30 ms·

There's a conflict between destroying all government, corrupting it for personal gain by a given elected official, and corrupting it to serve a given owner of a

There's a conflict between destroying all government, corrupting it for personal gain by a given elected official, and corrupting it to serve a given owner of a given megacorp. Somewhere along the way ethics, morals, truth, and serving We the People was lost.

warkdarrior 2y ago
How much did you donate to the Trump campaign? Shouldn't the Trump administration serve their supporters? Shouldn't they pay more attention to the supporters who support them more (in $$)?
- cogman10 2y ago
  Unless you are giving trump literally millions of dollars, that doesn't matter. How much he cares about your opinion is directly proportional to the money you give and could give him. When competing with a billionaire, 0 -> $100,000 is basically meaningless.
  - rqtwteye 2y ago
    That's the MO of both parties in the US. During the last campaign the Democrats bombarded me with E-mails begging for money. They never asked for my opinion and never mentioned anything they were planning to do. The message was "Vote for me or the world will go under"
- gopher_space 2y ago
  Keep going until you hit “no taxation without representation” and you will have come full circle. The US needs California. California does not need the US.
- Tostino 2y ago
  Sorry, he's not president of the Republicans... He's president of the United States, and should be serving everyone in the country to the best of his ability. If you're not being sarcastic, that's a really wild belief you have...and I'm really hoping it's not widespread.
  - rqtwteye 2y ago
    "serving everyone in the country" That's long over. Whoever wins by 1% believes they have the mandate to only cater to their constituents (which is mostly wealthy donors)
    - Tostino 2y ago
      I'd like some concrete examples of that happening in the Clinton, Obama, or Biden administrations. I wish Obama acted like he had a mandate and just pushed through his agenda... Instead we had BS like the parliamentarian saying "no you can't do that", and the Democrats would simply drop it. Last time the Republicans had pushback from the parliamentarian they just replaced him with somebody that would do what they wanted. Stop pretending this is a "both sides" issue.
      - lowbloodsugar 2y ago
        You are right about not prentending this is a “both sides” issue, but for the wrong reason. There is only one side. Two colors but one side. When the blue team is in power, it somehow fails to do all the things that its voters want. It is meek and pitiful. Because it is not serving the blue voters. It is serving its backers and its backers want what the red team wants. So when the blue team is in power it magically fails at everything. Whoops! I guess blue team people are just ineffective liberal losers. When the red team is in power it does whatever it wants, because what it wants publicly is what their backers want.
        Tostino 2y ago
        Well said. No notes.
        lowbloodsugar 2y ago
        To add a bit more, if Schumers behavior doesn’t prove it I don’t know what does. The leader of the blue team in the senate voted red at the first and most consequential opportunity.
- BeFlatXIII 2y ago
  Imagine paypigging a politician.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  You are arguing for despotism; the patronage model outlined in The Dictator's Handbook and detailed in The Logic of Political Survival (both by Alistair Smith and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita). This is incompatible with a functioning republic.

warkdarrior 2y ago

How much did you donate to the Trump campaign? Shouldn't the Trump administration serve their supporters? Shouldn't they pay more attention to the supporters who support them more (in $$)?

cogman10 2y ago
Unless you are giving trump literally millions of dollars, that doesn't matter. How much he cares about your opinion is directly proportional to the money you give and could give him. When competing with a billionaire, 0 -> $100,000 is basically meaningless.
- rqtwteye 2y ago
  That's the MO of both parties in the US. During the last campaign the Democrats bombarded me with E-mails begging for money. They never asked for my opinion and never mentioned anything they were planning to do. The message was "Vote for me or the world will go under"
gopher_space 2y ago
Keep going until you hit “no taxation without representation” and you will have come full circle. The US needs California. California does not need the US.
Tostino 2y ago
Sorry, he's not president of the Republicans... He's president of the United States, and should be serving everyone in the country to the best of his ability. If you're not being sarcastic, that's a really wild belief you have...and I'm really hoping it's not widespread.
- rqtwteye 2y ago
  "serving everyone in the country" That's long over. Whoever wins by 1% believes they have the mandate to only cater to their constituents (which is mostly wealthy donors)
  - Tostino 2y ago
    I'd like some concrete examples of that happening in the Clinton, Obama, or Biden administrations. I wish Obama acted like he had a mandate and just pushed through his agenda... Instead we had BS like the parliamentarian saying "no you can't do that", and the Democrats would simply drop it. Last time the Republicans had pushback from the parliamentarian they just replaced him with somebody that would do what they wanted. Stop pretending this is a "both sides" issue.
    - lowbloodsugar 2y ago
      You are right about not prentending this is a “both sides” issue, but for the wrong reason. There is only one side. Two colors but one side. When the blue team is in power, it somehow fails to do all the things that its voters want. It is meek and pitiful. Because it is not serving the blue voters. It is serving its backers and its backers want what the red team wants. So when the blue team is in power it magically fails at everything. Whoops! I guess blue team people are just ineffective liberal losers. When the red team is in power it does whatever it wants, because what it wants publicly is what their backers want.
      - Tostino 2y ago
        Well said. No notes.
        lowbloodsugar 2y ago
        To add a bit more, if Schumers behavior doesn’t prove it I don’t know what does. The leader of the blue team in the senate voted red at the first and most consequential opportunity.
BeFlatXIII 2y ago
Imagine paypigging a politician.
anigbrowl 2y ago
You are arguing for despotism; the patronage model outlined in The Dictator's Handbook and detailed in The Logic of Political Survival (both by Alistair Smith and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita). This is incompatible with a functioning republic.