I know I'm probably beating a dead horse with an anti-Trump post here, but seeing all of his corruption lumped together in one story is quite impressive.
I know I'm probably beating a dead horse with an anti-Trump post here, but seeing all of his corruption lumped together in one story is quite impressive.
The Trump Organization launched Trump Mobile, a branded phone that costs $499 and an additional $47.45/month for the “47” plan. The Trump organization does not manufacture the phone or provide cell service (the phone itself has yet to be released, and the network will be operated by Liberty Mobile Wireless). Instead, Trump licenses his name to the deal and then promotes it using the presidential brand while he is in office — all at a cool profit.
Wherever you look, there’s another potential profit. Last spring, the Trump family opened an exclusive club in Washington called “Executive Branch” that charges $500,000 per membership. The parent company of Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social, even launched as a publicly traded organization with his initials, DJT, as its ticker; Trump himself holds a huge stake in the company and the stock’s value has fluctuated based solely on Trump’s political fortunes. Shoot, the president’s son, Eric Trump, went on Fox News and graciously received congratulations about his own company receiving a $24 million Pentagon contract.
Just yesterday, while I was finishing up this story, The Financial Times reported that the Trump sons had taken a stake in the Kazakh mining company that just won a $1.6 billion contract from the Trump administration. Then, hours later, a Bloomberg story landed in my inbox about the U.S. Air Force agreeing to buy an undisclosed number of interceptor drones from a company backed by President Trump’s sons. During a talk I did with college students at St. Olaf College in Minnesota this morning, one of the students asked me about the president’s son Donald Trump Jr. investing in and advising the gambling and prediction market companies Kalshi and Polymarket. I didn’t even know about it. I’d just spent the past week writing and researching claims of corruption against the Trump family, and I’m still discovering glaring new examples every day.
Apparently Trump discovered a glitch where if you commit enough crimes, people only see the most recent one so you mask that by doing more crimes every day. The last 10 years has been a bizarre...
Apparently Trump discovered a glitch where if you commit enough crimes, people only see the most recent one so you mask that by doing more crimes every day.
Not only that, but no matter how blatant the crimes you commit, no one will ever hold you accountable. I feel like I've gone insane. The most openly corrupt administration in this country's...
Not only that, but no matter how blatant the crimes you commit, no one will ever hold you accountable.
I feel like I've gone insane. The most openly corrupt administration in this country's history and there's apparently nothing to be done about it.
Yes it’s hard to wrap one’s head around what has happened. The president is an evil criminal. So that’s one thing to deal with. The president is obviously unfit and corrupt but won two elections....
Exemplary
Yes it’s hard to wrap one’s head around what has happened.
The president is an evil criminal. So that’s one thing to deal with.
The president is obviously unfit and corrupt but won two elections. He engaged in open election interference before both elections
Between the elections there was ample proof he should be tried and convicted and jailed and it just didn’t happen
There’s proof that foreign powers interfered to get him elected and nothing was done
A second branch of government (Congress) is constructed unfairly to allow minority rule, and actively supports the corruption
A third branch (the courts) was appointed in unfair and corrupt ways, with a majority made possible through the openly corrupt president and congress, openly takes bribes and invents ways to avoid existing law and precedent
The president makes unconstitutional proclamations that become reality. Sometimes courts stop these things months later after much damage has been done
One of the most popular sources of news is essentially state propaganda. It constantly lies about reality, was sued about this and lost but continues to lie and have viewers
Most of the rest of the press acts as if things are mostly normal and either ignores the craziness and corruption or makes excuses for it
About 1/3 of our families and neighbors voted for this and think it’s fine
I’m sure I missed a lot of things but I also feel like I’m going crazy. It’s odd to have sat through government classes about checks and balances to find out that was all bullshit. And worse to find out that 1/3 of the country is on some level evil or too stupid to detect obvious evil, and 1/3 completely oblivious to the world.
I would add one more to your list of what has happened, only because to me it explains a lot of how the rest of the list and the thousands not on the list happened: a sustained attack on education...
I would add one more to your list of what has happened, only because to me it explains a lot of how the rest of the list and the thousands not on the list happened: a sustained attack on education and media.
This is why I roll my eyes every time I hear a Democrat politician say something like "I want a strong Republican party" or make a distinction between MAGA and Republicans. None of this would be...
A second branch of government (Congress) is constructed unfairly to allow minority rule, and actively supports the corruption
This is why I roll my eyes every time I hear a Democrat politician say something like "I want a strong Republican party" or make a distinction between MAGA and Republicans. None of this would be possible if just 10-20% of congressional Republicans took a principled stance. Maybe a lot of them feel some type of way behind closed doors, but that doesn't mean anything.
