2 ms·

> The difference now is the openness and also the scale. Yes, we just need to go back to the good ol' days of corruption with decorum

• ninkendo 21d ago
  No but we do need to go back to the good old days of having like 1/100th the scale of corruption we have now.
  • swed420 21d ago
    Out of curiosity, how far back is this?
    • ninkendo 21d ago
      Not really interested in getting into a debate here, I’m just pointing out that GGP said “openness and also the scale”, to which you ignored the “scale” part and pretended it’s only about being corrupt in the open versus in private. I can point this out without making a comment at all (although I have my opinions) on whether I agree if the scale has changed. (To be clear, I absolutely believe the scale has increased tremendously, but arguing about this is gonna be fruitless because it’s all subjective, there’s no hard numbers for any of it, and anything I can point out, you can just say “well that’s because they’re doing it in the open now, they were always doing it”, which is just as unfalsifiable. There’s basically no good outcome to debating this.)
      • swed420 21d ago
        > arguing about this is gonna be fruitless because it’s all subjective, there’s no hard numbers for any of it I was just genuinely curious what somebody with your set of opinions has in mind for a time frame, because "1/100th the corruption" is too vague for me to quantify in my head. As for arguing, I generally don't expect to change opinions with comments, especially those of whom I'm engaging with directly, so no worries there.
        • ninkendo 21d ago
          1/100th is hyperbole. But it has gone up. My opinion on the timeframe is the obvious one: Since Trump. Entirely. I generally think there’s actually not that much corruption in politics in the US. Mostly just insider trading, if you count by dollar amount. But I think generally there have been studies on the net worth of people before they are elected to public office versus after, and it’s within a few percentage points of the general population. There’s also the issue of lobbying firms hiring ex politicians but to be honest there’s something to be said for an ex-politician as a lobbyist: they have expertise and connections, they’re valuable to lobbying firms even if there’s no favors involved. What we have now is: - The president openly hocking a cryptocurrency and making billions off of it - Taking money for early access to his posts on truth social, which is essentially how he communicates to the public. “Give me money and I’ll tell you first” - Giving pardons to his supporters in a brazen and obvious way - Taking donations from private donors to fund his pet projects like the White House ballroom I could go on but like I said, I’m not really interested in the actual debate here because nobody’s gonna change their minds if they haven’t already.
    • zeven7 21d ago
      One administration
      • swed420 19d ago
        But the previous administration denying a fair primary process gave us the present one due to forcing an unpopular candidate. They collude with each other so much that they're effectively one party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniparty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniparty
    • AuthAuth 19d ago
      2 years
• budman1 21d ago
  as they say, the donald is 'stealing with both hands' and 'not leaving anything for others to eat'. in the past politicians would steal a little, and there was enough to go around. a couple of hundred grand on a land deal was OK. but $250B in crypto is just too much.
  • vzmax 21d ago
    Where do you get the $250B crypto number. He is corruptly profiting of his position, plain as day, but $250B in crypto? Really? What's the point in ridiculous exaggerations like this when the truth is bad enough?
• kryogen1c 21d ago
  I assume youre being sarcastic, but ive heard serious thinkers, like sam Harris, sincerely make this argument. America is truly lost when people wish their politicians were lying to them more.