5 ms·

If a rival political party takes power in 2029 and they decide to do nothing about this, are they complicit? If the cops drive past a mugging, observe, and the

by Lendal 2mo ago

If a rival political party takes power in 2029 and they decide to do nothing about this, are they complicit? If the cops drive past a mugging, observe, and then drive on past allowing the law to go unenforced, are they not just as corrupt as the robbers?

wildrhythms 2mo ago
Yes
lotsofpulp 2mo ago
Rival party is not equivalent to the cops. Even if the rival party were to somehow control all 3 branches of government (which they will not), the voting records show a full 1/3 of American adults outright support this corruption (many of the cops themselves), and another 1/3 are willing to ignore it. If you are in the 1/3 that does care about it, you are not going to have a good time trying to fight the other 1/3, many of whom make up the “law and order” department. So the answer to both questions is a resounding no, because the world is more complicated than a comic book superhero movie.
s_dev 2mo ago
Was the Union army complicit in the crimes of the Confederacy by simply allowing them to drop their arms and walk away as well? The world is complicated and full of nuanced takes depending on context. That said: >If a rival political party takes power in 2029 and they decide to do nothing about this, are they complicit? Like this really does read as: I still blame the Democrats for the crimes of the Republicans. The ultimate authority here is the US voters and they have chosen poorly again and again. They are complicit for sure as they chose both to empower Republicans and tie the hands of the Democrats with impossible standards.
- BryantD 2mo ago
  Yes. That’s a great historical precedent — Reconstruction was a hotly debated topic and the more radical forms would have banned former Confederate soldiers for voting, for example. Many Southern states had military governors imposed by the Federal government. Andrew Johnson pardoned almost all Confederate leaders, didn’t care about freeing slaves, and is one of the worst Presidents in history.
- twister2920 2mo ago
  > Was the Union army complicit in the crimes of the Confederacy by simply allowing them to drop their arms and walk away as well? yes, they were. the USA if the Unionists has followed through on reconstruction looks like a utopia compared to now
  - JeremyNT 2mo ago
    It's stuff like this that really makes me wonder about the great man theory of history. Without JW Booth, maybe Lincoln would've broken the southern white aristocracy, and maybe Reconstruction would've succeeded. One man could've made the difference and finished the job. Likewise, it's difficult to imagine any other con man so skilled and beloved (by a certain subset of the population) as Trump, and his singular abilities and predilections have potentially derailed the entire project of American empire - maybe permanently.
    - twister2920 2mo ago
      Reconstruction ended more than 10 years after Lincoln's assassination, he would not have remained in office forever. I think for most Unionists the war was not about abolition or racial equality and there simply was not the political will to make the changes necessary to prevent Jim Crow in the south.
- ComputerGuru 2mo ago
  We are still paying the price for that today, some of us a lot more than others. It was well-intentioned but with hindsight being what it is, historians pretty much agree that it was the cause of a lot of the problems we fight with today.
- rf15 2mo ago
  Doesn't that still feel shortsighted? The way you speak, you cannot even imagine a world without a political landscape that is Republican vs Democrats. I think both parties have shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted steering the country. Yes, that probably means that the US has to utterly break in its political system before it can get any better, considering that the current election process favours a two-party stalemate (or one party controlling everything)
- datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
  It’s funny you bring up Union vs Confederacy, because Reconstruction should be a blueprint of what not to do. We’re still paying today for the failures of our forefathers to not have the bravery to stamp out the worst cultural elements of the Confederacy, let alone the extended century-long suffering of formerly enslaved peoples in what ranged from “separate but equal” to outright apartheid. So yes, it was very much the Union’s fault for not properly cutting the many heads of the hydra with great prejudice. Edit: the Nuremberg trials are a fantastic blueprint for what to do, though. And that’s what was missing after the Civil War. The sentences handed out at Nuremberg aren’t necessarily relevant to the crimes committed by those in power today, but the cultural shift that materialized in Germany post-war is the type of cultural shift needed to counteract the damage of the current administration: against corruption, grift, and executive overreach.
