4 ms·

Trump is bad, but please let's not excuse corporate neoliberal dems that are totally fine with insider trading, legalized bribes, and are quite proud that their

by shimman 1mo ago

Trump is bad, but please let's not excuse corporate neoliberal dems that are totally fine with insider trading, legalized bribes, and are quite proud that their consultant campaign workers get lucrative gigs at corporations/boards due to insider access. I mean we have people like Gillibrand that are openly in bed with the crypto industry while somehow decrying what Trump is doing. Feels like they're upset that Trump exposed how rotten this game has gotten. At some point you realize there is a game that you were never playing and it becomes a bipartisan issue.

estearum 1mo ago
All of that is several orders of magnitude less bad than a normal Tuesday in the Trump administration. For evidence, refer to TFA.
- shimman 1mo ago
  Okay and how do you think it helps the democratic candidate's ability to win elections when they are part of the same party that supports corporations over people? In the not so recent past the democratic party controlled Congress for 60+ years on the new deal coalition alone, now look what the party has morphed into... I read the article too, in what sane world is it okay if 70% of citizens thought their governments + corporations are corrupt over a 20 year time span here. Society apparently has get quite bad for the last 20% to realize the state of things. The only thing I got out of this article is that both parties + the F500 need to be destroyed.
  - estearum 1mo ago
    Did I say it was okay? If you think I (or virtually anyone else) am a fan of the two-party system, you probably aren't paying very close attention to... anything. Things can be varying levels of imperfect. Things can be imperfect and acceptable, imperfect and bad, or imperfect and extremely extremely bad. It's not a sign of intelligence not to be able to discern between them.
  - vannevar 1mo ago
    >The only thing I got out of this article is that both parties + the F500 need to be destroyed. I don't know, if we'd had an overwhelmingly Democrat-dominated government, we'd have comprehensive bans on government insider trading and we'd correct the bad ruling in Citizens United. Corporatism is definitely a bipartisan issue, but at least Democrats recognize it as a problem, while to Republicans it's a feature. Not everything in politics is symmetrical, and misguided nihilism is actually how we got where we are. Turns out the road to hell is paved with "it's both sides."
    - koolba 1mo ago
      > I don't know, if we'd had an overwhelmingly Democrat-dominated government, we'd have comprehensive bans on government insider trading We had two years under Biden with Democrat control of the House and the Senate. They passed no legislation to ban insider trading. It probably didn’t help that the poster octogenarian for insider trading was Speaker of the House > and we'd correct the bad ruling in Citizens United. CU was absolutely the correct ruling as it just means I can take money from wherever I’ve earned it and spend it on publicizing my message. Prior to that you had to buy a media company to have the same effect. It was perfectly fine for Fox News or The NY Times to focus articles and segments on what they deem newsworthy to push their narrative. But if I made my money selling widgets, I couldn’t spend it the same way. It’s a perfectly reasonable ruling. > Corporatism is definitely a bipartisan issue, but at least Democrats recognize it as a problem, while to Republicans it's a feature. The same people probably complain the Senate is an antiquated body that should not exist because mob rule is the only true voice of the people.
      - lern_too_spel 1mo ago
        With just 48 Democratic senators and 2 independents caucusing with them, the 117th Congress had to deal with rampant GOP filibustering, starting with setting up an independent commission to investigate the January 6 riots. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000524897/senate-republicans-block-plan-for-independent-commission-on-jan-6-capitol-riot https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000524897/senate-republicans...
      - 1mo ago
  - AdieuToLogic 1mo ago
    > The only thing I got out of this article is that both parties + the F500 need to be destroyed. Destruction is easy, as we are all witnessing. Making things better is hard. It takes commitment to incremental change, often having to overcome setbacks, and accepting that the product of democracy is inherently nonlinear. Democracy also demands that its participants understand that most of the time what each individual wants to be, will not be exactly as they envision, since that would be autocracy.
    - shimman 1mo ago
      Nah, this is the same tired excuse that has never played out in reality. Destruction is totally fine of useless institutions. Especially those that are openly antagonistic and profit from killing Americans. US institutions are designed to impede progress and stop actual democratic movements. No one was ever asked the public what they thought when they shoved neoliberalism down our throats. Yet that system reigns supreme and has created a hellscape where people are openly ignoring their biological imperative because their lives are so miserable (a behavior that's also found in animals at zoos).
