|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship.
Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again.
1. There's a problem
2. Politicians won't fix it
3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will
4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works
5. Need to fix the system
6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them)
7. Repeat ad nauseam.
Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.”
https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicans
How far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions?
|
Northern Ireland27148 Posts
Delete - Unreasonable post
|
On July 07 2026 00:34 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? Have you tried making alliances with like-minded folk by calling everyone genocide enablers? I heard that works really well
I guess this applies to you too:
I don't know where the appropriate place to deal with your genocide issue is, but I'm not even clear whether your problem is that you don't agree with the majority of Biden voters that think Israel is engaged in genocide, the fact that Democrats/Republicans have aided and abetted that genocide (link moved/changed, same paper), while providing political cover at the UN enabling Israel to commit that genocide, or the conclusion that materially supporting the people doing that is enabling them.
Or maybe you agree/accept all that and just don't like it being brought to people's attention? Something else?
|
On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. Show nested quote +On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? I'm into educating the public and finding moderate ways around the hyper-politicization. I'm not into the violent, revolutionary methods that must be utilized to overthrow the "system." Even campaign finance reform must be integrated into (and subservient to) civic education: you stop people from getting their name out there by imposing spending limits, and you're just endorsing "incumbency" and "names I recognize" as the means of choosing representatives.
There's no easy fix. Frankly the small strides I think would eventually matter get met with thread-mainstream commentary of "Don't bother convincing people, it won't work" or "it's the other guy who must change, not us!"
|
Northern Ireland27148 Posts
On July 07 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 00:34 WombaT wrote:On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? Have you tried making alliances with like-minded folk by calling everyone genocide enablers? I heard that works really well I guess this applies to you too: I don't know where the appropriate place to deal with your genocide issue is, but I'm not even clear whether your problem is that you don't agree with the majority of Biden voters that think Israel is engaged in genocide, the fact that Democrats/Republicans have aided and abetted that genocide (link moved/changed, same paper), while providing political cover at the UN enabling Israel to commit that genocide, or the conclusion that materially supporting the people doing that is enabling them. Or maybe you agree/accept all that and just don't like it being brought to people's attention? Something else?
Not answering this. Think my previous comment was out of line and I retract. Equally I find you intolerable to converse with, so for the sake of the thread and civility I’d prefer not to
|
On July 07 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:34 WombaT wrote:On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? Have you tried making alliances with like-minded folk by calling everyone genocide enablers? I heard that works really well I guess this applies to you too: I don't know where the appropriate place to deal with your genocide issue is, but I'm not even clear whether your problem is that you don't agree with the majority of Biden voters that think Israel is engaged in genocide, the fact that Democrats/Republicans have aided and abetted that genocide (link moved/changed, same paper), while providing political cover at the UN enabling Israel to commit that genocide, or the conclusion that materially supporting the people doing that is enabling them. Or maybe you agree/accept all that and just don't like it being brought to people's attention? Something else? Not answering this. Think my previous comment was out of line and I retract. + Show Spoiler + Equally I find you intolerable to converse with, so for the sake of the thread and civility I’d prefer not to
Shocker! Just the most recent one, or...?
|
On July 07 2026 00:41 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? I'm into educating the public and finding moderate ways around the hyper-politicization. I'm not into the violent, revolutionary methods that must be utilized to overthrow the "system." Even campaign finance reform must be integrated into (and subservient to) civic education: you stop people from getting their name out there by imposing spending limits, and you're just endorsing "incumbency" and "names I recognize" as the means of choosing representatives. There's no easy fix. Frankly the small strides I think would eventually matter get met with thread-mainstream commentary of "Don't bother convincing people, it won't work" or "it's the other guy who must change, not us!"
What is a significant political stride forward you believe followed this "convincing people" method you're imagining rather than the methods like :
-Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation
-Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks
-Non-Reformist Reforms
-Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void
-Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this)
I have recommended?
|
This is not a Democrat/Republican issue, and I'm very sorry that this distracted from the language policing GH, but this is very clearly a Donald J Trump problem as it's completely unprecedented and insane.
This is not "Biden's son getting a board seat in a Ukrainian company that he's qualified for but most likely doesn't do shit for and only got it because his dad is VP/President".
This is Trump raking in billions from insider trading, more billions by running Crypto schemes, some of which are open bribery schemes where people paying into are getting pardons.
This is his son's affiliated companies getting goverment contracts for critical minerals or technologies such as drones, things that directly affect national security.
None of this is normal or OK, no matter how hard the pretend centrists try to make it normalized.