  - antisthenes 2mo ago
    > the Nuremberg trials are a fantastic blueprint for what to do, though. Some would argue that the Nuremberg trials did not go nearly far enough, as there should also have been similar trials in all countries that collaborated with that regime during the course of the war. That's why you see far-right parties nowadays spring up again and start to grain more influence. It could have been stomped out well enough.
    - datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
      I agree, much of the Balkan suffering from the latter half of the 20th century could have been curtailed by properly stamping out ultranationalist groups as a punishment for their ethnic cleansing. The Ustaše, for example.
- nemothekid 2mo ago
  >Was the Union army complicit in the crimes of the Confederacy by simply allowing them to drop their arms and walk away as well? The world is complicated and full of nuanced takes depending on context. I think the irony here is you are presenting this like a complicated choice, when I would argue many people agree that the way the Union handled reconstruction was extremely poor.
llm_nerd 2mo ago
This is such an amazing take because it is a constant in US politics. Like how in the world did you think it appropriate to pivot like this? The standards for the Democrats are impossible perfection, regardless of the challenges. The standards for the Republicans is...there are literally zero standards. Thieves, grifters, rapists, pedos, just the absolute worst human garbage imaginable, and somehow Americans convince themselves that if the Democrats don't (usually because they can't) do anything about it, clearly the Dems are the real problem, so it's time to vote Republicans. Just bizarre stuff. I could give infinite examples where the slightest thing is a massive story about Democrat action or inaction, while every day is a new low in what the shit-pile that the modern Republican party gets away with. Benghazi is still constantly cited by the right, while Trump...Jesus Christ, every day is a thousand times worse. Astonishing levels of corruption and stupidity is just another Tuesday now. It's amazing. Every framing somehow shifts like this.
- swed420 2mo ago
  > The standards for the Democrats are impossible perfection How do you figure? The previous Dem president literally promised, "nothing will fundamentally change" and that's exactly what happened. We have a faux democracy / uniparty of capital interests where one "side" manufactures consent for the other. rightwardRatchet++;
  - llm_nerd 2mo ago
    > How do you figure? Biden was speaking to the people who ended up bankrolling Trump when threatened with slightly increased taxes, and who are going to dump billions into the midterms. When you're in a country that wavers around 50/50 every election (even when the choice is between competent government or a spectacularly incompetent shitshow of grifters, pedos and thieves), yes, there are limits to what you can realistically do in one election cycle. In any case, it's actually hilarious that rhetoric like this "oh well actually the Dems are to blame because they haven't stopped them yet" is precisely why Republicans are gung ho in fighting against ranked choice ballots. A secret they've learned is to field some fringe bullshit candidates like Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr, Kanye, and so on, and they need the sort of idiots that vote for idiots like that to be throwing away their votes because "it's a uniparty of capital". Ranked choice ballots -- real democracy -- would threaten that. https://www.adn.com/politics/2026/08/07/worlds-wealthiest-man-spends-big-to-repeal-alaskas-voting-system/ https://www.adn.com/politics/2026/08/07/worlds-wealthiest-ma... Trump has repeatedly claimed ranked choice ballots are "corrupt", and House Republicans have repeatedly tried to ban it. Do you want to know why? Protip - it's because they rely on incredibly stupid voters.
testing22321 2mo ago
The Police in the US have no legal requirement to help you. They are perfectly allowed to sit and do nothing while a gun man kills kids in a school. This is well established in law. https://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cops-had-no-duty-to-protect-subway-hero-who-subdued-killer/ https://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cops-had-no-duty-to-...
threatofrain 2mo ago
A robber isn't corrupt. A robber betrays no principle except to seize when hungry, and a robber has no institution to corrupt.
arjie 2mo ago
There’s no tool for them to do it with and I prefer that that remain the case. I would prefer that we take the pardon away from the President and certainly think the pre-emptive pardon is unacceptable but there is no mechanism to pursue the present government. I’d prefer if the US doesn’t become like my native India where the previous government goes in jail when a new government takes power. Hopefully we just destroy the pardon and call the obvious self-enrichment here an abuse of government that we cannot fix with our devices and go forward.