vannevar 1mo ago
No one is excusing them. But it's worth pointing out that in every aspect of government ethics reform, from campaign financing to insider trading by government officials, the legislation promoted by Democrats is stronger than that promoted by Republicans, who often not only don't promote reform but actively oppose it. For example, the recent lukewarm ban on insider trading was opposed by Democrats on the grounds that it was too weak, excluded the President and VP, and included unrelated voter regulation measures. And the Democrats have been trying to pass legislation to correct Citizens United for years. So while it's a bipartisan issue, one party is much more pro-reform than the other.
- abletonlive 1mo ago
  [flagged]
- shimman 1mo ago
  That's great if you're talking to a high schooler that has never been politically active, but I'm literally a democratic party operative. I've attend state conventions, state nominating conventions, platform conventions, DNC twice. This is not the democratic party I want to part of and why I'm extremely thankful people-led organizations like WFP and DSA are actively trying to change things for the better. None of what you are describing has any real momentum behind it and for how many decades will you let politicians fails you until you do something in response? Like bro, the democratic party isn't an opposition party. There is a reason why the party has majority unfavorability rating [1] throughout Trump's entire second term. How do you square this? This is a fucking terrible sign and it's why progressive candidates have seen a massive insurgency this cycle and why the corporate do-nothing dems are so scared shitless that they might have to actually answer why they are okay with genocide + corporate welfare programs while doing nothing to help people materially. You say no one is excusing them, then spend your entire comment excusing them. What do you actually do politically? [1] https://fiftyplusone.news/polls/favorability/democratic-party https://fiftyplusone.news/polls/favorability/democratic-part...
grvdrm 1mo ago
Fair take, I think. But we didn’t have to vote DJT into office as a counteracting force. Whether every decision is bad or not, not my point. It just seemed obvious that he wasn’t the right guy. Some people can’t vote against their party. Some people believe write in is the move.
- autoexec 1mo ago
  A write in, or even just scrawling "FUCK YOU" across the ballot is at least an active protest. It shows that you aren't apathetic to, or okay with, what is going on. It'd be interesting to see a write in campaign for someone with enough public support to be more than just a protest vote though. It'd be interesting to see someone campaign to the public with no interest in participating in the two party system at all, just asking the public to write them in when the time comes.
  - mypalmike 1mo ago
    Voting is a massively multiplayer game, not an individual sport. If you want to protest, please do it. But throwing away your vote is not a protest, it’s a method of ceding a small amount of power.
    - grvdrm 1mo ago
      Well said. It's not that I disagree with the concept, just that the action itself is not meaningful to the overall process (not without a lot more people doing the same). I've never written a name not on the ballot but wonder sorts of feelings arise afterwards. Is it "Good, I did the right thing"?
  - bandofthehawk 1mo ago
    There are plenty of third-party candidates in most elections. However, most people are convinced that they have to vote for the lesser of two evils. In addition, a third party or independent candidate who starts getting too much public support will be likely be sabotaged long before election day. For example look up Butch Ware's recent run for governor in California. It's just the tip of the iceberg in how the two party system maintains control.
rootusrootus 1mo ago
After reading about Ground News, I am starting to gain a real appreciation for how effective "both sides are bad" is at benefiting the right. It may well be the closest I've seen to 4D chess in reality.
- mitxela 1mo ago
  Why is Ground News relevant here?
  - patagurbon 1mo ago
    They help launder this idea that every issue has two reasonable sides. Which is patently false There is some kernel of value to seeking out information from diverse sources. But groups like Ground News pervert that to mean that the left and right are on equally good terms with fact and reality (nevermind that collapsing politics and news media down to left and right is balderdash)
    - estearum 1mo ago
      Huh... I'm super liberal (not so progressive necessarily) and I enjoy Ground News a lot. I don't feel like it gives an impression of both-sideism at all, and that's something I'm quite sensitive to?
      - rootusrootus 1mo ago
        That is their stated purpose, though? To give equal parts left & right so that you can supposedly be better informed. But the implicit assumption is that left & right are equally truthful & fact based, which is not the case, so the resulting coverage leans right. Notably, like another allegedly unbiased news source (RealClearPolitics and related), Ground News is run by conservatives. They know precisely how it works and are taking advantage of sensible people who think they must be getting biased news and want more exposure to the other side, with the intention of ratcheting the Overton window ever more to the right.
