Well it’s almost certainly not just more open. But also more common and more intense. There is 100% absolutely no possible comparison to Trump’s personal acts of corruption in any prior White House ever.
But in terms of the letter of the law unfortunately he couldn’t be held accountable for much of it because it was legal! The US legal system has largely agreed that the president, especially with a bloodthirsty Congress behind him, can torture, kill and maim as much as he pleases so long as it’s outside the border.
But he's easily the most corrupt, also aided by the simplicity of his character.
At some point you realize there is a game that you were never playing and it becomes a bipartisan issue.
For evidence, refer to TFA.
I read the article too, in what sane world is it okay if 70% of citizens thought their governments + corporations are corrupt over a 20 year time span here. Society apparently has get quite bad for the last 20% to realize the state of things.
The only thing I got out of this article is that both parties + the F500 need to be destroyed.
If you think I (or virtually anyone else) am a fan of the two-party system, you probably aren't paying very close attention to... anything.
Things can be varying levels of imperfect. Things can be imperfect and acceptable, imperfect and bad, or imperfect and extremely extremely bad. It's not a sign of intelligence not to be able to discern between them.
I don't know, if we'd had an overwhelmingly Democrat-dominated government, we'd have comprehensive bans on government insider trading and we'd correct the bad ruling in Citizens United. Corporatism is definitely a bipartisan issue, but at least Democrats recognize it as a problem, while to Republicans it's a feature. Not everything in politics is symmetrical, and misguided nihilism is actually how we got where we are. Turns out the road to hell is paved with "it's both sides."
We had two years under Biden with Democrat control of the House and the Senate. They passed no legislation to ban insider trading.
It probably didn’t help that the poster octogenarian for insider trading was Speaker of the House
> and we'd correct the bad ruling in Citizens United.
CU was absolutely the correct ruling as it just means I can take money from wherever I’ve earned it and spend it on publicizing my message.
Prior to that you had to buy a media company to have the same effect. It was perfectly fine for Fox News or The NY Times to focus articles and segments on what they deem newsworthy to push their narrative. But if I made my money selling widgets, I couldn’t spend it the same way.
It’s a perfectly reasonable ruling.
> Corporatism is definitely a bipartisan issue, but at least Democrats recognize it as a problem, while to Republicans it's a feature.
The same people probably complain the Senate is an antiquated body that should not exist because mob rule is the only true voice of the people.
Nobody has controlled the Senate since ‘09. The veneer of bipartisanship created by the filibuster meant that Congress has done nothing since ‘09 (outside of a few stimulus bills and the Green New Deal which was probably a good bill in the long run hampered by bureaucracy). It turns out that’s great for the party that wants to do nothing, and really bad for the party that wants to do something.
You could say that Dems should’ve killed the filibuster. But there was no appetite for it until Trump 2 because things weren’t going great but they weren’t going belly up
Are you literally a corporation? If not, you should perhaps read the decision.
Going back to my original example, why is it okay for a media company to use their platform and resources to promote whatever speech they want promoted, but I can’t use money I made selling hot dogs to do the same?
The only way to make the playing field fair is to allow everybody to take part. Otherwise you have a handful of media companies with outsized control of indirect messaging.
It is not. That's one aspect, but another major aspect is that those individuals pooling their resources are not liable for the corporation's actions. This immunity from liability for their collective responsibility has a price, and part of that price is that the corporation should not be used in an attempt to manipulate elected officials. Corporations are not people for the same reason that you are not a blood cell. The whole is not only greater than the sum of the parts, it is materially different.
>The only way to make the playing field fair is to allow everybody to take part.
This is one solution, I'm not sure it is truly the only solution.
Why do we treat media companies differently? Maybe we shouldn't. Newspapers traditionally had political coverage, and had no restrictions on political commentary. As a result, their owners wielded enormous political power. Then radio and TV arrived on the scene, and had to abide by the "equal time" rule due to their government-granted broadcast licenses. The internet upended all that. We should look for a good answer, not just an expedient one.
Destruction is easy, as we are all witnessing.
Making things better is hard. It takes commitment to incremental change, often having to overcome setbacks, and accepting that the product of democracy is inherently nonlinear.
Democracy also demands that its participants understand that most of the time what each individual wants to be, will not be exactly as they envision, since that would be autocracy.
Destruction is totally fine of useless institutions. Especially those that are openly antagonistic and profit from killing Americans. US institutions are designed to impede progress and stop actual democratic movements.