by Lendal 2mo ago

wildrhythms 2mo ago

Yes

lotsofpulp 2mo ago

Rival party is not equivalent to the cops. Even if the rival party were to somehow control all 3 branches of government (which they will not), the voting records show a full 1/3 of American adults outright support this corruption (many of the cops themselves), and another 1/3 are willing to ignore it. If you are in the 1/3 that does care about it, you are not going to have a good time trying to fight the other 1/3, many of whom make up the “law and order” department. So the answer to both questions is a resounding no, because the world is more complicated than a comic book superhero movie.

s_dev 2mo ago

Was the Union army complicit in the crimes of the Confederacy by simply allowing them to drop their arms and walk away as well? The world is complicated and full of nuanced takes depending on context. That said: >If a rival political party takes power in 2029 and they decide to do nothing about this, are they complicit? Like this really does read as: I still blame the Democrats for the crimes of the Republicans. The ultimate authority here is the US voters and they have chosen poorly again and again. They are complicit for sure as they chose both to empower Republicans and tie the hands of the Democrats with impossible standards.

BryantD 2mo ago
Yes. That’s a great historical precedent — Reconstruction was a hotly debated topic and the more radical forms would have banned former Confederate soldiers for voting, for example. Many Southern states had military governors imposed by the Federal government. Andrew Johnson pardoned almost all Confederate leaders, didn’t care about freeing slaves, and is one of the worst Presidents in history.
twister2920 2mo ago
> Was the Union army complicit in the crimes of the Confederacy by simply allowing them to drop their arms and walk away as well? yes, they were. the USA if the Unionists has followed through on reconstruction looks like a utopia compared to now
- JeremyNT 2mo ago
  It's stuff like this that really makes me wonder about the great man theory of history. Without JW Booth, maybe Lincoln would've broken the southern white aristocracy, and maybe Reconstruction would've succeeded. One man could've made the difference and finished the job. Likewise, it's difficult to imagine any other con man so skilled and beloved (by a certain subset of the population) as Trump, and his singular abilities and predilections have potentially derailed the entire project of American empire - maybe permanently.
  - twister2920 2mo ago
    Reconstruction ended more than 10 years after Lincoln's assassination, he would not have remained in office forever. I think for most Unionists the war was not about abolition or racial equality and there simply was not the political will to make the changes necessary to prevent Jim Crow in the south.
ComputerGuru 2mo ago
We are still paying the price for that today, some of us a lot more than others. It was well-intentioned but with hindsight being what it is, historians pretty much agree that it was the cause of a lot of the problems we fight with today.
rf15 2mo ago
Doesn't that still feel shortsighted? The way you speak, you cannot even imagine a world without a political landscape that is Republican vs Democrats. I think both parties have shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted steering the country. Yes, that probably means that the US has to utterly break in its political system before it can get any better, considering that the current election process favours a two-party stalemate (or one party controlling everything)
datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
It’s funny you bring up Union vs Confederacy, because Reconstruction should be a blueprint of what not to do. We’re still paying today for the failures of our forefathers to not have the bravery to stamp out the worst cultural elements of the Confederacy, let alone the extended century-long suffering of formerly enslaved peoples in what ranged from “separate but equal” to outright apartheid. So yes, it was very much the Union’s fault for not properly cutting the many heads of the hydra with great prejudice. Edit: the Nuremberg trials are a fantastic blueprint for what to do, though. And that’s what was missing after the Civil War. The sentences handed out at Nuremberg aren’t necessarily relevant to the crimes committed by those in power today, but the cultural shift that materialized in Germany post-war is the type of cultural shift needed to counteract the damage of the current administration: against corruption, grift, and executive overreach.
- antisthenes 2mo ago
  > the Nuremberg trials are a fantastic blueprint for what to do, though. Some would argue that the Nuremberg trials did not go nearly far enough, as there should also have been similar trials in all countries that collaborated with that regime during the course of the war. That's why you see far-right parties nowadays spring up again and start to grain more influence. It could have been stomped out well enough.
  - datsci_est_2015 2mo ago
    I agree, much of the Balkan suffering from the latter half of the 20th century could have been curtailed by properly stamping out ultranationalist groups as a punishment for their ethnic cleansing. The Ustaše, for example.
nemothekid 2mo ago
>Was the Union army complicit in the crimes of the Confederacy by simply allowing them to drop their arms and walk away as well? The world is complicated and full of nuanced takes depending on context. I think the irony here is you are presenting this like a complicated choice, when I would argue many people agree that the way the Union handled reconstruction was extremely poor.