hakunin 1mo ago
When I hear people making these claims (all unproven theories, or misrepresentation of what really happens), I want to know: what happened in democratic administrations that went in favor of a large corporate donor and against the public? Any specific example where they diverged, and a politician ruled in favor of the corp, and against their constituents?
- patagurbon 1mo ago
  I think a lot of these beliefs are downstream of some perceived aloofness and intellectual elitism in the party combined with sour grapes about how 2016 turned out for certain grassroots demographics in the party. I don’t think the vibes argument there is incorrect, Dems have failed to deliver for a long time, but the claims themselves really just make a conspiracy out of the shitty electoral situation Dems / progressives have been in since the creation of the senate 250 odd years ago.
- shimman 1mo ago
  What is unproven here? This is all found in various wiki articles or just being alive at the time (yes Obama did bailout banks over people, yes Clinton did condemn large swaths of the US to poverty). I honestly don't understand your other question, you can watch any primary challenge race across the country and you'll see these dynamics play out. We're also dealing with cumulative effects that have taken place over decades (NAFTA is still impactful in many areas that if you run as D these districts you are guaranteed to lose). If you're from a certain region and want specific examples LMK.
thisisit 1mo ago
What is this argument really? Comparing one man’s corruption to a whole party with decades of history. “Honey my cheating on you is bad but look at this man Trump with decades of public philandering.” Whataboutism at its finest.
- shimman 1mo ago
  No, it's more like "oh wow that explains why Americans do not trust institutions, have massive unfavorable feelings about the democratic party, and voters no longer believe democratic politicians are pro-worker." Like this is a thread about corruption but I guess if you give a shitty corporate veneer it's suddenly. If you're older than 40 you saw the democratic party implement NAFTA, cut welfare programs, and bail out banks; apparently these three major policy pillars aren't related to people's feelings on corruption. Totally independent, they're just totally only saying Trump + republicans are corrupt not like the entire system that compromises two parties both of which are in bed with corporations and voters have a lived history reflecting just this. Next thing you're going to tell me is that the Gaza Genocide played no role in Harris losing '24 either.
FireBeyond 1mo ago
> Feels like they're upset that Trump exposed how rotten this game has gotten. You make it sound like he's the one calling this out, "Drain the swamp" style, when instead he's the one elevating it to the next level. A month ago he sat for a TV interview in the White House, and he said, verbatim, "My children are insider trading all the time". And it was so on-brand for Trump's administration that it barely moved the needle. Barron is an unemployed college drop out who gained $150M in net worth in a year. Donald Jr and Eric start companies or get paid millions for board seats that get billions in government contracts within days of their forming/joining. You, unable to form more than three words about all of this, but able to go on a vague rant about how its the Democrats we should really be angry at. Corruption is endemic. It's never been as brazen, and as much, as now.
- shimman 1mo ago
  Don't disagree, take your example of using cryptocurrency to massively break banking regulations plus the ability to make rug pulls a known feature. Now what do you expect democratic politicians to actually do about it since they have no issues working with the crypto industry while taking their donations? Gillibrand is a great example of this, crying about Trump getting rich off cryptoscams but not willing to actually legislate against this stuff because it'll cut off a lucrative source of campaign financing: https://theintercept.com/2026/07/13/gillibrand-crypto-trump-profit-clarity-act/ https://theintercept.com/2026/07/13/gillibrand-crypto-trump-... Like this plays into the record "high" perception of corruption. (also you know that the democratic has had majority unfavorable ratings throughout the Trump administration [1], a major blight and a poor sign that the opposition party is in fact not unified in opposition) I do find the person that makes your comments amusing. Mostly the types that do zero organizing, never volunteered for a political campaign, have never canvassed in their life, don't attend party meetings, aren't part of any state committees across the US, but all seem to exactly know what's wrong with the voters and apparently you aren't allowed to criticize a party for reasons that allude me. Perfectly capable to form plenty of words just fine. I'm a democratic party operative that has mostly grown to hate the party more as the years go by, luckily my sentiment is hardly unique (way more common than back in 2016). What do you exactly do to help combat this situation? I rather converse with people that are engaged and not just consumers of advocacy. [1] https://theintercept.com/2026/07/13/gillibrand-crypto-trump-profit-clarity-act/ https://theintercept.com/2026/07/13/gillibrand-crypto-trump-...