It never happened before nowhere close to this scale, it's not the same as Congress people making stock trades, not that is not a problem, that has bipartisan support to be stopped which is opposed by a bipartisan coalition of people making money from their positions, but compared to what Trump is doing it all looks like peanuts.
|
On July 07 2026 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 00:41 dyhb wrote:On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? I'm into educating the public and finding moderate ways around the hyper-politicization. I'm not into the violent, revolutionary methods that must be utilized to overthrow the "system." Even campaign finance reform must be integrated into (and subservient to) civic education: you stop people from getting their name out there by imposing spending limits, and you're just endorsing "incumbency" and "names I recognize" as the means of choosing representatives. There's no easy fix. Frankly the small strides I think would eventually matter get met with thread-mainstream commentary of "Don't bother convincing people, it won't work" or "it's the other guy who must change, not us!" What is a significant political stride forward you believe followed this "convincing people" method you're imagining rather than the methods like : -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) I have recommended? I’ve read enough criticism by other people of your methods, and how you respond to them, that I have nothing in particular to add.
My post should not be characterized as “significant political stride.”
|
On July 07 2026 01:09 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? This is not a Democrat/Republican issue, and I'm very sorry that this distracted from the language policing GH, but this is very clearly a Donald J Trump problem as it's completely unprecedented and insane. This is not "Biden's son getting a board seat in a Ukrainian company that he's qualified for but most likely doesn't do shit for and only got it because his dad is VP/President". This is Trump raking in billions from insider trading, more billions by running Crypto schemes, some of which are open bribery schemes where people paying into are getting pardons. This is his son's affiliated companies getting goverment contracts for critical minerals or technologies such as drones, things that directly affect national security. None of this is normal or OK, no matter how hard the pretend centrists try to make it normalized. It never happened before nowhere close to this scale, it's not the same as Congress people making stock trades, not that is not a problem, that has bipartisan support to be stopped which is opposed by a bipartisan coalition of people making money from their positions, but compared to what Trump is doing it all looks like peanuts.
How do you think we got here?
Trump only exists as a public figure in power because of decades of bipartisan corruption (I'm talking about his whole life, not just the presidency). One of Trump's best features is that he is stripping away the varnish on the system. I would rather a person be shining a light on this stuff in way that wasn't doing the most blatantly and obscenely massive corruption they can imagine, but that's what we got.
|
Northern Ireland27148 Posts
On July 07 2026 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 00:48 WombaT wrote:On July 07 2026 00:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:34 WombaT wrote:On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? Have you tried making alliances with like-minded folk by calling everyone genocide enablers? I heard that works really well I guess this applies to you too: I don't know where the appropriate place to deal with your genocide issue is, but I'm not even clear whether your problem is that you don't agree with the majority of Biden voters that think Israel is engaged in genocide, the fact that Democrats/Republicans have aided and abetted that genocide (link moved/changed, same paper), while providing political cover at the UN enabling Israel to commit that genocide, or the conclusion that materially supporting the people doing that is enabling them. Or maybe you agree/accept all that and just don't like it being brought to people's attention? Something else? Not answering this. Think my previous comment was out of line and I retract. + Show Spoiler + Equally I find you intolerable to converse with, so for the sake of the thread and civility I’d prefer not to Shocker! Just the most recent one, or...?
See where I said I don’t want to engage with you? Yeah that.
|
On July 07 2026 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 01:09 Jankisa wrote:On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? This is not a Democrat/Republican issue, and I'm very sorry that this distracted from the language policing GH, but this is very clearly a Donald J Trump problem as it's completely unprecedented and insane. This is not "Biden's son getting a board seat in a Ukrainian company that he's qualified for but most likely doesn't do shit for and only got it because his dad is VP/President". This is Trump raking in billions from insider trading, more billions by running Crypto schemes, some of which are open bribery schemes where people paying into are getting pardons. This is his son's affiliated companies getting goverment contracts for critical minerals or technologies such as drones, things that directly affect national security. None of this is normal or OK, no matter how hard the pretend centrists try to make it normalized. It never happened before nowhere close to this scale, it's not the same as Congress people making stock trades, not that is not a problem, that has bipartisan support to be stopped which is opposed by a bipartisan coalition of people making money from their positions, but compared to what Trump is doing it all looks like peanuts. How do you think we got here? Trump only exists as a public figure in power because of decades of bipartisan corruption (I'm talking about his whole life, not just the presidency). One of Trump's best features is that he is stripping away the varnish on the system. I would rather a person be shining a light on this stuff in way that wasn't doing the most blatantly and obscenely massive corruption they can imagine, but that's what we got.
To me, it seems like you have very deep seeded resentment for the people and institutions that are getting ripped off by Trump criminal regime.
