15 ms·

> This is a wholesale attack on the American safety net, led by billionaires and far-right politicians who are frighteningly comfortable with fascism and autocr

> This is a wholesale attack on the American safety net, led by billionaires and far-right politicians who are frighteningly comfortable with fascism and autocracy. The last month has been called a coup by politicians, researchers, and watchdogs alike. I find it amusing that many left-wing people are only now getting up in arms about the extent to which our government has been infiltrated by money interests. I understand not wanting to work for Trump's government, but why not just leave it at that? If this person was willing to work for the Biden administration regardless of it's billionaire influences, it betrays that this issue, for them, is a rationalization and not a reason.

tasty_freeze 2y ago
Your summary is "both sides" crap. I agree, money has too much influence on both parties. But which party refunded $1T in taxes which were already due and being held aside via accounting tricks (eg, Apple routing all their profits to a tiny subsidiary in Ireland to avoid paying US taxes)? Which party cut the capital gains tax? Which party is going to cut it again? Which party supported Citizens United and which objected? Finally, there is a matter of changing the laws to be in your favor vs flouting the laws and doing what is in your favor. And you find this "amusing."
- mightyham 2y ago
  Both sides are bad, that much is obvious. If that's all you gleaned from my comment, you completely missed the point being made. I'm also not going to argue with you about which party is more controlled or hurting the country more. That is a terribly uninteresting online discussion to have.
  - tasty_freeze 2y ago
    I reread your comment. All I got out of it was "both sides are bad" and implied that the guy who wrote the article was being hypocritical for quitting due to what Musk is doing but didn't quit during the previous administration. You say I completely missed the point you were making. I guess so. Can you state it directly as I can't unearth it by reading between the lines.
    - mightyham 2y ago
      > implied that the guy who wrote the article was being hypocritical So it seems like you did get the point of my comment, and purposely didn't address it the first time you responded. I'll say the same thing again in different terms: the author's ethos when it comes to criticizing corrupt political administrations is significantly harmed by the fact that he has worked for corrupt political administrations with seemingly no issue.
      - tasty_freeze 2y ago
        Again, your argument rests on your assertion both administrations are equally bad. It is a claim I reject, and thus I also reject your assertion that the author was hypocritical.
        mightyham 2y ago
        We are at an impasse then because I have no desire to write you an analysis of money interests in American politics. It certainly seems to me that you, along with the author, are just trying to rationalize a biased viewpoint on the issue. If you don't have any specific criticisms about the various firms and billionaires that influence the Democratic party (you clearly have criticisms for the Republicans), that's a pretty good heuristic that you aught to be more scrupulous in your research.
        tasty_freeze 2y ago
        mightyham, let's look at what is going on. You made an assertion without supporting it. That is fine, this is a comment thread, not a dissertation thesis. I disagreed and gave a terse summary for some of the reasons I disagreed. You said I missed your point. Rather than assigning stupidity or malice to your intent, I asked you to clarify what you meant. In return, you said you have good reasons for your beliefs but don't want to write them down. Again, that is fine, I can't force you to do anything. But you go on to ding me for not rebutting the points you haven't made and attribute it to me being unscrupulous in my thinking. At this point I raise my own heuristic that there is no point talking with you further if you hold me up to a different standard than what applies to you.

tasty_freeze 2y ago

Your summary is "both sides" crap. I agree, money has too much influence on both parties. But which party refunded $1T in taxes which were already due and being held aside via accounting tricks (eg, Apple routing all their profits to a tiny subsidiary in Ireland to avoid paying US taxes)? Which party cut the capital gains tax? Which party is going to cut it again? Which party supported Citizens United and which objected? Finally, there is a matter of changing the laws to be in your favor vs flouting the laws and doing what is in your favor. And you find this "amusing."

mightyham 2y ago
Both sides are bad, that much is obvious. If that's all you gleaned from my comment, you completely missed the point being made. I'm also not going to argue with you about which party is more controlled or hurting the country more. That is a terribly uninteresting online discussion to have.
- tasty_freeze 2y ago
  I reread your comment. All I got out of it was "both sides are bad" and implied that the guy who wrote the article was being hypocritical for quitting due to what Musk is doing but didn't quit during the previous administration. You say I completely missed the point you were making. I guess so. Can you state it directly as I can't unearth it by reading between the lines.
  - mightyham 2y ago
    > implied that the guy who wrote the article was being hypocritical So it seems like you did get the point of my comment, and purposely didn't address it the first time you responded. I'll say the same thing again in different terms: the author's ethos when it comes to criticizing corrupt political administrations is significantly harmed by the fact that he has worked for corrupt political administrations with seemingly no issue.
    - tasty_freeze 2y ago
      Again, your argument rests on your assertion both administrations are equally bad. It is a claim I reject, and thus I also reject your assertion that the author was hypocritical.
      - mightyham 2y ago
        We are at an impasse then because I have no desire to write you an analysis of money interests in American politics. It certainly seems to me that you, along with the author, are just trying to rationalize a biased viewpoint on the issue. If you don't have any specific criticisms about the various firms and billionaires that influence the Democratic party (you clearly have criticisms for the Republicans), that's a pretty good heuristic that you aught to be more scrupulous in your research.
        tasty_freeze 2y ago
        mightyham, let's look at what is going on. You made an assertion without supporting it. That is fine, this is a comment thread, not a dissertation thesis. I disagreed and gave a terse summary for some of the reasons I disagreed. You said I missed your point. Rather than assigning stupidity or malice to your intent, I asked you to clarify what you meant. In return, you said you have good reasons for your beliefs but don't want to write them down. Again, that is fine, I can't force you to do anything. But you go on to ding me for not rebutting the points you haven't made and attribute it to me being unscrupulous in my thinking. At this point I raise my own heuristic that there is no point talking with you further if you hold me up to a different standard than what applies to you.