by shimman 1mo ago

estearum 1mo ago

All of that is several orders of magnitude less bad than a normal Tuesday in the Trump administration. For evidence, refer to TFA.

shimman 1mo ago
Okay and how do you think it helps the democratic candidate's ability to win elections when they are part of the same party that supports corporations over people? In the not so recent past the democratic party controlled Congress for 60+ years on the new deal coalition alone, now look what the party has morphed into... I read the article too, in what sane world is it okay if 70% of citizens thought their governments + corporations are corrupt over a 20 year time span here. Society apparently has get quite bad for the last 20% to realize the state of things. The only thing I got out of this article is that both parties + the F500 need to be destroyed.
- estearum 1mo ago
  Did I say it was okay? If you think I (or virtually anyone else) am a fan of the two-party system, you probably aren't paying very close attention to... anything. Things can be varying levels of imperfect. Things can be imperfect and acceptable, imperfect and bad, or imperfect and extremely extremely bad. It's not a sign of intelligence not to be able to discern between them.
- vannevar 1mo ago
  >The only thing I got out of this article is that both parties + the F500 need to be destroyed. I don't know, if we'd had an overwhelmingly Democrat-dominated government, we'd have comprehensive bans on government insider trading and we'd correct the bad ruling in Citizens United. Corporatism is definitely a bipartisan issue, but at least Democrats recognize it as a problem, while to Republicans it's a feature. Not everything in politics is symmetrical, and misguided nihilism is actually how we got where we are. Turns out the road to hell is paved with "it's both sides."
  - koolba 1mo ago
    > I don't know, if we'd had an overwhelmingly Democrat-dominated government, we'd have comprehensive bans on government insider trading We had two years under Biden with Democrat control of the House and the Senate. They passed no legislation to ban insider trading. It probably didn’t help that the poster octogenarian for insider trading was Speaker of the House > and we'd correct the bad ruling in Citizens United. CU was absolutely the correct ruling as it just means I can take money from wherever I’ve earned it and spend it on publicizing my message. Prior to that you had to buy a media company to have the same effect. It was perfectly fine for Fox News or The NY Times to focus articles and segments on what they deem newsworthy to push their narrative. But if I made my money selling widgets, I couldn’t spend it the same way. It’s a perfectly reasonable ruling. > Corporatism is definitely a bipartisan issue, but at least Democrats recognize it as a problem, while to Republicans it's a feature. The same people probably complain the Senate is an antiquated body that should not exist because mob rule is the only true voice of the people.
    - lern_too_spel 1mo ago
      With just 48 Democratic senators and 2 independents caucusing with them, the 117th Congress had to deal with rampant GOP filibustering, starting with setting up an independent commission to investigate the January 6 riots. https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000524897/senate-republicans-block-plan-for-independent-commission-on-jan-6-capitol-riot https://www.npr.org/2021/05/28/1000524897/senate-republicans...
    - 1mo ago
- AdieuToLogic 1mo ago
  > The only thing I got out of this article is that both parties + the F500 need to be destroyed. Destruction is easy, as we are all witnessing. Making things better is hard. It takes commitment to incremental change, often having to overcome setbacks, and accepting that the product of democracy is inherently nonlinear. Democracy also demands that its participants understand that most of the time what each individual wants to be, will not be exactly as they envision, since that would be autocracy.
  - shimman 1mo ago
    Nah, this is the same tired excuse that has never played out in reality. Destruction is totally fine of useless institutions. Especially those that are openly antagonistic and profit from killing Americans. US institutions are designed to impede progress and stop actual democratic movements. No one was ever asked the public what they thought when they shoved neoliberalism down our throats. Yet that system reigns supreme and has created a hellscape where people are openly ignoring their biological imperative because their lives are so miserable (a behavior that's also found in animals at zoos).