His idiotic voters getting scammed on crypto, good, fuck them, they are all racists anyway.
His sons stealing from the military industrial complex by getting contracts that will never be properly fullfilled, great, fuck military, it's all imperialist anyway.
Him using insider info to make money off stock market and commodities trades, great, only rich people own stocks and trade so they can get fucked.
What you seem to fail to understand is that all this money siphoned away could have been doing a lot of good if he wasn't there, you looking at Trump who trough appointing Musk to destroy USAID killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world (so far) all under the guise of "fiscal responsibility" as some catalyst for change, while being perfectly happy to also say fuck em to all those kids who are going to die from malaria.
Seems very cynical way to go through the world, especially since you don't seem to be able to comprehend the possibility that the change that he is the catalyst for might be for the worse in the long run.
|
On July 07 2026 02:29 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 01:09 Jankisa wrote:On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? This is not a Democrat/Republican issue, and I'm very sorry that this distracted from the language policing GH, but this is very clearly a Donald J Trump problem as it's completely unprecedented and insane. This is not "Biden's son getting a board seat in a Ukrainian company that he's qualified for but most likely doesn't do shit for and only got it because his dad is VP/President". This is Trump raking in billions from insider trading, more billions by running Crypto schemes, some of which are open bribery schemes where people paying into are getting pardons. This is his son's affiliated companies getting goverment contracts for critical minerals or technologies such as drones, things that directly affect national security. None of this is normal or OK, no matter how hard the pretend centrists try to make it normalized. It never happened before nowhere close to this scale, it's not the same as Congress people making stock trades, not that is not a problem, that has bipartisan support to be stopped which is opposed by a bipartisan coalition of people making money from their positions, but compared to what Trump is doing it all looks like peanuts. How do you think we got here? Trump only exists as a public figure in power because of decades of bipartisan corruption (I'm talking about his whole life, not just the presidency). One of Trump's best features is that he is stripping away the varnish on the system. I would rather a person be shining a light on this stuff in way that wasn't doing the most blatantly and obscenely massive corruption they can imagine, but that's what we got. To me, it seems like you have very deep seeded resentment for the people and institutions that are getting ripped off by Trump criminal regime. His idiotic voters getting scammed on crypto, good, fuck them, they are all racists anyway. His sons stealing from the military industrial complex by getting contracts that will never be properly fullfilled, great, fuck military, it's all imperialist anyway. Him using insider info to make money off stock market and commodities trades, great, only rich people own stocks and trade so they can get fucked. What you seem to fail to understand is that all this money siphoned away could have been doing a lot of good if he wasn't there, you looking at Trump who trough appointing Musk to destroy USAID killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world (so far) all under the guise of "fiscal responsibility" as some catalyst for change, while being perfectly happy to also say fuck em to all those kids who are going to die from malaria. Seems very cynical way to go through the world, especially since you don't seem to be able to comprehend the possibility that the change that he is the catalyst for might be for the worse in the long run.
I don't know if resentment is the best word, but I certainly am not a fan of Trump voters, his corporate donors, the military industrial complex, or exploitative wealthy people (a lot of overlap in that). Should I be?
None of this is okay. Me not being their fan doesn't make it okay.
While Democrat's relatively minor corruption helped give Trump purchase among gullible voters that thought he actually had any intention in running for president beyond enriching and empowering himself while boosting his ego (and maybe trying stuff like protectionist policies he's advocated for since he was a welcome member of the Democrats' party), he was already learning how to do all this/get away with it at a small scale as a (pretty damn racist) Democrat.
Point being is that Trump is a product of a lifetime of bipartisan corruption and generally shitty policies that allowed him to rise to wealth, prominence, and power in the first place.
|
On July 07 2026 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 00:41 dyhb wrote:On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? I'm into educating the public and finding moderate ways around the hyper-politicization. I'm not into the violent, revolutionary methods that must be utilized to overthrow the "system." Even campaign finance reform must be integrated into (and subservient to) civic education: you stop people from getting their name out there by imposing spending limits, and you're just endorsing "incumbency" and "names I recognize" as the means of choosing representatives. There's no easy fix. Frankly the small strides I think would eventually matter get met with thread-mainstream commentary of "Don't bother convincing people, it won't work" or "it's the other guy who must change, not us!" What is a significant political stride forward you believe followed this "convincing people" method you're imagining rather than the methods like : -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) I have recommended?
Dude, neither of this is going to work.
|
My point is that you would, obviously, much rather focus on things that, well, annoy normal people because to normal people semantics over "female tournaments" is a much lesser issue then the president who is supposed to be the person who the whole country is looking up to is robbing the country blind.