It's pretty clear in your comment that this is something that didn't happen overnight, but it feels like the true extent of the damage only became noticable under Trump. I'm currently listening to this podcast called The Masterplan, which is about the history of the unitary executive theory. It's very overproduced, but it makes a compelling case about this imbalance of power being a long-term plan that started in the wake of Watergate.
I can't really blame them. In some respects, they are doing exactly what a democracy should do: respond to their constituents. Republicans are so tied to Trump because it's well proven that Trump...
None of this would be possible if just 10-20% of congressional Republicans took a principled stance.
I can't really blame them. In some respects, they are doing exactly what a democracy should do: respond to their constituents.
Republicans are so tied to Trump because it's well proven that Trump says mean things about you on twitter, you WILL lose the primary. It doesn't matter if you're political royalty like Liz Cheney. Trump OWNs the republican base. Republican congresspeople being beholden to Trump is fundamentally because they're beholden to their voters, who are beholden to Trump.
The reality is that a majority of a democracy wants a dictatorship, then you'll have a dictatorship. That's democracy functioning correctly. It just shouldn't get to a point where a majority want a dictatorship.
FWIW, this one mostly predates most/all of the other bullets by 1-2 decades (Fox is almost 30 years old now), and I believe it is one of the primary causes of most/all of the others. Also -- fun...
One of the most popular sources of news is essentially state propaganda. It constantly lies about reality, was sued about this and lost but continues to lie and have viewers
FWIW, this one mostly predates most/all of the other bullets by 1-2 decades (Fox is almost 30 years old now), and I believe it is one of the primary causes of most/all of the others. Also -- fun fact -- it is not "one of the..." ... it is literally the most popular news network in the US, and it mostly has been number one for several years now.
The supreme courts were appointed legally, that was not unfair or corrupt. Even though I don't like Republican government, does not mean the process was inherently corrupt. This is almost like...
A third branch (the courts) was appointed in unfair and corrupt ways
The supreme courts were appointed legally, that was not unfair or corrupt. Even though I don't like Republican government, does not mean the process was inherently corrupt. This is almost like denying 2020 election. The process was done as it was supposed to be done.
There is corruption. The supreme courts are taking bribes after appointment because they realize they are unaccountable. If they were term-limited, they would be less evil. Or if Congress were multi-party, they could be impeached. Right now impeachment is unrealistic because election system only makes 2 parties possible. The parties will always be primarily loyal to the parties, not to their branches of government. If there were 3 parties then Congress would be far more likely to act correctly and stop the supreme courts from being evil.
I would argue denying Obama his Supreme Court pick using the excuse they did and then pushing through Trump's during an election is extremely unfair and corrupt.
I would argue denying Obama his Supreme Court pick using the excuse they did and then pushing through Trump's during an election is extremely unfair and corrupt.
Maybe it's unfair, but it's not corrupt at all. It's totally permitted in the system, it's not illegal, it's not an oversight. It is the Senate's right to approve candidates. We shouldn't call...
Maybe it's unfair, but it's not corrupt at all. It's totally permitted in the system, it's not illegal, it's not an oversight. It is the Senate's right to approve candidates. We shouldn't call things corrupt just because we don't like them. That really is just like calling the 2020 election corrupt. No it was not corrupt. To many people, maybe it was considered unfair, for whatever reason. Not the same thing at all, not the same.
I think my point still stands, which is that we could easily remove actually corrupt supreme court judges if Congress were not just 2 parties. The reason we are mad about SC is because Congress is not impeaching bad judges. Not because bad judges were appointed in the first place.
If the SC makes truly terrible decisions, Congress and the states can overrule them (amendment). They have that right. The reason they don't is there are just 2 parties. The system works alright except that it wrongly assumed people would be loyal to their branch of government, not the political parties. But that could be fixed if people actually tried. If there were ranked choice vote we would have 3+ parties. Then it would be hard to be so loyal to just 1.
It's not "if people just tried" it's "if we changed the system significantly." We should change the system, but currently a third party does not have a chance and will either remain very small or...
It's not "if people just tried" it's "if we changed the system significantly." We should change the system, but currently a third party does not have a chance and will either remain very small or as has happened in the past, replace one of the existing two. And then the cycle repeats. So it's a big thing and requires more than people just "trying."
Everyone voting third party wouldn't solve our system, but electing people who wish to change the system will. However, in any given election, I will, for example, vote based on many things other than "will change this specific system". Because they also need enough power to do so, and I need to not be the target of terrorism investigations by the federal government for opposing fascism and supporting trans people.
Changing the system at the local level is where there is a lot more leverage; volunteering with orgs that lobby, educate and propose referenda and legislation; and canvassing and volunteering for candidates who back that change.
Can I genuinely ask what you're doing to try to create this change? Have there been things that have been particularly effective? I am open to attempting it in my local village but I'd need a roadmap for changing the (maybe county?) election law.
