|
| ▲ | bhouston an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| The issue is unlimited spending. Rich people can tilt the political system to benefit themselves by their ability to spend unlimited and then push for things that enrich themselves like lower taxes that doesn’t benefit society at large. The biggest example of this in the US is the health system that is more expensive and has worse outcomes than other countries. There is a huge and growing gap in the us between ultra wealthy and the rest of the population and it is a virtuous circle for the ultra wealthy with their ability to spend unlimited in politics. |
|
| ▲ | amarcheschi an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The more money you have, the more means you have to engage in political activity not like anybody else but with a weight which far exceeds one |
| |
| ▲ | terminalshort an hour ago | parent [-] | | So what? The constitution guarantees you equal rights under the law and an equal vote in each election. It does not guarantee you equal political influence. Same as you have the right to freedom of speech and of the press, but you are not guaranteed an audience. | | |
| ▲ | amarcheschi an hour ago | parent [-] | | So some people might feel slightly annoyed by this. I don't know if you don't find this absurd, but a bunch of pedophile protecting people have shaped the actual presidency and are continuing to do so. Feeling slightly annoyed is the least offensive way I could put it | | |
| ▲ | terminalshort an hour ago | parent [-] | | And you have every right to express that annoyance without fear of prosecution. I find the Epstein affair to be very underwhelming. Running a prostitution ring is criminal, and rich men (or poor men) fucking a 17 year old (or 18 year old) prostitute is gross, but not particularly surprising, and isn't even pedophilia. If Epstein had been in Nevada and not the US Virgin Islands and his youngest girls were a year older, it wouldn't even be illegal. | | |
| ▲ | amarcheschi an hour ago | parent [-] | | The files I'm referring to aren't talking about 17yo people, and you know this very well |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | toraway an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Who's stopping him? Are we all required to be cheering him on for it too? |
| |
| ▲ | terminalshort an hour ago | parent [-] | | No one is stopping him, but they would be if the people in this comment section had their way. You are absolutely not required to cheer him on, and in fact you have the right to oppose him. But that isn't happening here. Nobody in these comments is exercising their first amendment rights to argue against any of his political opinions. They are using their first amendment rights to argue that the government should use its monopoly to restrict Gary Tan's right to make his argument at all. | | |
| ▲ | toraway an hour ago | parent [-] | | I am not seeing that anywhere from the OP in the chain of comments you replied to. |
|
|