vannevar 1mo ago

No one is excusing them. But it's worth pointing out that in every aspect of government ethics reform, from campaign financing to insider trading by government officials, the legislation promoted by Democrats is stronger than that promoted by Republicans, who often not only don't promote reform but actively oppose it. For example, the recent lukewarm ban on insider trading was opposed by Democrats on the grounds that it was too weak, excluded the President and VP, and included unrelated voter regulation measures. And the Democrats have been trying to pass legislation to correct Citizens United for years. So while it's a bipartisan issue, one party is much more pro-reform than the other.

abletonlive 1mo ago
[flagged]
shimman 1mo ago
That's great if you're talking to a high schooler that has never been politically active, but I'm literally a democratic party operative. I've attend state conventions, state nominating conventions, platform conventions, DNC twice. This is not the democratic party I want to part of and why I'm extremely thankful people-led organizations like WFP and DSA are actively trying to change things for the better. None of what you are describing has any real momentum behind it and for how many decades will you let politicians fails you until you do something in response? Like bro, the democratic party isn't an opposition party. There is a reason why the party has majority unfavorability rating [1] throughout Trump's entire second term. How do you square this? This is a fucking terrible sign and it's why progressive candidates have seen a massive insurgency this cycle and why the corporate do-nothing dems are so scared shitless that they might have to actually answer why they are okay with genocide + corporate welfare programs while doing nothing to help people materially. You say no one is excusing them, then spend your entire comment excusing them. What do you actually do politically? [1] https://fiftyplusone.news/polls/favorability/democratic-party https://fiftyplusone.news/polls/favorability/democratic-part...

grvdrm 1mo ago

Fair take, I think. But we didn’t have to vote DJT into office as a counteracting force. Whether every decision is bad or not, not my point. It just seemed obvious that he wasn’t the right guy. Some people can’t vote against their party. Some people believe write in is the move.

autoexec 1mo ago
A write in, or even just scrawling "FUCK YOU" across the ballot is at least an active protest. It shows that you aren't apathetic to, or okay with, what is going on. It'd be interesting to see a write in campaign for someone with enough public support to be more than just a protest vote though. It'd be interesting to see someone campaign to the public with no interest in participating in the two party system at all, just asking the public to write them in when the time comes.
- mypalmike 1mo ago
  Voting is a massively multiplayer game, not an individual sport. If you want to protest, please do it. But throwing away your vote is not a protest, it’s a method of ceding a small amount of power.
  - grvdrm 1mo ago
    Well said. It's not that I disagree with the concept, just that the action itself is not meaningful to the overall process (not without a lot more people doing the same). I've never written a name not on the ballot but wonder sorts of feelings arise afterwards. Is it "Good, I did the right thing"?
- bandofthehawk 1mo ago
  There are plenty of third-party candidates in most elections. However, most people are convinced that they have to vote for the lesser of two evils. In addition, a third party or independent candidate who starts getting too much public support will be likely be sabotaged long before election day. For example look up Butch Ware's recent run for governor in California. It's just the tip of the iceberg in how the two party system maintains control.

rootusrootus 1mo ago

After reading about Ground News, I am starting to gain a real appreciation for how effective "both sides are bad" is at benefiting the right. It may well be the closest I've seen to 4D chess in reality.

mitxela 1mo ago
Why is Ground News relevant here?
- patagurbon 1mo ago
  They help launder this idea that every issue has two reasonable sides. Which is patently false There is some kernel of value to seeking out information from diverse sources. But groups like Ground News pervert that to mean that the left and right are on equally good terms with fact and reality (nevermind that collapsing politics and news media down to left and right is balderdash)
  - estearum 1mo ago
    Huh... I'm super liberal (not so progressive necessarily) and I enjoy Ground News a lot. I don't feel like it gives an impression of both-sideism at all, and that's something I'm quite sensitive to?
    - rootusrootus 1mo ago
      That is their stated purpose, though? To give equal parts left & right so that you can supposedly be better informed. But the implicit assumption is that left & right are equally truthful & fact based, which is not the case, so the resulting coverage leans right. Notably, like another allegedly unbiased news source (RealClearPolitics and related), Ground News is run by conservatives. They know precisely how it works and are taking advantage of sensible people who think they must be getting biased news and want more exposure to the other side, with the intention of ratcheting the Overton window ever more to the right.