I am not concened with vote for 3rd party right now. Just creating the conditions where 3rd party is viable without strategically voting. I volunteer with local group to create rank choice voting...
I am not concened with vote for 3rd party right now. Just creating the conditions where 3rd party is viable without strategically voting.
I volunteer with local group to create rank choice voting for elections in the county. We have not had success yet. Need more helpers. People are too distracted by Trump. The big problem is that Democrat politicians are scared of ranked choice because it enables 3rd party (they hate 3rd party). However, great success of Mamdani in NYC is maybe changing their opinions. NYC ranked choice created very good election in NYC. Very pleasant election with collaboration and friendship and very good candidate has won.
Success on the horizon is with a coalition of many organizations who are seeking to change the party from within. Democratic Party has many local seats that progressives do not know about or bother to run for (precinct) - exact structure is different in every county. Once elected as precinct you can elect other party leaders, who support ranked choice. Therefore it is possible to change county law. Coalition is very large: the activists for education, roads, houses, immigrant, nature, churches, mosque, local businesses.
For the small village, I think it is about relationships with influential people, and educating all neighbors about the benefits. Not to make it seem partisan, just to emphasize that it gives freedom and choice and good democracy.
Unfortunately I don't have any good relationships with influential people in this town, putting any sort of sign in my yard would much more likely result in harassment than it would change. But...
Unfortunately I don't have any good relationships with influential people in this town, putting any sort of sign in my yard would much more likely result in harassment than it would change. But maybe in a few years.
Dems and DSA have good representation in our county and the larger communities here and are more likely to make that change at that level. Locally our Dems don't hate the idea they just won't support a third party (understandably IMO) without those bigger changes first. Unfortunately I'm in one of those gerrymandered red districts in a blue state so while I may be able to canvas again this year, and we even have someone running against our House rep for once ( I think) I'm volunteering my time in some more "survival" sorts of spaces. I may reach out to some county level folks though to see what possibilities exist. (But it wouldn't surprise me if they fear losing a hard won majority too.)
Thanks, appreciate the thoughts. I do think it's far more than "people just trying" though. Like you described it's a lot of work to educate and build a desire for change - and recognizing that it will help people "we" don't like too.
Yes it is great challenge. However it must start with trying. Most of the progressive are not trying, they are just complain about Trump on TikTok. The transformation requires more to try. Very...
Yes it is great challenge. However it must start with trying. Most of the progressive are not trying, they are just complain about Trump on TikTok. The transformation requires more to try. Very first step. Then we will become like NYC with Mamdani.
I don't agree with that take. First, you can complain online and also do things. Second, the small number of influencers compared to progressives in general means that anything people do that...
I don't agree with that take. First, you can complain online and also do things. Second, the small number of influencers compared to progressives in general means that anything people do that everyone sees on Tiktok is a pretty small subset.
iME the biggest names I watch on Tiktok are actually active in multiple ways. But even if they're not, I can just look at the protests across the country, the political gains over the past year to point out that people are doing things.
I don't think we "become like Mamdani" or NYC though. My village or the nearby city won't function and arguably shouldn't like NYC, but they can be better
You're right, the word corrupt is not correct. Deeply hypocritical is better. While the Senate is who approves candidates, it should be able to say yes or no to a candidate based on their...
You're right, the word corrupt is not correct. Deeply hypocritical is better. While the Senate is who approves candidates, it should be able to say yes or no to a candidate based on their testimony, not refuse to even allow a candidate to be brought forth, which the President has ever right to do. (I could be wrong here, I'm not an American)
Yes it was unfair and corrupt when Mitch McConnell delayed Obama’s appointment from being accepted for a made up reason. Yes it’s unfair and corrupt that all of the conservative justices lied...
Yes it was unfair and corrupt when Mitch McConnell delayed Obama’s appointment from being accepted for a made up reason.
Yes it’s unfair and corrupt that all of the conservative justices lied under oath about Roe v Wade.
Things can be “legal” while also unfair and corrupt
Meanwhile, your average civil servant won’t accept coffee or donuts at a contractor’s office because of anti corruption rules. Same goes for enlisted troops and at low ranking officers, not sure...
Meanwhile, your average civil servant won’t accept coffee or donuts at a contractor’s office because of anti corruption rules. Same goes for enlisted troops and at low ranking officers, not sure about the folks in charge.
Since this was posted there is further development in another massive Trump corruption scandal / firehose of bullshit. Trump is trying to settle for $1.7 billion in the case where he was suing for...
Since this was posted there is further development in another massive Trump corruption scandal / firehose of bullshit.
Trump is trying to settle for $1.7 billion in the case where he was suing for $10 billion.
