3 ms·

(not a repub) I don't defend it, its outright fraud, but I also accept the reality that it is a more visible, and perhaps exaggerated, form of what has been ong

(not a repub) I don't defend it, its outright fraud, but I also accept the reality that it is a more visible, and perhaps exaggerated, form of what has been ongoing forever. Those who seek power seek it to: 1. Enrich themselves and their family 2. Wield it to achieve their means The "pay to play" is rife everywhere. The contractors who get a sweet deal from local / fed government, the competition is stifled. The senators who make 10's of millions on insider information. The imminent domain cases where property is seized so corporation / donor can make millions. The "futures market" where insiders use their knowledge of product release date to swindle money for ordinary folks. The crypto scams, lotteries, casinos, street vendors, telemarketers, info-mercials, self-help gurus, snake oil sales, lemon peddlers, and more. The truth is that the human system has not deviated far from the imposed hierarchy of feudalism / monarchy, we have only become better at concealing it, making it more potent in some ways. Power, corruption, opportunism, and greed are part of our nature. In an extremely large population with a democratic veneer, the levers of power become diffuse an ineffable, until they are blatantly shoved into our face. In some ways I'm glad because its only through a constant vigilance and resetting the public vigilance that these kind of things can be controlled to any degree. Its an entropic force, seeping into the system at all times, only kept at bay by the disdain of the populace and fear in the hearts of the ruling elites. Its definitely not a Republicans only phenomenon, the list on both sides of the aisle is embarrassingly long. But due to how our political system is setup, and human psychology, little will change by voting. People are tribal, and only have two choices in the matter, both of which are usually power-seeking corrupted. The prisoner's dilemma is giving the US a life-sentence.

317070 2mo ago
> but I also accept the reality that it is a more visible, and perhaps exaggerated, form of what has been ongoing forever Thanks for sharing this. It's a deep insight for me. I did not understand how the same people that were deeply skeptical about the state, ended up being so quiet when the state's corruption became flagrant and blatant. But this line of thinking makes a lot of sense.
- lotsofpulp 2mo ago
  It sounds like equivocating nonsense to me. No one expects a society to be completely free of corruption, but there is a difference between at least putting up a veneer of working towards transparency, and unabashed pay to play corruption. In fact, the corruption is what the voters want, to show that they prioritize their group (white, men, rural, rich, benefactors, whatever helps you identify with the “winner” etc) at the expense of others.
  - program_whiz 2mo ago
    I don't expect it to be free of corruption, but I can also acknowledge the systemic forces that are beyond my control which enable the corrupt excesses we see. Unfortunately, until the incentives reverse, it will continue. One of the easiest and most assured paths to success, wealth, a comfortable life, influence, significance, and security, is by playing the power game. Hence, it will attract those who seek those ends, and discourage those who let beliefs, values, morals, or other similar concerns interfere with their own acquisition of power. Its only inevitable then that the most corrupt players will eventually ascend, as they continue to amass money and power in such a system. Believing that the real difference is voting for "the good guys" and that will cause wide-sweeping change is probably what Tea Party voters thought in the early 2000s before they morphed into MAGA.
spiderfarmer 2mo ago
What will you vote in the midterms?
meetingthrower 2mo ago
Nice writing man.
techlover14159 2mo ago
One way to think about it is that visible corruption is a constant fraction of invisible corruption in the system. Like a fixed fraction of an iceberg that is visible. One can estimate total corruption in the system by what is visible/flagrant. Based on this, the order of magnitude of corruption being done by this admin is orders of magnitude more than prior ones. Given that about a third of the voters are fully in support of this, and likely about similar numbers are oblivious, I expect that nothing will be done about it once this admin goes out of power. Maybe a few people will be made scapegoats to pacify the third that want justice (likely low level/weak ones), but the top level of perpetrators will be untouched and keep most of the loot.

317070 2mo ago

> but I also accept the reality that it is a more visible, and perhaps exaggerated, form of what has been ongoing forever Thanks for sharing this. It's a deep insight for me. I did not understand how the same people that were deeply skeptical about the state, ended up being so quiet when the state's corruption became flagrant and blatant. But this line of thinking makes a lot of sense.

lotsofpulp 2mo ago
It sounds like equivocating nonsense to me. No one expects a society to be completely free of corruption, but there is a difference between at least putting up a veneer of working towards transparency, and unabashed pay to play corruption. In fact, the corruption is what the voters want, to show that they prioritize their group (white, men, rural, rich, benefactors, whatever helps you identify with the “winner” etc) at the expense of others.
- program_whiz 2mo ago
  I don't expect it to be free of corruption, but I can also acknowledge the systemic forces that are beyond my control which enable the corrupt excesses we see. Unfortunately, until the incentives reverse, it will continue. One of the easiest and most assured paths to success, wealth, a comfortable life, influence, significance, and security, is by playing the power game. Hence, it will attract those who seek those ends, and discourage those who let beliefs, values, morals, or other similar concerns interfere with their own acquisition of power. Its only inevitable then that the most corrupt players will eventually ascend, as they continue to amass money and power in such a system. Believing that the real difference is voting for "the good guys" and that will cause wide-sweeping change is probably what Tea Party voters thought in the early 2000s before they morphed into MAGA.

spiderfarmer 2mo ago

What will you vote in the midterms?

meetingthrower 2mo ago

Nice writing man.

techlover14159 2mo ago

One way to think about it is that visible corruption is a constant fraction of invisible corruption in the system. Like a fixed fraction of an iceberg that is visible. One can estimate total corruption in the system by what is visible/flagrant. Based on this, the order of magnitude of corruption being done by this admin is orders of magnitude more than prior ones. Given that about a third of the voters are fully in support of this, and likely about similar numbers are oblivious, I expect that nothing will be done about it once this admin goes out of power. Maybe a few people will be made scapegoats to pacify the third that want justice (likely low level/weak ones), but the top level of perpetrators will be untouched and keep most of the loot.