No one was ever asked the public what they thought when they shoved neoliberalism down our throats. Yet that system reigns supreme and has created a hellscape where people are openly ignoring their biological imperative because their lives are so miserable (a behavior that's also found in animals at zoos).
None of what you are describing has any real momentum behind it and for how many decades will you let politicians fails you until you do something in response?
Like bro, the democratic party isn't an opposition party. There is a reason why the party has majority unfavorability rating [1] throughout Trump's entire second term. How do you square this?
This is a fucking terrible sign and it's why progressive candidates have seen a massive insurgency this cycle and why the corporate do-nothing dems are so scared shitless that they might have to actually answer why they are okay with genocide + corporate welfare programs while doing nothing to help people materially.
You say no one is excusing them, then spend your entire comment excusing them.
What do you actually do politically?
[1] https://fiftyplusone.news/polls/favorability/democratic-part...
But we didn’t have to vote DJT into office as a counteracting force. Whether every decision is bad or not, not my point. It just seemed obvious that he wasn’t the right guy.
Some people can’t vote against their party. Some people believe write in is the move.
If you want to protest, please do it. But throwing away your vote is not a protest, it’s a method of ceding a small amount of power.
I've never written a name not on the ballot but wonder sorts of feelings arise afterwards. Is it "Good, I did the right thing"?
There is some kernel of value to seeking out information from diverse sources. But groups like Ground News pervert that to mean that the left and right are on equally good terms with fact and reality (nevermind that collapsing politics and news media down to left and right is balderdash)
Notably, like another allegedly unbiased news source (RealClearPolitics and related), Ground News is run by conservatives. They know precisely how it works and are taking advantage of sensible people who think they must be getting biased news and want more exposure to the other side, with the intention of ratcheting the Overton window ever more to the right.
That does not necessarily imply giving equal airtime or equal legitimacy to the different sides at all.
Eh, to the extent that I care about it being "run by conservatives" it's only in whether it creates a distorted perception of reality. As someone with a very varied media diet I don't really find them to be distortive, so I don't really care whether the founders are conservative or not.
I don’t think the vibes argument there is incorrect, Dems have failed to deliver for a long time, but the claims themselves really just make a conspiracy out of the shitty electoral situation Dems / progressives have been in since the creation of the senate 250 odd years ago.
I honestly don't understand your other question, you can watch any primary challenge race across the country and you'll see these dynamics play out. We're also dealing with cumulative effects that have taken place over decades (NAFTA is still impactful in many areas that if you run as D these districts you are guaranteed to lose).
If you're from a certain region and want specific examples LMK.
Like this is a thread about corruption but I guess if you give a shitty corporate veneer it's suddenly. If you're older than 40 you saw the democratic party implement NAFTA, cut welfare programs, and bail out banks; apparently these three major policy pillars aren't related to people's feelings on corruption.
Totally independent, they're just totally only saying Trump + republicans are corrupt not like the entire system that compromises two parties both of which are in bed with corporations and voters have a lived history reflecting just this.
Next thing you're going to tell me is that the Gaza Genocide played no role in Harris losing '24 either.
You make it sound like he's the one calling this out, "Drain the swamp" style, when instead he's the one elevating it to the next level. A month ago he sat for a TV interview in the White House, and he said, verbatim, "My children are insider trading all the time". And it was so on-brand for Trump's administration that it barely moved the needle.
Barron is an unemployed college drop out who gained $150M in net worth in a year. Donald Jr and Eric start companies or get paid millions for board seats that get billions in government contracts within days of their forming/joining.
You, unable to form more than three words about all of this, but able to go on a vague rant about how its the Democrats we should really be angry at. Corruption is endemic. It's never been as brazen, and as much, as now.
https://theintercept.com/2026/07/13/gillibrand-crypto-trump-...
Like this plays into the record "high" perception of corruption. (also you know that the democratic has had majority unfavorable ratings throughout the Trump administration [1], a major blight and a poor sign that the opposition party is in fact not unified in opposition)
I do find the person that makes your comments amusing. Mostly the types that do zero organizing, never volunteered for a political campaign, have never canvassed in their life, don't attend party meetings, aren't part of any state committees across the US, but all seem to exactly know what's wrong with the voters and apparently you aren't allowed to criticize a party for reasons that allude me.
Perfectly capable to form plenty of words just fine. I'm a democratic party operative that has mostly grown to hate the party more as the years go by, luckily my sentiment is hardly unique (way more common than back in 2016).
What do you exactly do to help combat this situation? I rather converse with people that are engaged and not just consumers of advocacy.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2026/07/13/gillibrand-crypto-trump-...
Is that what's happening here?