Well, I’d better start getting my brain around it quick. Multiple outlets reported this week that Trump and the IRS are close to finalizing a settlement in the case. And according to ABC News, that settlement is expected to hinge upon the funding of a truly insane new pot of government money: “a $1.7 billion fund to compensate allies who claim they were wrongfully targeted by the Biden administration.”
Isn't this great? On top of Trump granting pardons to the January 6th insurrectionists, if this goes through he'll be able to send them checks to reward them for their loyalty and breaking the law...
Isn't this great? On top of Trump granting pardons to the January 6th insurrectionists, if this goes through he'll be able to send them checks to reward them for their loyalty and breaking the law at his behest. This is third-world banana republic stuff.
It's not just Trump, there's a whole coterie of corrupt sycophants, enablers, and appointees. Take, for instance, our Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy (another former "reality" TV star) and...
It's not just Trump, there's a whole coterie of corrupt sycophants, enablers, and appointees. Take, for instance, our Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy (another former "reality" TV star) and his family tour of America. Or Scott Bessent, our erstwhile Treasury Secretary, who gutted the Corporate Transparency Act and apparently had an interest in soybean farming while negotiating soybean trade deals.
The list goes on and on - kakistocracy is not too strong a word.
I have a unique dislike for Sean Duffy. I worked at DOT during the transition and got to hear so many Republican appointees crowing about how they were "gonna do things the right way" and the...
I have a unique dislike for Sean Duffy. I worked at DOT during the transition and got to hear so many Republican appointees crowing about how they were "gonna do things the right way" and the previous appointees in their position were doing things for personal attention -- and then they go and do shit like this. Duffy had a town hall shortly after his appointment where he talked about how there would be RIFs but it was going to be sensible and literally the next day thousands of people were fired -- on a holiday weekend -- without any kind of communication. Several of my coworkers were let go and my manager wasn't even told until Tuesday when we were back from the holiday. It was a bunch of bullshit.
I'm sorry - I'm acquainted with way too many highly competent public health, science, parks, and other career public service people who've been devastated by this administration. Frankly, I've...
I'm sorry - I'm acquainted with way too many highly competent public health, science, parks, and other career public service people who've been devastated by this administration.
Frankly, I've caught myself fantasizing about public floggings for the corrupt. And realizing at the same time, in good Buddhist fashion, that focusing on them is corrupting me.
When "hang them in the fucking streets" came out of my mouth, to myself, after one of Goode or Pretti's killings and all that came with, I knew I was hitting a line too. That's not what's just or...
When "hang them in the fucking streets" came out of my mouth, to myself, after one of Goode or Pretti's killings and all that came with, I knew I was hitting a line too.
That's not what's just or what's best, it's just an actual (and dramatic and final) consequence instead of people getting away with it again and again. And that's why the impulse was there.
I can't help but feel it is somewhat just, though...how many eyes can one lose before eye for an eyes is a valid way forward. I find myself really enjoying street-level superhero shows/movies far...
I can't help but feel it is somewhat just, though...how many eyes can one lose before eye for an eyes is a valid way forward.
I find myself really enjoying street-level superhero shows/movies far more than the shinier ones because it's like an outlet for me where people finally get their comeuppance for their actions, unlike the real world where there's rarely any repercussions.
Vigilantism seems good and just when it's superheroes...and horrific when it's lynching. If I can't have a definition that separates the two without it being "in the eye of the beholder" then I...
Vigilantism seems good and just when it's superheroes...and horrific when it's lynching.
If I can't have a definition that separates the two without it being "in the eye of the beholder" then I can't support either.
Many years from now, I do hope historians capture well today's events and hopefully learn something from all this madness. I wasn't around during the downfall of Rome, and I wouldn't want to...
Many years from now, I do hope historians capture well today's events and hopefully learn something from all this madness. I wasn't around during the downfall of Rome, and I wouldn't want to either but parallels are eerie.
I read on Wikipedia "Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. In 2022, the historians said that Trump was 3rd-worst president ever (43rd out of 45th). Only Andrew Johnson (racist)...
I read on Wikipedia "Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. In 2022, the historians said that Trump was 3rd-worst president ever (43rd out of 45th). Only Andrew Johnson (racist) and James Buchanan (caused civil war) were worse. However, that was only after 1 term, before the worst actions he has done.
Now that Trump has had 2 terms, the next time the historians create the ranking, I am sure he will be very last. Because he is idiot, evil and bad strategic leader for USA. He has certainly caused USA to decline.
FWIW, the (relatively) objective historical rankings really only start to be valid, a solid 10-20 years after a President finishes serving ... it just takes awhile for the repercussions to be...
FWIW, the (relatively) objective historical rankings really only start to be valid, a solid 10-20 years after a President finishes serving ... it just takes awhile for the repercussions to be parsed and partisan/personal opinions to get weeded out. I would say Bush Jr is the most recent President for which the rankings are mostly settled. I know it feels like centuries, but Obama was still President less than a decade ago.