hakunin 1mo ago

When I hear people making these claims (all unproven theories, or misrepresentation of what really happens), I want to know: what happened in democratic administrations that went in favor of a large corporate donor and against the public? Any specific example where they diverged, and a politician ruled in favor of the corp, and against their constituents?

patagurbon 1mo ago
I think a lot of these beliefs are downstream of some perceived aloofness and intellectual elitism in the party combined with sour grapes about how 2016 turned out for certain grassroots demographics in the party. I don’t think the vibes argument there is incorrect, Dems have failed to deliver for a long time, but the claims themselves really just make a conspiracy out of the shitty electoral situation Dems / progressives have been in since the creation of the senate 250 odd years ago.
shimman 1mo ago
What is unproven here? This is all found in various wiki articles or just being alive at the time (yes Obama did bailout banks over people, yes Clinton did condemn large swaths of the US to poverty). I honestly don't understand your other question, you can watch any primary challenge race across the country and you'll see these dynamics play out. We're also dealing with cumulative effects that have taken place over decades (NAFTA is still impactful in many areas that if you run as D these districts you are guaranteed to lose). If you're from a certain region and want specific examples LMK.

thisisit 1mo ago

What is this argument really? Comparing one man’s corruption to a whole party with decades of history. “Honey my cheating on you is bad but look at this man Trump with decades of public philandering.” Whataboutism at its finest.

shimman 1mo ago
No, it's more like "oh wow that explains why Americans do not trust institutions, have massive unfavorable feelings about the democratic party, and voters no longer believe democratic politicians are pro-worker." Like this is a thread about corruption but I guess if you give a shitty corporate veneer it's suddenly. If you're older than 40 you saw the democratic party implement NAFTA, cut welfare programs, and bail out banks; apparently these three major policy pillars aren't related to people's feelings on corruption. Totally independent, they're just totally only saying Trump + republicans are corrupt not like the entire system that compromises two parties both of which are in bed with corporations and voters have a lived history reflecting just this. Next thing you're going to tell me is that the Gaza Genocide played no role in Harris losing '24 either.

FireBeyond 1mo ago

> Feels like they're upset that Trump exposed how rotten this game has gotten. You make it sound like he's the one calling this out, "Drain the swamp" style, when instead he's the one elevating it to the next level. A month ago he sat for a TV interview in the White House, and he said, verbatim, "My children are insider trading all the time". And it was so on-brand for Trump's administration that it barely moved the needle. Barron is an unemployed college drop out who gained $150M in net worth in a year. Donald Jr and Eric start companies or get paid millions for board seats that get billions in government contracts within days of their forming/joining. You, unable to form more than three words about all of this, but able to go on a vague rant about how its the Democrats we should really be angry at. Corruption is endemic. It's never been as brazen, and as much, as now.

shimman 1mo ago
Don't disagree, take your example of using cryptocurrency to massively break banking regulations plus the ability to make rug pulls a known feature. Now what do you expect democratic politicians to actually do about it since they have no issues working with the crypto industry while taking their donations? Gillibrand is a great example of this, crying about Trump getting rich off cryptoscams but not willing to actually legislate against this stuff because it'll cut off a lucrative source of campaign financing: https://theintercept.com/2026/07/13/gillibrand-crypto-trump-profit-clarity-act/ https://theintercept.com/2026/07/13/gillibrand-crypto-trump-... Like this plays into the record "high" perception of corruption. (also you know that the democratic has had majority unfavorable ratings throughout the Trump administration [1], a major blight and a poor sign that the opposition party is in fact not unified in opposition) I do find the person that makes your comments amusing. Mostly the types that do zero organizing, never volunteered for a political campaign, have never canvassed in their life, don't attend party meetings, aren't part of any state committees across the US, but all seem to exactly know what's wrong with the voters and apparently you aren't allowed to criticize a party for reasons that allude me. Perfectly capable to form plenty of words just fine. I'm a democratic party operative that has mostly grown to hate the party more as the years go by, luckily my sentiment is hardly unique (way more common than back in 2016). What do you exactly do to help combat this situation? I rather converse with people that are engaged and not just consumers of advocacy. [1] https://theintercept.com/2026/07/13/gillibrand-crypto-trump-profit-clarity-act/ https://theintercept.com/2026/07/13/gillibrand-crypto-trump-...