It's crazy to me that you can't see how big of a problem this is.
I was listening to a podcast recently and there was a thought that stuck with me, this Trump shit has been going for 10 + years now, there are teenagers who are now starting to be voting age who simply don't know any other USA then the one with unhinged corruption and insane rhetoric.
These are not the times to prosecute historical injustices and speech of individuals who obviously have good intentions and aren't bigots, these are the times to never let this become the new normal and fight like hell against their tactics of flooding the zone with shit and normalizing all of this.
But you'd much rather mock and gawk and insult and bloviate at people for not fitting your definition of what an ally or a good person is.
|
On July 07 2026 03:50 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:41 dyhb wrote:On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? I'm into educating the public and finding moderate ways around the hyper-politicization. I'm not into the violent, revolutionary methods that must be utilized to overthrow the "system." Even campaign finance reform must be integrated into (and subservient to) civic education: you stop people from getting their name out there by imposing spending limits, and you're just endorsing "incumbency" and "names I recognize" as the means of choosing representatives. There's no easy fix. Frankly the small strides I think would eventually matter get met with thread-mainstream commentary of "Don't bother convincing people, it won't work" or "it's the other guy who must change, not us!" What is a significant political stride forward you believe followed this "convincing people" method you're imagining rather than the methods like : -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) I have recommended? Dude, neither of this is going to work.
Why couldn't any of those five methods affect change?
|
On July 07 2026 02:29 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 01:09 Jankisa wrote:On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? This is not a Democrat/Republican issue, and I'm very sorry that this distracted from the language policing GH, but this is very clearly a Donald J Trump problem as it's completely unprecedented and insane. This is not "Biden's son getting a board seat in a Ukrainian company that he's qualified for but most likely doesn't do shit for and only got it because his dad is VP/President". This is Trump raking in billions from insider trading, more billions by running Crypto schemes, some of which are open bribery schemes where people paying into are getting pardons. This is his son's affiliated companies getting goverment contracts for critical minerals or technologies such as drones, things that directly affect national security. None of this is normal or OK, no matter how hard the pretend centrists try to make it normalized. It never happened before nowhere close to this scale, it's not the same as Congress people making stock trades, not that is not a problem, that has bipartisan support to be stopped which is opposed by a bipartisan coalition of people making money from their positions, but compared to what Trump is doing it all looks like peanuts. How do you think we got here? Trump only exists as a public figure in power because of decades of bipartisan corruption (I'm talking about his whole life, not just the presidency). One of Trump's best features is that he is stripping away the varnish on the system. I would rather a person be shining a light on this stuff in way that wasn't doing the most blatantly and obscenely massive corruption they can imagine, but that's what we got. To me, it seems like you have very deep seeded resentment for the people and institutions that are getting ripped off by Trump criminal regime. His idiotic voters getting scammed on crypto, good, fuck them, they are all racists anyway. His sons stealing from the military industrial complex by getting contracts that will never be properly fullfilled, great, fuck military, it's all imperialist anyway. Him using insider info to make money off stock market and commodities trades, great, only rich people own stocks and trade so they can get fucked. What you seem to fail to understand is that all this money siphoned away could have been doing a lot of good if he wasn't there, you looking at Trump who trough appointing Musk to destroy USAID killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world (so far) all under the guise of "fiscal responsibility" as some catalyst for change, while being perfectly happy to also say fuck em to all those kids who are going to die from malaria. Seems very cynical way to go through the world, especially since you don't seem to be able to comprehend the possibility that the change that he is the catalyst for might be for the worse in the long run.
The really inconvenient thing for you with this hyperbolic self-righteous worldview is that you personally have money, and by that logic are therefore killing someone who has malaria right now by not spending that money on saving them. And even if you don't money, you have access to credit, like the US government. You could take out loans for money you don't have, and spend that on WHO essential medicines to tangibly save lives from malaria.
|
Yeah Jankisa, why don't you just take a $20b loan from the government to fund US AID after it was illegally impeded by Elon Musk? Are you stupid?
|
On July 07 2026 03:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 03:50 Razyda wrote:On July 07 2026 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:41 dyhb wrote:On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? I'm into educating the public and finding moderate ways around the hyper-politicization. I'm not into the violent, revolutionary methods that must be utilized to overthrow the "system." Even campaign finance reform must be integrated into (and subservient to) civic education: you stop people from getting their name out there by imposing spending limits, and you're just endorsing "incumbency" and "names I recognize" as the means of choosing representatives. There's no easy fix. Frankly the small strides I think would eventually matter get met with thread-mainstream commentary of "Don't bother convincing people, it won't work" or "it's the other guy who must change, not us!" What is a significant political stride forward you believe followed this "convincing people" method you're imagining rather than the methods like : -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) I have recommended? Dude, neither of this is going to work. Why couldn't any of those five methods affect change?
-Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation - if they get problematic for the government you going to go to prison and eventually get shot at.
-Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks - A mutual aid networks have 0 impact on policies and pretty sure already exist. Parallel institutions - if they start having impact they will either be taken over (fancy word is "regulated"), or... you going to go to prison.
-Non-Reformist Reforms - thats basically trying to play snooker with basketball. Kinda fun, but its not going to work
-Symbolic Defiance - nobody gives a damn, as long as you pay taxes...
-Legal and Constitutional Challenges - Despite what you may want to believe law is not equal, it is on the side which has better lawyers and more money to pay them. And GH interpretation is I believe treason? Which coincidently rhyme with outcome for the one engaging in such activities.
|
On July 07 2026 05:39 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2026 03:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 07 2026 03:50 Razyda wrote:On July 07 2026 01:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:41 dyhb wrote:On July 07 2026 00:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 07 2026 00:02 dyhb wrote:
I'm not holding out any hope for Congress telling itself that their families can't trade stocks while in office. Or working in lobbying firms (doing strategic advising or whatever workaround) or joining corporate boards after leaving office. Especially in today's age of hyper-partisanship. Ah yes the good ol' Hamster Wheel again. 1. There's a problem 2. Politicians won't fix it 3. Need to replace the politicians with ones that will 4. Can't replace the politicians because of how the system works 5. Need to fix the system 6. Politicians won't fix it (because it benefits them) 7. Repeat ad nauseam. Probably not any easier since SCOTUS lifted restrictions on campaign finance. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court dismantled one of the few remaining limits on money in politics, striking down spending limits imposed on political parties themselves. The law had been on the books since 1974, passed as a post-Watergate safeguard against corruption.
Democracy is perverted and corrupted when the wealthiest Americans can use their money to blanket the airwaves with their political messaging.
This case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, began in 2022 when JD Vance, who, at that time was a candidate for U.S. Senate in Ohio, sued to challenge limits on campaign spending.
In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan spelled out the consequences of this move. “With no limits on coordinated expenditures, the party can serve as the candidate’s checking account,” she wrote, adding that the decision creates “a legal regime increasingly unable to stop political corruption, and thus to preserve our institutions’ democratic legitimacy.” https://www.ms.now/news/supreme-court-campaign-finance-spending-limits-democrats-republicansHow far gone and corrupt can US democracy get before we call the government illegitimate and take commensurate positions? I'm into educating the public and finding moderate ways around the hyper-politicization. I'm not into the violent, revolutionary methods that must be utilized to overthrow the "system." Even campaign finance reform must be integrated into (and subservient to) civic education: you stop people from getting their name out there by imposing spending limits, and you're just endorsing "incumbency" and "names I recognize" as the means of choosing representatives. There's no easy fix. Frankly the small strides I think would eventually matter get met with thread-mainstream commentary of "Don't bother convincing people, it won't work" or "it's the other guy who must change, not us!" What is a significant political stride forward you believe followed this "convincing people" method you're imagining rather than the methods like : -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks -Non-Reformist Reforms -Symbolic Defiance: Basically, publicly treating the government’s symbols, laws, or leaders as irrelevant or void -Legal and Constitutional Challenges (My interpretation on this is probably a bit of an outlier but I would include appealing to the international community for help/condemnation of the US's illegitimate government in this) I have recommended? Dude, neither of this is going to work. Why couldn't any of those five methods affect change? -Civil Disobedience and Non-Cooperation - if they get problematic for the government you going to go to prison and eventually get shot at. -Parallel Institutions/Mutual Aid Networks - A mutual aid networks have 0 impact on policies and pretty sure already exist. Parallel institutions - if they start having impact they will either be taken over (fancy word is "regulated"), or... you going to go to prison. -Non-Reformist Reforms - thats basically trying to play snooker with basketball. Kinda fun, but its not going to work -Symbolic Defiance - nobody gives a damn, as long as you pay taxes...-Legal and Constitutional Challenges - Despite what you may want to believe law is not equal, it is on the side which has better lawyers and more money to pay them. And GH interpretation is I believe treason? Which coincidently rhyme with outcome for the one engaging in such activities.
LOL that one got me, good work.
What was the issue again with kneeling on a football field in Trump's first term? Did anyone let the US and/or Trump know that they pay taxes so its fine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