Additionally, I think it is highly questionable at this point, whether an "objective historian" academic sphere will even exist in the US, 10-20 years from now. I think, to get objectivity on US Presidents, we'll be dependent upon the views of academics outside of the US, much like getting an objective history of, eg, Russia today requires consulting historians who do not live there.
For the most recent Administrations, yes -ish. Trump 1.0, Obama, Bush Jr ... in time, I think all 3 will trend lower in the overall rankings, especially Obama, who I feel was barely...
For the most recent Administrations, yes -ish. Trump 1.0, Obama, Bush Jr ... in time, I think all 3 will trend lower in the overall rankings, especially Obama, who I feel was barely middle-of-the-road, "Top 20"-ish. Biden still feels too fresh for me to be objective, but his rankings could go either way. Trump 2.0 is obviously too fresh for objectivity, but I'm with you -- I would be shocked if he isn't ultimately regarded as the worst President, ever.
I would also note that, I think, Trump's first and second terms will really need to be evaluated separately.
It’s true that Obama was disappointing but I see this through the lens that the Republican Party and conservative media made a very focused and concerted effort to undermine him. I don’t think...
It’s true that Obama was disappointing but I see this through the lens that the Republican Party and conservative media made a very focused and concerted effort to undermine him. I don’t think it’s generally true that the Democratic Party seeks to undermine Republican presidents but the reverse is obviously true and they admit it plainly.
So when we judge presidents we need to judge the rest of the government around them. One other excuse for Obama was that he had to be essentially “perfect” from a scandal perspective because of his race.
The main problem with Trump is the corruption of the rest of the government that neglects to remove and convict him.
Totally agree. The Republican Party practiced this on Clinton, perfected it on Obama. And I think Obama deserves extra points for handling it as well as he did. However, I do also believe his...
It’s true that Obama was disappointing but I see this through the lens that the Republican Party and conservative media made a very focused and concerted effort to undermine him.
Totally agree. The Republican Party practiced this on Clinton, perfected it on Obama. And I think Obama deserves extra points for handling it as well as he did.
However, I do also believe his inexperience actually was a significant issue, at least during his first term. Additionally, I've long argued that he has been the beneficiary of the greatest "halo effect" ever -- having been bookended by two of the worst Presidents ever, his Administration seemed a lot better than it was, by comparison.
Additionally, I have personal gripes on a lot of his decisions -- things like his liberal use of NSLs, his handling of Snowden, happily accepting a 95% collateral casualty ratio when bombing terrorists with drones in the Middle East, never closing down Guantanamo, etc, etc. I know a lot of these things are debatable as to "good" or "bad", as well as degree ... but a multitude of these kinds of choices left me very displeased with his Administration.
Agree about Obama’s shortcomings. One thing I didn’t think about before Trump is the incredible value of soft power and statesmanship, and basic competence. Some of it isn’t directly measurable,...
Agree about Obama’s shortcomings.
One thing I didn’t think about before Trump is the incredible value of soft power and statesmanship, and basic competence. Some of it isn’t directly measurable, but Obama may have provided billions of dollars worth of goodwill and standing of the United States in the world.
Trump has had the opposite effect, causing possibly trillions in lost opportunity and other benefits from allies, along will millions of lost lives and illness through incompetence and intentional cruelty. More obviously, the undermining of the rule of law, defunding the IRS, loss of institutional knowledge, the budget defect - easily TRILLIONS lost by this fucking asshole and the evil buffoons that support him.
These last few years have really opened my eyes to the fact that people see what they want to see. And outside of federal politics I see this everywhere. Reality is way too subjective.
These last few years have really opened my eyes to the fact that people see what they want to see. And outside of federal politics I see this everywhere. Reality is way too subjective.
I would argue that Trump's presidency should pull the blinders off of the remaining white Americans that believe we're "past" racism. It won't, but I sure wish it would.
I would argue that Trump's presidency should pull the blinders off of the remaining white Americans that believe we're "past" racism.
I know I'm probably beating a dead horse with an anti-Trump post here, but seeing all of his corruption lumped together in one story is quite impressive.
Apparently Trump discovered a glitch where if you commit enough crimes, people only see the most recent one so you mask that by doing more crimes every day.
The last 10 years has been a bizarre experience.
Not only that, but no matter how blatant the crimes you commit, no one will ever hold you accountable.
I feel like I've gone insane. The most openly corrupt administration in this country's history and there's apparently nothing to be done about it.
Yes it’s hard to wrap one’s head around what has happened.
I’m sure I missed a lot of things but I also feel like I’m going crazy. It’s odd to have sat through government classes about checks and balances to find out that was all bullshit. And worse to find out that 1/3 of the country is on some level evil or too stupid to detect obvious evil, and 1/3 completely oblivious to the world.