llm_nerd 2mo ago

This is such an amazing take because it is a constant in US politics. Like how in the world did you think it appropriate to pivot like this? The standards for the Democrats are impossible perfection, regardless of the challenges. The standards for the Republicans is...there are literally zero standards. Thieves, grifters, rapists, pedos, just the absolute worst human garbage imaginable, and somehow Americans convince themselves that if the Democrats don't (usually because they can't) do anything about it, clearly the Dems are the real problem, so it's time to vote Republicans. Just bizarre stuff. I could give infinite examples where the slightest thing is a massive story about Democrat action or inaction, while every day is a new low in what the shit-pile that the modern Republican party gets away with. Benghazi is still constantly cited by the right, while Trump...Jesus Christ, every day is a thousand times worse. Astonishing levels of corruption and stupidity is just another Tuesday now. It's amazing. Every framing somehow shifts like this.

swed420 2mo ago
> The standards for the Democrats are impossible perfection How do you figure? The previous Dem president literally promised, "nothing will fundamentally change" and that's exactly what happened. We have a faux democracy / uniparty of capital interests where one "side" manufactures consent for the other. rightwardRatchet++;
- llm_nerd 2mo ago
  > How do you figure? Biden was speaking to the people who ended up bankrolling Trump when threatened with slightly increased taxes, and who are going to dump billions into the midterms. When you're in a country that wavers around 50/50 every election (even when the choice is between competent government or a spectacularly incompetent shitshow of grifters, pedos and thieves), yes, there are limits to what you can realistically do in one election cycle. In any case, it's actually hilarious that rhetoric like this "oh well actually the Dems are to blame because they haven't stopped them yet" is precisely why Republicans are gung ho in fighting against ranked choice ballots. A secret they've learned is to field some fringe bullshit candidates like Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr, Kanye, and so on, and they need the sort of idiots that vote for idiots like that to be throwing away their votes because "it's a uniparty of capital". Ranked choice ballots -- real democracy -- would threaten that. https://www.adn.com/politics/2026/08/07/worlds-wealthiest-man-spends-big-to-repeal-alaskas-voting-system/ https://www.adn.com/politics/2026/08/07/worlds-wealthiest-ma... Trump has repeatedly claimed ranked choice ballots are "corrupt", and House Republicans have repeatedly tried to ban it. Do you want to know why? Protip - it's because they rely on incredibly stupid voters.

testing22321 2mo ago

The Police in the US have no legal requirement to help you. They are perfectly allowed to sit and do nothing while a gun man kills kids in a school. This is well established in law. https://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cops-had-no-duty-to-protect-subway-hero-who-subdued-killer/ https://nypost.com/2013/01/27/city-says-cops-had-no-duty-to-...

threatofrain 2mo ago

A robber isn't corrupt. A robber betrays no principle except to seize when hungry, and a robber has no institution to corrupt.

arjie 2mo ago

There’s no tool for them to do it with and I prefer that that remain the case. I would prefer that we take the pardon away from the President and certainly think the pre-emptive pardon is unacceptable but there is no mechanism to pursue the present government. I’d prefer if the US doesn’t become like my native India where the previous government goes in jail when a new government takes power. Hopefully we just destroy the pardon and call the obvious self-enrichment here an abuse of government that we cannot fix with our devices and go forward.