One only has to look at the stock market - some with insider knowledge are pocketing away a lot of profit right now.
People bring this up regularly, but I don't think it's that relevant. Studies regularly show that campaign contributions actually have very low influence on elections.
Trump notably had much smaller campaign budgets than his opponents in both winning elections, not even including the massive amounts of brazen fraud he used to pay himself with the money.
Fundamentally, it's presidential democracy that is flawed. We have a very powerful high office, and if enough people want to willing vote in a corrupt president, there's really not many checks against the damage that they can do.
The problem with money in politics is not that money guarantees a win, but that the presence of large donations distorts the entire incentive structure of campaigning and governing: Courting big donations means spending time with big donors (who expect access in exchange for their money) and when it comes time to govern, studies have shown that campaign contributions and lobbying are dramatically more influential to what gets proposed and passed than the preferences of the general public.
Focusing on the problems with presidential campaigns re: money in politics is missing the forest for the trees: All politicians have limited time to spend between campaigning and governing, and if they're constantly raising money the governing gets delegated to lobbyists.
(This is why people are always so shocked when politicians who don't accept corporate PAC contributions have drastically different priorities than those who do. Of course they do! They don't have to spend all their time hanging out with corporate lobbyists!)
(Also, there has been the opposite trend, which is that more money than ever comes from private donations from billionaires and other wealth.)
Why do people do this though? Maybe it's inevitable, but I think there was a lot of pent up frustration with the government that led a lot of people to just say "fuck it". Not really excusing it (especially for his second term), but I feel like we're reaping years and years of a dysfunctional and ineffectual congress. Not that that's an especially easy problem to solve either.
I think this also explains a lot of the frustration with SCOTUS. In-theory, SCOTUS is supposed to just interpret and flesh out the policies decided on by congress. In practice, congress doesn't really do anything, and people started depending on SCOTUS's ability and willingness to make far-reaching and impactful decisions. Now a more conservative SCOTUS isn't doing that.
Countries that follow the presidential model regularly succumb to strong man type leaders. Ironically, in the modern era when the US had a hand in helping other countries establish their governments, we specifically helped them establish parliaments.
> Trump notably had much smaller campaign budgets than his opponents in both winning elections
I'm not sure where you're getting this information.
> Fundamentally, it's presidential democracy that is flawed.
No disagreement
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240633007_Measuring...
TL;DR: Spending might matter up to a certain point, but becomes very inefficient. It's also more effective for challenges than incumbents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_in_the_2024_United...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_in_the_2020_United...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-electi...
b. July 4, 1776, d. January 20, 2024. It was good while it lasted.
Everybody loves a good off-by-one error.
It turns out if you can spend decades saying things unchallenged people believe it.
A few people thinking they are better than the rest meet the same fate everyone in the history of humanity met if they step on enough toes.
The people enabled Hitler to do Hitler things. The people enabled Trump to do Trump things.
It was all laid out in plain sight what Hitler wanted before he got the power from the people to do so. He was largely supported by the people who enjoyed living their lives right next to the concentration camps.
It was all laid out in plain sight what Trump wanted before he got the power from the people to do so. He was largely supported by the people who enjoyed living their lives right next to the deportation camps.
This just feels important, special, and new to us because it’s the first time for most people dealing with an insane man in power, as our lifespan as humans is rather short.
There are always three options for any citizen that goes through these kinds of historic repeats.
You can resist. You will most likely die doing so without accomplishing your goals as there is no more secrecy even offline with everything leaving a digital footprint and 24/7 surveillance with AI support. They will end your bloodline in retaliation, so resisting means being okay with having everyone murdered by the group of people who want to profit, likely working in a government position.
You can profit. Swim along and use the opportunity to gain generational wealth by supporting the goals of the insane man in power, or using the opportunities the cruelty he creates allows.
Dozens of families got rich selling the gold from the teeth of Jews who were murdered. There is a value chain in the deportation industry Trump is building. You really think people get deported with all their belongings and ICE agents not cashing in robbing people blank and then still deporting them?
Or you can decide to look the other way. You know exactly what happens, but neither want to risk your life and that of the people you love by resisting, nor do you want to profit from the cruelty value chain.
Either way, just like every German in 1933 and beyond that was of voting age, every us citizen is part of one of the three groups, and if you’re not resisting or profiting, you are no less responsible for what happens to your neighbours and fellow citizens than the people who profit from it.
So the only universal truth is, humans are evil, miserable creatures that do evil and miserable things. You decide for yourself where your place is in all this and then deal with the consequences of your actions.
Nobody is coming to save you. There is no "right" decision. You only have one life and the freedom to decide what to do with it.
Everyone has to figure this out for himself. That’s the downside of having free will.
Any of these reasons or the unmentioned ones is enough to be pretty confident Trump will nominate someone who will want to make the files go away quietly.
I'm not sure about the "bad people" characterization though. Certainly she is a terrible person but if you are interested in having the least terrible AG you need to worry about her replacement. If by "bad people" you mean people who betrayed the electorate, I think she's been an extremely faithful advocate of the MAGA agenda.
Considering the president is unable to acknowledge anything that could be regarded as unflattering, I think it's safe to say we voted away the pretense of accountability.
P2025 had a plan but it was always going to struggle against the president's personality issues.
You could probably find a hair splitting argument that the child must be born in an actual ‘State’, but aside from that, jus soli citizenship is pretty clearly part of the constitution.
That being said, Pam Bondi was very bad at her job.
Twice. I can forgive the mistake once, but this is the second time in 10 years that America is facing this nonsense with the exact same demagogue.
That's like taking the safety off a gun to remind people to be responsible. That doesn't work, and irresponsible people's decisions can negatively affect everyone (including other countries). We need all the safety measures we can get.
Noaidi•1h ago
barney54•1h ago
jsbisviewtiful•50m ago
hyperhello•42m ago