I would add one more to your list of what has happened, only because to me it explains a lot of how the rest of the list and the thousands not on the list happened: a sustained attack on education and media.
This is why I roll my eyes every time I hear a Democrat politician say something like "I want a strong Republican party" or make a distinction between MAGA and Republicans. None of this would be possible if just 10-20% of congressional Republicans took a principled stance. Maybe a lot of them feel some type of way behind closed doors, but that doesn't mean anything.
It's pretty clear in your comment that this is something that didn't happen overnight, but it feels like the true extent of the damage only became noticable under Trump. I'm currently listening to this podcast called The Masterplan, which is about the history of the unitary executive theory. It's very overproduced, but it makes a compelling case about this imbalance of power being a long-term plan that started in the wake of Watergate.
I can't really blame them. In some respects, they are doing exactly what a democracy should do: respond to their constituents.
Republicans are so tied to Trump because it's well proven that Trump says mean things about you on twitter, you WILL lose the primary. It doesn't matter if you're political royalty like Liz Cheney. Trump OWNs the republican base. Republican congresspeople being beholden to Trump is fundamentally because they're beholden to their voters, who are beholden to Trump.
The reality is that a majority of a democracy wants a dictatorship, then you'll have a dictatorship. That's democracy functioning correctly. It just shouldn't get to a point where a majority want a dictatorship.
It would be harder for Congress to be controlled by 1 evil party if all the states elected representatives using ranked choice.
FWIW, this one mostly predates most/all of the other bullets by 1-2 decades (Fox is almost 30 years old now), and I believe it is one of the primary causes of most/all of the others. Also -- fun fact -- it is not "one of the..." ... it is literally the most popular news network in the US, and it mostly has been number one for several years now.
The supreme courts were appointed legally, that was not unfair or corrupt. Even though I don't like Republican government, does not mean the process was inherently corrupt. This is almost like denying 2020 election. The process was done as it was supposed to be done.
There is corruption. The supreme courts are taking bribes after appointment because they realize they are unaccountable. If they were term-limited, they would be less evil. Or if Congress were multi-party, they could be impeached. Right now impeachment is unrealistic because election system only makes 2 parties possible. The parties will always be primarily loyal to the parties, not to their branches of government. If there were 3 parties then Congress would be far more likely to act correctly and stop the supreme courts from being evil.
I would argue denying Obama his Supreme Court pick using the excuse they did and then pushing through Trump's during an election is extremely unfair and corrupt.
Maybe it's unfair, but it's not corrupt at all. It's totally permitted in the system, it's not illegal, it's not an oversight. It is the Senate's right to approve candidates. We shouldn't call things corrupt just because we don't like them. That really is just like calling the 2020 election corrupt. No it was not corrupt. To many people, maybe it was considered unfair, for whatever reason. Not the same thing at all, not the same.
I think my point still stands, which is that we could easily remove actually corrupt supreme court judges if Congress were not just 2 parties. The reason we are mad about SC is because Congress is not impeaching bad judges. Not because bad judges were appointed in the first place.
If the SC makes truly terrible decisions, Congress and the states can overrule them (amendment). They have that right. The reason they don't is there are just 2 parties. The system works alright except that it wrongly assumed people would be loyal to their branch of government, not the political parties. But that could be fixed if people actually tried. If there were ranked choice vote we would have 3+ parties. Then it would be hard to be so loyal to just 1.
It's not "if people just tried" it's "if we changed the system significantly." We should change the system, but currently a third party does not have a chance and will either remain very small or as has happened in the past, replace one of the existing two. And then the cycle repeats. So it's a big thing and requires more than people just "trying."
Everyone voting third party wouldn't solve our system, but electing people who wish to change the system will. However, in any given election, I will, for example, vote based on many things other than "will change this specific system". Because they also need enough power to do so, and I need to not be the target of terrorism investigations by the federal government for opposing fascism and supporting trans people.
Changing the system at the local level is where there is a lot more leverage; volunteering with orgs that lobby, educate and propose referenda and legislation; and canvassing and volunteering for candidates who back that change.
Can I genuinely ask what you're doing to try to create this change? Have there been things that have been particularly effective? I am open to attempting it in my local village but I'd need a roadmap for changing the (maybe county?) election law.
I am not concened with vote for 3rd party right now. Just creating the conditions where 3rd party is viable without strategically voting.
I volunteer with local group to create rank choice voting for elections in the county. We have not had success yet. Need more helpers. People are too distracted by Trump. The big problem is that Democrat politicians are scared of ranked choice because it enables 3rd party (they hate 3rd party). However, great success of Mamdani in NYC is maybe changing their opinions. NYC ranked choice created very good election in NYC. Very pleasant election with collaboration and friendship and very good candidate has won.
