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.

▲

vannevar 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> For example, the recent lukewarm ban on insider trading was opposed by Democrats on the grounds that it was too weak Yeah you're brainwashed

▲

rootusrootus 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

hakunin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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?

▲

estearum 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

All of that is several orders of magnitude less bad than a normal Tuesday in the Trump administration.

For evidence, refer to TFA.

▲

shimman 5 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

vannevar 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>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 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> 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.

▲

AdieuToLogic 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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.

▲

estearum 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

grvdrm 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 4 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	bandofthehawk an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		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.
	▲	mypalmike 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		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.