Hacker News Reader

Comment by CSMastermind | Hacker News Reader

America is not a corrupt country in the sense that places overseas are. You will go to jail for trying to openly bribe the police here and political hysterics aside rule of law generally prevails.

What has happened is that America has slipped from being a high trust society to a medium trust one.

View on HN

> from being a high trust society to a medium trust one

I think both falsehoods here are things many people want to believe because not being just like all those other places “overseas” is important to the cultural identity.

> rule of law generally prevails

Not going to agree or disagree, but I just want to make sure you're claiming that while being fully aware of, say, the following:

https://www.insidernj.com/the-abcs-of-pba-cards/

> You will go to jail for trying to openly bribe the police here

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-aide-homan-accepted-5...

In addition:

Things you can do in the USA right now without punishment (as long as you the corrcect kind of Republican)

* Try to kill the vice president.

* Terrorize the capital

* Try to kill police

* Rape

* Being a pedophile

Things you can and will be killed or punished for, or that the government is getting vigilantes to go after.

* Walking

* Exercising your rights under the Bill of Rights

* Literally upholding the law

* Speaking negatively about the President

* Following Christianity

* Being Jewish

So, yeah, it's fairly corrupt.

I haven't even talked about the white collar crimes that are happening every day. But none of the above is hyperbole.

> Try to kill the vice president.

I assumed you were referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Paul_Pelosi but that ended with a 30 year sentence. So what are you referring to?

1/6 and the gallows with Pence's name on it and the mob looking for him.

Well, I knew what he was talking about.

I missed that aspect of 1/6.

Trump turned his supporters on Pence on a bs concept that Pence could (il)legally deliver him the presidency. They wanted him to hang for treason.

Paul Pelosi was never the Vice President of the United States.

He was not the target.

Nancy Pelosi was also never the Vice President of the United States.

Christians managed to have their guy as a president.

If you believe that guy to be Christian, you might also believe a lot of other things. His answer to what he thinks about the bible and what his favourite quote is, was: "I don't want to go into the details."

The vast majority of American Christians, particularly Evangelicals, believe he's a Christian and overwhelmingly support him on that basis. Whether he is or not is irrelevant - he's clearly the man that American Christians want.

A lot of people calling themself Christian, can be in sects and I think that is the case in the USA. This has been the case a lot during history. Remarkably, during the big old concils determining the true faith, an overwhelming majority has been believing in the believes clarified as being wrong. Majority is simply not a concept to determine truth, and Christianity doesn't take it to be this way.

> he's clearly the man that American Christians want.

Maybe he is, maybe he is not. What people actually want, what they tell you they want and what the person wants they vote for can be three completely different things.

If your definition of "Christians" doesn't include hypocrites then there have never been Christians, and if it excludes millions of people who profess the faith then it isn't useful.

You seem to be implying that Trump supporters aren't "really" Christians, or even if they are maybe they didn't really vote for him? I don't know where the ambiguity you're trying to imply here actually exists in the real world.

Christians voted for him, said they voted for him, said they believed he was sent by God, and have vociferously and steadfastly supported him over three election cycles. Despite his infidelity, and his vice, and his corruption, and his pride, and his warmongering, and his sexual abuse and everything else about him.

At some point you have to open your eyes to what Christianity in America actually is.

The statement that there isn't really a true Christian besides Christ himself isn't really new and I think accepted by most. :-)

> You seem to be implying that Trump supporters aren't "really" Christians

No, I didn't meant that, I was initially only talking about Trump. I think it necessary for them to think of themself as Christian, and they need to at least try to act as that to some reasonable level. My issue was that to me it seams like Trump doesn't even try. His ramblings violate charity in fundamental ways and he doesn't try to cover that.

> Christians voted for him

Fine.

> said they voted for him

Did they vote for a story he told them, or did they vote for what he actually does. This doesn't absolve them of their responsibility, they still voted for a liar in this case, but it does matter how much they will object and how likely they are to vote differently.

> they believed he was sent by God

That violates teachings of Christianity in a fundamental way. If it didn't, every Moslem would be called a Christian. There is no revelation after Jesus Christ.

> what Christianity in America actually is.

I think there aren't only Evangelicals in America, there is some important guy coming from there, I think he called himself after a lion or something.

-----

> he's clearly the man that American Christians want.

You should read up on what happened when the "German Christians" got what they "wanted".

-----

> I don't know where the ambiguity you're trying to imply here actually exists in the real world.

What I want to counter is a comment like, "see what the Christians want!". You wouldn't allow to call someone "anti-slavery" that promotes slavery, simply because he tells you to call him that. Neither would you then counter with "see what that "anti-slavery" guy wants?", therefore I am against "anti-slavery".

> You will go to jail for trying to openly bribe the police here

I am absolutely not convinced of this. I truly believe a significant fraction of US police would, and perhaps do, accept bribes.

the US AG is pretty openly accepting bribes if you hadn’t noticed

It does vary. Rural sheriff departments being one example.

Urban city police departments being another example.

Suburban police departments are another example

Roadside Civil Asset Forfeiture is still a thing...

Not really. The difference is police in poorer countries can be bribed with the amount of cash you can keep in a wallet. In the US, it requires a large public donation to a political campaign or "charity". Bribes very much exist, and if you think you can't do it, that just means you're not rich enough. In poor countries too, the ones getting arrested are the ones who can't afford the bribes.

here in SF it's pretty common to bribe officers with gift cards to get traffic tickets dropped.

it's been like that as long as I can remember

also, in the late 80s I remember my GF's father bribing the SF building inspector to overlook something.

But if a single one of them don't like that you tried they can ruin your life much worse than a traffic ticket.

“Oh whoops, I accidentally grabbed the wrong card from my wallet”

Nobody says “hey here’s the bribe”, they act like they’re mistakenly handing over money or whatever. This is basic bribery etiquette.

I should have been clearer. The way the bribes work is you have a friend who works on the force find out what the ticketing officer likes. Then you give the GC to the friend who gives it to the ticketing officer. People who grew up in the city invariably know at least one or two people on the force.

I do believe that you are writing the truth, but it is extremely unbelievable to me. To be honest, I've never been pulled over for traffic violations, but bribing officers with gift cards being "common" sounds like it could lead to some really bad place. It's a good thing it hasn't yet. Bribes have many drawbacks compared to traffic tickets.

I remember gift cards originally being novel in the early 2000’s because they could be swiped like a credit card for purchases, unlike gift certificates, which they replaced.

If you had a girlfriend in the late 80s, I don’t see how police could have been bribed with gift cards as long as you can remember.

I should also add that I myself have never heard of it being common to bribe SF cops with gift cards, in any decade.

Have you been to rural America? Flyover country? The south?

Bribe? No no, it's a tip.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com