Success on the horizon is with a coalition of many organizations who are seeking to change the party from within. Democratic Party has many local seats that progressives do not know about or bother to run for (precinct) - exact structure is different in every county. Once elected as precinct you can elect other party leaders, who support ranked choice. Therefore it is possible to change county law. Coalition is very large: the activists for education, roads, houses, immigrant, nature, churches, mosque, local businesses.
For the small village, I think it is about relationships with influential people, and educating all neighbors about the benefits. Not to make it seem partisan, just to emphasize that it gives freedom and choice and good democracy.
Unfortunately I don't have any good relationships with influential people in this town, putting any sort of sign in my yard would much more likely result in harassment than it would change. But maybe in a few years.
Dems and DSA have good representation in our county and the larger communities here and are more likely to make that change at that level. Locally our Dems don't hate the idea they just won't support a third party (understandably IMO) without those bigger changes first. Unfortunately I'm in one of those gerrymandered red districts in a blue state so while I may be able to canvas again this year, and we even have someone running against our House rep for once ( I think) I'm volunteering my time in some more "survival" sorts of spaces. I may reach out to some county level folks though to see what possibilities exist. (But it wouldn't surprise me if they fear losing a hard won majority too.)
Thanks, appreciate the thoughts. I do think it's far more than "people just trying" though. Like you described it's a lot of work to educate and build a desire for change - and recognizing that it will help people "we" don't like too.
Yes it is great challenge. However it must start with trying. Most of the progressive are not trying, they are just complain about Trump on TikTok. The transformation requires more to try. Very first step. Then we will become like NYC with Mamdani.
I don't agree with that take. First, you can complain online and also do things. Second, the small number of influencers compared to progressives in general means that anything people do that everyone sees on Tiktok is a pretty small subset.
iME the biggest names I watch on Tiktok are actually active in multiple ways. But even if they're not, I can just look at the protests across the country, the political gains over the past year to point out that people are doing things.
I don't think we "become like Mamdani" or NYC though. My village or the nearby city won't function and arguably shouldn't like NYC, but they can be better
A system can be corrupt. It isn't just people.
See: policing in the USA
You're right, the word corrupt is not correct. Deeply hypocritical is better. While the Senate is who approves candidates, it should be able to say yes or no to a candidate based on their testimony, not refuse to even allow a candidate to be brought forth, which the President has ever right to do. (I could be wrong here, I'm not an American)
Yes it was unfair and corrupt when Mitch McConnell delayed Obama’s appointment from being accepted for a made up reason.
Yes it’s unfair and corrupt that all of the conservative justices lied under oath about Roe v Wade.
Things can be “legal” while also unfair and corrupt
If you're a Republican. They would have had Biden rounded up by vigilantes if he'd done even 1% of what Trump does.
They tried to kidnap the governor of Michigan and coup that state for far less.
It's a Gish Gallop of crime.
Meanwhile, your average civil servant won’t accept coffee or donuts at a contractor’s office because of anti corruption rules. Same goes for enlisted troops and at low ranking officers, not sure about the folks in charge.
Since this was posted there is further development in another massive Trump corruption scandal / firehose of bullshit.
Trump is trying to settle for $1.7 billion in the case where he was suing for $10 billion.
You’re Getting Robbed. By Trump. In Broad Daylight.
Isn't this great? On top of Trump granting pardons to the January 6th insurrectionists, if this goes through he'll be able to send them checks to reward them for their loyalty and breaking the law at his behest. This is third-world banana republic stuff.
Chickens coming home to roost finally.
It's not just Trump, there's a whole coterie of corrupt sycophants, enablers, and appointees. Take, for instance, our Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy (another former "reality" TV star) and his family tour of America. Or Scott Bessent, our erstwhile Treasury Secretary, who gutted the Corporate Transparency Act and apparently had an interest in soybean farming while negotiating soybean trade deals.
The list goes on and on - kakistocracy is not too strong a word.
I have a unique dislike for Sean Duffy. I worked at DOT during the transition and got to hear so many Republican appointees crowing about how they were "gonna do things the right way" and the previous appointees in their position were doing things for personal attention -- and then they go and do shit like this. Duffy had a town hall shortly after his appointment where he talked about how there would be RIFs but it was going to be sensible and literally the next day thousands of people were fired -- on a holiday weekend -- without any kind of communication. Several of my coworkers were let go and my manager wasn't even told until Tuesday when we were back from the holiday. It was a bunch of bullshit.
I'm sorry - I'm acquainted with way too many highly competent public health, science, parks, and other career public service people who've been devastated by this administration.
Frankly, I've caught myself fantasizing about public floggings for the corrupt. And realizing at the same time, in good Buddhist fashion, that focusing on them is corrupting me.
