way to win is with a more appealing set of policy proposals. More centralized government control, "Karen" style moralizing, DEI, gun banning, global warming, more bureaucratic (and ineffective) regulation, abortions everywhere and the entire "woke" platform apparently isn't it. I'd suggest defocusing on those and instead return to being the party of the "working man" and a stable economy. "Wealthy corporations want to force you to work 80 hours a week to enjoy unfair profits or they will replace you with immigrant labor" should be the vibe while never once speaking about things like systemic racism or climate change. Also "the rent is too damn high!". Definitely don't have the party fronted by people who appear airheaded or unintelligent. You have to speak to the concerns of the voter which I think are individual freedom and economic prosperity. Once in power you can do whatever you like of course, as is traditional in politics and Trump won't be any exception.
  - smolder 2y ago
    Unfortunately there is no party of "the working man" since the citizens united ruling opened the floodgates for legal & private bribery, and arguably before that. Bernie Sanders, whatever you think of his proposals and views generally, is the rare exception who stands against the bribery and acts as a true populist, and for that he was undermined and defeated as a presidential candidate. People know the democratic party is two-faced, and I don't see how that can ever change, with money being so essential to US politics now.
    - mythrwy 2y ago
      MAGA didn't win with money. The democrats spent far more. They won with a message.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - EricDeb 2y ago
        You could argue a particular person spent 44 billion but its a fuzzy argument. It's hard to tell..
      - JeremyNT 2y ago
        I'm fairly sure this is either untrue or unknowable. If the official "Harris campaign" spent more than the "Trump campaign" that doesn't actually mean much, considering how many other avenues exist to spend money that escape public scrutiny. Even if you could account for all the dark money, that still leaves you with leveraging soft power - e.g. Musk using X as a de facto propaganda arm of the Republican party, which doesn't show up on any books.
        mythrwy 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure it is knowable. The democrats spent far more. Musk and X propaganda helped. Also Rogan and other podcasters, but look at how much propaganda the democrat side has/had. All the major media outlets. Reddit, etc etc. Plus the power of the federal government in censorship, courts and the like. Look, I don't really care and don't trust anyone running for office much. I'm just pointing out what a winning platform would look like. MAGA won because they were speaking to things that more people found important. When the Democrats figure this out, they will be in the winning seat again. If they don't, then they will not win.

tptacek 2y ago

Referring to public company CEOs warmly greeting the newly elected president as "brazen cronyism" is a schtick, yes. It annoys me a lot that I have to point things like this out, because I think Trump is a grave problem for the country, but you have to beat him at the ballot box, and the schtick obviously isn't working there.

xorcist 2y ago
Moving employee jurisdiction to suit the incoming administration is hardly the same as a warm greeting though, is it? In my country we have a different word for people giving large sums of money as gifts to incoming politicians, yet we seldom impose that definition on others. US politics is different and affects the climate here too, even though that population is around 20% or less of all Facebook users.
mythrwy 2y ago
The way to win is with a more appealing set of policy proposals. More centralized government control, "Karen" style moralizing, DEI, gun banning, global warming, more bureaucratic (and ineffective) regulation, abortions everywhere and the entire "woke" platform apparently isn't it. I'd suggest defocusing on those and instead return to being the party of the "working man" and a stable economy. "Wealthy corporations want to force you to work 80 hours a week to enjoy unfair profits or they will replace you with immigrant labor" should be the vibe while never once speaking about things like systemic racism or climate change. Also "the rent is too damn high!". Definitely don't have the party fronted by people who appear airheaded or unintelligent. You have to speak to the concerns of the voter which I think are individual freedom and economic prosperity. Once in power you can do whatever you like of course, as is traditional in politics and Trump won't be any exception.
- smolder 2y ago
  Unfortunately there is no party of "the working man" since the citizens united ruling opened the floodgates for legal & private bribery, and arguably before that. Bernie Sanders, whatever you think of his proposals and views generally, is the rare exception who stands against the bribery and acts as a true populist, and for that he was undermined and defeated as a presidential candidate. People know the democratic party is two-faced, and I don't see how that can ever change, with money being so essential to US politics now.
  - mythrwy 2y ago
    MAGA didn't win with money. The democrats spent far more. They won with a message.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - EricDeb 2y ago
      You could argue a particular person spent 44 billion but its a fuzzy argument. It's hard to tell..
    - JeremyNT 2y ago
      I'm fairly sure this is either untrue or unknowable. If the official "Harris campaign" spent more than the "Trump campaign" that doesn't actually mean much, considering how many other avenues exist to spend money that escape public scrutiny. Even if you could account for all the dark money, that still leaves you with leveraging soft power - e.g. Musk using X as a de facto propaganda arm of the Republican party, which doesn't show up on any books.
      - mythrwy 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure it is knowable. The democrats spent far more. Musk and X propaganda helped. Also Rogan and other podcasters, but look at how much propaganda the democrat side has/had. All the major media outlets. Reddit, etc etc. Plus the power of the federal government in censorship, courts and the like. Look, I don't really care and don't trust anyone running for office much. I'm just pointing out what a winning platform would look like. MAGA won because they were speaking to things that more people found important. When the Democrats figure this out, they will be in the winning seat again. If they don't, then they will not win.