4 ms·

> It seems unlikely that someone who has served that long in her position would rule based on making the child in the White House happy. The US is a corporatoc

> It seems unlikely that someone who has served that long in her position would rule based on making the child in the White House happy. The US is a corporatocracy. It's apparently a lot easier for Americans to convince themselves that the current administration is corrupt and end there than it is to acknowledge that the entire system has been corrupted and it won't change once the administration changes.

slg 1mo ago
Two things can be true at once, the entire system is corrupt and the current administration is much more corrupt than any prior administration.
- pstuart 1mo ago
  The current administration is in a class of its own regarding corruption -- it is the principle driver of everything they do. The nazi stuff is just bonus for them.
pstuart 1mo ago
At the turn of the century (yikes!) Clinton reconfigured the DNC to serve the corporations rather than labor. I left the party after that but am compelled to vote blue as the least worst option. Partisan politics allows capture of the government by creating a duopoly of power. Washington warned us of this threat.
- FazJaxton 1mo ago
  You are correct, but it's largely our first-past-the-post voting system that forces only TWO political parties on us. Voting reform is necessary to help make other parties/candidates electable.
  - pstuart 1mo ago
    You too are correct, it was a "get it out there" comment. My armchair assessment of the the electoral trap we're in: * first-past-the-post voting * dark money (money is not speech, it is power) * campaign finance reform (current model is legalized bribery) * eliminate the electoral college (popular vote for president)
  - thrance 1mo ago
    You can change the details of the numbers game that is played every 4 years, but that won't solve the structural issues. I live in France, in any given election we have between 10 and 15 candidates from as many parties. Yet, we're still ruled by corporate interests. The media makes sure to qualify any candidate threatening the interests of capital as a "dangerous extremist", while "pro-business" candidates receive the lion share of donations for their campaigns. And there are many other guardrails in place to ensure nothing impedes the slow erosion of our infrastructure and public services under the strains of austerity in profit of the few.
    - pstuart 1mo ago
      I get your point. In the US at least there's less of a paradox of choice. The key problem is that most people don't want to pay attention to any of it because it's either depressing or just not within there range of interests. Add to that the fact that most people vote based on their emotions and those are stupid simple to manipulate on the Right: anger at immigrants and "others" works all the time. Democracy is the least worst option, but FFS, it would be nice if the electorate were actually properly informed when they vote. Edit: I kind of contradicted myself on the "choice" thing, but this is effectively like herding cats.
      - GJim 1mo ago
        > it would be nice if the electorate were actually properly informed when they vote Which is why a balanced free press is vital for democracy. Yet the USA abandoned its 'fairness doctrine' in broadcast media some decades ago.
        pstuart 1mo ago
        Broadcast media is boomer stuff (disclaimer: I am technically a boomer). I expect its relevance to fade. That said, the failure to prevent media aggregation (e.g., Sinclair et al) is also a betrayal to the people. As a boomer, I recognize the value of having constrained media choices: it was a unifying factor albeit at the price of milquetoast and "establishment" programming. Everything has a price... The fairness doctrine should have been employed when Rush Limbaugh started his hate speech career that aimed to literally demonize half the population.
- insane_dreamer 1mo ago
  yeah, it's just that the current administration has a level of "banana republic" style corruption and corporate-dealing/bribing that makes Clinton look like Mother Teresa
wilg 1mo ago
It is in fact true that the Trump administration is corrupt on a significantly different level than any prior administration. It is harmful to paper over this.

slg 1mo ago

Two things can be true at once, the entire system is corrupt and the current administration is much more corrupt than any prior administration.

pstuart 1mo ago
The current administration is in a class of its own regarding corruption -- it is the principle driver of everything they do. The nazi stuff is just bonus for them.

pstuart 1mo ago

At the turn of the century (yikes!) Clinton reconfigured the DNC to serve the corporations rather than labor. I left the party after that but am compelled to vote blue as the least worst option. Partisan politics allows capture of the government by creating a duopoly of power. Washington warned us of this threat.

FazJaxton 1mo ago
You are correct, but it's largely our first-past-the-post voting system that forces only TWO political parties on us. Voting reform is necessary to help make other parties/candidates electable.
- pstuart 1mo ago
  You too are correct, it was a "get it out there" comment. My armchair assessment of the the electoral trap we're in: * first-past-the-post voting * dark money (money is not speech, it is power) * campaign finance reform (current model is legalized bribery) * eliminate the electoral college (popular vote for president)
- thrance 1mo ago
  You can change the details of the numbers game that is played every 4 years, but that won't solve the structural issues. I live in France, in any given election we have between 10 and 15 candidates from as many parties. Yet, we're still ruled by corporate interests. The media makes sure to qualify any candidate threatening the interests of capital as a "dangerous extremist", while "pro-business" candidates receive the lion share of donations for their campaigns. And there are many other guardrails in place to ensure nothing impedes the slow erosion of our infrastructure and public services under the strains of austerity in profit of the few.
  - pstuart 1mo ago
    I get your point. In the US at least there's less of a paradox of choice. The key problem is that most people don't want to pay attention to any of it because it's either depressing or just not within there range of interests. Add to that the fact that most people vote based on their emotions and those are stupid simple to manipulate on the Right: anger at immigrants and "others" works all the time. Democracy is the least worst option, but FFS, it would be nice if the electorate were actually properly informed when they vote. Edit: I kind of contradicted myself on the "choice" thing, but this is effectively like herding cats.
    - GJim 1mo ago
      > it would be nice if the electorate were actually properly informed when they vote Which is why a balanced free press is vital for democracy. Yet the USA abandoned its 'fairness doctrine' in broadcast media some decades ago.
      - pstuart 1mo ago
        Broadcast media is boomer stuff (disclaimer: I am technically a boomer). I expect its relevance to fade. That said, the failure to prevent media aggregation (e.g., Sinclair et al) is also a betrayal to the people. As a boomer, I recognize the value of having constrained media choices: it was a unifying factor albeit at the price of milquetoast and "establishment" programming. Everything has a price... The fairness doctrine should have been employed when Rush Limbaugh started his hate speech career that aimed to literally demonize half the population.
insane_dreamer 1mo ago
yeah, it's just that the current administration has a level of "banana republic" style corruption and corporate-dealing/bribing that makes Clinton look like Mother Teresa

wilg 1mo ago

It is in fact true that the Trump administration is corrupt on a significantly different level than any prior administration. It is harmful to paper over this.