Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the US Legalized Corruption

indica.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#51

Post by DenisM »

rbanffy wrote: post #14
jtdev wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dividing Americans down racial lines rather than socioeconomic lines literally helps the benefactors of this bribery gravy train keep their grip on America.

It's hard not to notice that socioeconomic lines largely follow racial lines.

Which is what makes it so convenient for the establishment - whenever someone brings up the question of economic rights it gets quickly derailed into the question of racial antagonism. As far as the beneficiaries of the economic order are concerned if the race question did not exist it would be prudent to create one, and since it does exist it's just silly not to use it to keep the poor divided.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#52

Post by taylorfinley »

JoeyBananas wrote: post #43

> Americans have this thing called a fundraiser where you put a pile of bribes on a table, wave a wand of asparagus over it, and it just disappears. Access is still bought, but somehow because people ate food, it’s not corruption anymore. The press will literally report on the food. I don't care if a politician gets paid 100,000 dollars for eating a meal because there's no obligation to do anything in return. Imagine…

In this setup, would you pay for another car after not getting a return on your first spend? The problem is the incentives. Humans do what they are incentivized to do, largely. What about an $1800-a-night escort that decides she isn't interested in having sex with her customer? She isn't a prostitute, she can choose... but certainly if she exercises that choice she won't have many repeat customers, and if word gets around she won't find many clients at all.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#53

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #47
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They really just don’t have any say in the occurrence. I feel this isn't correct. People have their vote and Americans overwhelmingly vote for people who trade law & Fed power for campaign cash.

> One say that people have is their vote. Americans overwhelmingly vote for people who trade law & fed power for campaign cash. That’s because there isn’t another option. Voters are villified for voting third party.

The failsafe is supposed to be US news orgs, who's reason for existing is to be an adversary to power interests. The top of their priority list ought to be exposing bribery in a meaningful and consistent way.

However, news orgs find broad system betrayal+corruption much less interesting than, oh say, sportball. Or literally anything else at all.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#54

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

chordalkeyboard wrote: post #47
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They really just don’t have any say in the occurrence. I feel this isn't correct. People have their vote and Americans overwhelmingly vote for people who trade law & Fed power for campaign cash.

> One say that people have is their vote. Americans overwhelmingly vote for people who trade law & fed power for campaign cash. That’s because there isn’t another option. Voters are villified for voting third party.

> That’s because there isn’t another option. Voters are villified for voting third party.

Voters could also choose to not reelect officials who trade in bribes.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#56

Post by chordalkeyboard »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #53
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One say that people have is their vote. Americans overwhelmingly vote for people who trade law & fed power for campaign cash. That’s because there isn’t another option. Voters are villified for voting third party.

The failsafe is supposed to be US news orgs, who's reason for existing is to be an adversary to power interests. The top of their priority list ought to be exposing bribery in a meaningful and consistent way. However, news orgs find broad system betrayal+corruption much less interesting than, oh say, sportball. Or literally anything else at all.

> The failsafe is supposed to be US news orgs, who's reason for existing is to be an adversary to power interests.

In reality they are just another power interest.

> However, some things are simply far, far, far less important than sportball.

True

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#57

Post by chordalkeyboard »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #54
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One say that people have is their vote. Americans overwhelmingly vote for people who trade law & fed power for campaign cash. That’s because there isn’t another option. Voters are villified for voting third party.

> That’s because there isn’t another option. Voters are villified for voting third party. Voters could also choose to not reelect officials who trade in bribes.

How? Both viable candidates are guilty. We can’t elect a third party candidate. And if you don’t vote, your opinion doesn’t count.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#58

Post by technick »

CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #3

Ugh why bring race into this... Even if the author makes good points, he's not going to convince anyone by saying 'white people have funny words for bribes' in the first paragraph. This is coming from someone who 100% agrees with the rest of the article. Still, I won't share this with anyone I respect.

Are you really that sensitive that you can't look past a potentially poorly worded part of an otherwise amazing write up? That's some sad shit, that you can't take the positive with the negative, and look past a personal opinion which, in context, is correct as the author is specifically addresses Janet Yellen, who is white and a horrible choice for that position in my opinion.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#59

Post by technick »

alexfromapex wrote: post #6
CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #3

Ugh why bring race into this... Even if the author makes good points, he's not going to convince anyone by saying 'white people have funny words for bribes' in the first paragraph. This is coming from someone who 100% agrees with the rest of the article. Still, I won't share this with anyone I respect.

Yeah same really abruptly made me want to stop reading. Imagine switching out white people with another race and it’s blatant racism.

Anybody worth their salt can admit corruption isn't race related. It doesn't matter if your white, yellow, brown, black, purple, orange... corruption is a universal human issue.

Re: How the US Legalized Corruption

#60

Post by CapmCrackaWaka »

technick wrote: post #58
CapmCrackaWaka wrote: post #3

Ugh why bring race into this... Even if the author makes good points, he's not going to convince anyone by saying 'white people have funny words for bribes' in the first paragraph. This is coming from someone who 100% agrees with the rest of the article. Still, I won't share this with anyone I respect.

Are you really that sensitive that you can't look past a potentially poorly worded part of an otherwise amazing write up? That's some sad shit, that you can't take the positive with the negative, and look past a personal opinion which, in context, is correct as the author is specifically addresses Janet Yellen, who is white and a horrible choice for that position in my opinion.

I didn’t ignore his other points, in fact I very clearly said I agree 100% with the rest of the article. Please stay away from ad hominims on HN.
Post reply on HN