3 ms·

>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

>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 29d 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 29d 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...
- patagurbon 29d ago
  > two years under Biden with Democrat control of the House and Senate Nobody has controlled the Senate since ‘09. The veneer of bipartisanship created by the filibuster meant that Congress has done nothing since ‘09 (outside of a few stimulus bills and the Green New Deal which was probably a good bill in the long run hampered by bureaucracy). It turns out that’s great for the party that wants to do nothing, and really bad for the party that wants to do something. You could say that Dems should’ve killed the filibuster. But there was no appetite for it until Trump 2 because things weren’t going great but they weren’t going belly up
- vannevar 28d ago
  >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. Are you literally a corporation? If not, you should perhaps read the decision.
  - koolba 28d ago
    A corporation is just one or more people pooling their resources for legal and accounting purposes. Theres nothing inherently virtuous or evil about the concept. Going back to my original example, why is it okay for a media company to use their platform and resources to promote whatever speech they want promoted, but I can’t use money I made selling hot dogs to do the same? The only way to make the playing field fair is to allow everybody to take part. Otherwise you have a handful of media companies with outsized control of indirect messaging.
    - vannevar 27d ago
      >A corporation is just one or more people pooling their resources for legal and accounting purposes. It is not. That's one aspect, but another major aspect is that those individuals pooling their resources are not liable for the corporation's actions. This immunity from liability for their collective responsibility has a price, and part of that price is that the corporation should not be used in an attempt to manipulate elected officials. Corporations are not people for the same reason that you are not a blood cell. The whole is not only greater than the sum of the parts, it is materially different. >The only way to make the playing field fair is to allow everybody to take part. This is one solution, I'm not sure it is truly the only solution. Why do we treat media companies differently? Maybe we shouldn't. Newspapers traditionally had political coverage, and had no restrictions on political commentary. As a result, their owners wielded enormous political power. Then radio and TV arrived on the scene, and had to abide by the "equal time" rule due to their government-granted broadcast licenses. The internet upended all that. We should look for a good answer, not just an expedient one.

koolba 29d 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 29d 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...
patagurbon 29d ago
> two years under Biden with Democrat control of the House and Senate Nobody has controlled the Senate since ‘09. The veneer of bipartisanship created by the filibuster meant that Congress has done nothing since ‘09 (outside of a few stimulus bills and the Green New Deal which was probably a good bill in the long run hampered by bureaucracy). It turns out that’s great for the party that wants to do nothing, and really bad for the party that wants to do something. You could say that Dems should’ve killed the filibuster. But there was no appetite for it until Trump 2 because things weren’t going great but they weren’t going belly up
vannevar 28d ago
>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. Are you literally a corporation? If not, you should perhaps read the decision.
- koolba 28d ago
  A corporation is just one or more people pooling their resources for legal and accounting purposes. Theres nothing inherently virtuous or evil about the concept. Going back to my original example, why is it okay for a media company to use their platform and resources to promote whatever speech they want promoted, but I can’t use money I made selling hot dogs to do the same? The only way to make the playing field fair is to allow everybody to take part. Otherwise you have a handful of media companies with outsized control of indirect messaging.
  - vannevar 27d ago
    >A corporation is just one or more people pooling their resources for legal and accounting purposes. It is not. That's one aspect, but another major aspect is that those individuals pooling their resources are not liable for the corporation's actions. This immunity from liability for their collective responsibility has a price, and part of that price is that the corporation should not be used in an attempt to manipulate elected officials. Corporations are not people for the same reason that you are not a blood cell. The whole is not only greater than the sum of the parts, it is materially different. >The only way to make the playing field fair is to allow everybody to take part. This is one solution, I'm not sure it is truly the only solution. Why do we treat media companies differently? Maybe we shouldn't. Newspapers traditionally had political coverage, and had no restrictions on political commentary. As a result, their owners wielded enormous political power. Then radio and TV arrived on the scene, and had to abide by the "equal time" rule due to their government-granted broadcast licenses. The internet upended all that. We should look for a good answer, not just an expedient one.