When "hang them in the fucking streets" came out of my mouth, to myself, after one of Goode or Pretti's killings and all that came with, I knew I was hitting a line too.
That's not what's just or what's best, it's just an actual (and dramatic and final) consequence instead of people getting away with it again and again. And that's why the impulse was there.
I won't pretend I wasn't corrupted before though.
I can't help but feel it is somewhat just, though...how many eyes can one lose before eye for an eyes is a valid way forward.
I find myself really enjoying street-level superhero shows/movies far more than the shinier ones because it's like an outlet for me where people finally get their comeuppance for their actions, unlike the real world where there's rarely any repercussions.
Vigilantism seems good and just when it's superheroes...and horrific when it's lynching.
If I can't have a definition that separates the two without it being "in the eye of the beholder" then I can't support either.
Many years from now, I do hope historians capture well today's events and hopefully learn something from all this madness. I wasn't around during the downfall of Rome, and I wouldn't want to either but parallels are eerie.
I read on Wikipedia "Historical rankings of presidents of the United States. In 2022, the historians said that Trump was 3rd-worst president ever (43rd out of 45th). Only Andrew Johnson (racist) and James Buchanan (caused civil war) were worse. However, that was only after 1 term, before the worst actions he has done.
Now that Trump has had 2 terms, the next time the historians create the ranking, I am sure he will be very last. Because he is idiot, evil and bad strategic leader for USA. He has certainly caused USA to decline.
FWIW, the (relatively) objective historical rankings really only start to be valid, a solid 10-20 years after a President finishes serving ... it just takes awhile for the repercussions to be parsed and partisan/personal opinions to get weeded out. I would say Bush Jr is the most recent President for which the rankings are mostly settled. I know it feels like centuries, but Obama was still President less than a decade ago.
Additionally, I think it is highly questionable at this point, whether an "objective historian" academic sphere will even exist in the US, 10-20 years from now. I think, to get objectivity on US Presidents, we'll be dependent upon the views of academics outside of the US, much like getting an objective history of, eg, Russia today requires consulting historians who do not live there.
Do you believe the historians are wrong about the current rankings?
For the most recent Administrations, yes -ish. Trump 1.0, Obama, Bush Jr ... in time, I think all 3 will trend lower in the overall rankings, especially Obama, who I feel was barely middle-of-the-road, "Top 20"-ish. Biden still feels too fresh for me to be objective, but his rankings could go either way. Trump 2.0 is obviously too fresh for objectivity, but I'm with you -- I would be shocked if he isn't ultimately regarded as the worst President, ever.
I would also note that, I think, Trump's first and second terms will really need to be evaluated separately.
It’s true that Obama was disappointing but I see this through the lens that the Republican Party and conservative media made a very focused and concerted effort to undermine him. I don’t think it’s generally true that the Democratic Party seeks to undermine Republican presidents but the reverse is obviously true and they admit it plainly.
So when we judge presidents we need to judge the rest of the government around them. One other excuse for Obama was that he had to be essentially “perfect” from a scandal perspective because of his race.
The main problem with Trump is the corruption of the rest of the government that neglects to remove and convict him.
Totally agree. The Republican Party practiced this on Clinton, perfected it on Obama. And I think Obama deserves extra points for handling it as well as he did.
However, I do also believe his inexperience actually was a significant issue, at least during his first term. Additionally, I've long argued that he has been the beneficiary of the greatest "halo effect" ever -- having been bookended by two of the worst Presidents ever, his Administration seemed a lot better than it was, by comparison.
Additionally, I have personal gripes on a lot of his decisions -- things like his liberal use of NSLs, his handling of Snowden, happily accepting a 95% collateral casualty ratio when bombing terrorists with drones in the Middle East, never closing down Guantanamo, etc, etc. I know a lot of these things are debatable as to "good" or "bad", as well as degree ... but a multitude of these kinds of choices left me very displeased with his Administration.
Agree about Obama’s shortcomings.
One thing I didn’t think about before Trump is the incredible value of soft power and statesmanship, and basic competence. Some of it isn’t directly measurable, but Obama may have provided billions of dollars worth of goodwill and standing of the United States in the world.
Trump has had the opposite effect, causing possibly trillions in lost opportunity and other benefits from allies, along will millions of lost lives and illness through incompetence and intentional cruelty. More obviously, the undermining of the rule of law, defunding the IRS, loss of institutional knowledge, the budget defect - easily TRILLIONS lost by this fucking asshole and the evil buffoons that support him.
These last few years have really opened my eyes to the fact that people see what they want to see. And outside of federal politics I see this everywhere. Reality is way too subjective.
I would argue that Trump's presidency should pull the blinders off of the remaining white Americans that believe we're "past" racism.
It won't, but I sure wish it would.