Campaign Finance Reform

[tobetrained]

35 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

This is how the government can and should encourage entrepreneurs to expand the existing base of that particular service/product supply

and this comment is way off thread topic, but I've always thought of either a "distance" tax (applied to physical distance of parts and finished goods/services) as a way to maintain physical communities...which is directly applied to a community redevelopment fund.

But also a some kind of bigger-ain't-better progressive corporate tax system. I'm generally pro-business and pro-competition (in every sense), but I hate massive 1000s-of-employees type companies. They are, almost by definition, anti-competition. In my made-up world, we need a progressive tax system on corporate taxes like personal income. The first $10 million of annual revenue is $0%.

The two items above are about building small and individual businesses.

[hntnhole]

Thanks for your response.  

You may have noticed that often the original topic of BZ's "threads" wanders off into a different, even unrelated subject matter? That's one of the more interesting facets of Breeding Zone, in that it's the contributors and readers that have the freedom to add, subtract, multiply aspects of a thread, all within the confines of what we might call genteel discourse.  

That fact may not be ideal for pedants, but it is nevertheless the case.  

12 minutes ago, tobetrained said:

The two items above are about building small and individual businesses.

Which I did for years, in two different industries, publishing "trade" books, periodicals, business publications.  The actual costs of producing, marketing, selling ads for, all the various aspects were common to each, despite the fact that the actual product of each industry could not be more different.  One result of a "greater good" issue was not resolved by the government, it was resolved by business owners within x industry agreeing to work together to impact certain governmental issues.  

I don't particularly care for "Big Business" either, but then I have not been asked to solve those issues and I rather doubt I will be.  Big Bro business is, by definition, interested in self-preservation first, customer satisfaction second, and skirting the legal requirements as tightly as possible.  That said, Big Business simply is, and the rest of us have to figure out ways to nibble around the edges.  

Again, thanks for your incisive thoughts.  

[tallslenderguy]

1 hour ago, hntnhole said:

I think that's entirely laudable. 

If/when an individual comes up with a new, innovative idea for whatever activity (assuming legality), there's no reason that entity shouldn't receive benefits that other businesses (in the same general area of transacting business) receive.  This is how the government can and should encourage entrepreneurs to expand the existing base of that particular service/product supply, and I see that result as one of the excuses for governments to exist.  In the end, it's not only the general population that may benefit, it's the government to, via taxation, duties, etc.  

It was a franchise company. The owner ("Master Franchise Owner") had the rights to a couple of territories to sell franchises. He was a former bank president, a really good numbers guy, and he hired me for my business management background.  He was close to bankruptcy after the first year, following the parent companies model didn't really work for him. i gave him a few suggestions and he asked me  if i'd run the company and he could do the books, so i became the companies VP.  

He gave me complete freedom to run things, so i used a type of consensus model  where everyone got a say, and i got voted against more than a few times lol. But it worked, it was a 15m a year business when i left. After 20 years, he came to me one day and told me he'd sold the company, back to the parent company.  He also told me it was transferring the next day.  They had stipulated in the purchase agreement that he was to keep the purchase underwraps while he worked out the details for 8 months.  He really was a decent fellow, but myself and those who built the business felt betrayed.  The business was essentially us, the people. 

The new company gave me a very large signing bonus if i'd stay at least a year, which i did no wanting to make a snap judgement. The new owner was an international company with over 200 offices worldwide.  I doubted they'd allow me to use the same  consensus management methods i'd used to build the business, but gave it a shot.  i'd pushed back against the Master Company  because i thought their franchise fees were too high, and that ended up building trust with the franchise owners, and everyone ended up more  successful.   The parent company dismantled the system over the next year, and i watched as each of the people who  worked with me to build the business, left, as  did i after my year was up. 

There's a lot more to the  story, but when i left, i tried to do the same method with a different company.  They didn't like it either and i left after two years, went back to school and earned a BSN, and have been a critical care nurse since then. 

[Rillion]

On 2/5/2026 at 6:23 AM, tobetrained said:

@Rillion so then we agree, "Corporations -- any size -- must register with governments for regulatory and tax purposes...obtaining legal status in doing so." Which is what I wrote and you quoted.

What is not clear: if AitBnB spends $100 million on advertising during a campaign talking to home owners about the financial benefits of their service, it's brand advertising and not political -- as the campaign, candidates, election are not referenced. Nothing to do with Citizens' United.

However, if a candidates makes (apt rental) affordability an election issue, then that candidate has to financially compete with the messaging from AirBnB above. And on it goes through product categories.

I don't have an issue if AirBNB spends a $100 million advertising it's business models to homeowners or customers. I do have a problem with it giving $100 million to a super PAC that then runs ads against that candidate and in favor of his opponent. I do think there is a substantive difference between the two even if it would be gaining some potential political benefit from its direct and campaign promoting its service. 

[Rillion]

If there is no government there are no corporations since there are no rights anymore including property rights. A corporation would be nothing more than an agreement by the people involved to follow their own set of rules that they would have to self enforce as would any other group of individuals. Honestly it's limited liability rules would be moot since those are purely something enforced by courts when adjudicating creditor claims. 

Sure everything can still exist without government, but the reality is that without government there wouldn't need to be corporations since they are legal entities that can only really exist in an environment where there is the rule of law with an entity that has the power to recognize and enforce the corporations existence. 

ETA: Your post office example is a really bad example since the creation of the post office is embedded in the Constitution and it is solely a creation of the government. It continued to exist and function while the government was temporarily shut down because it's funding and operation is not entirely dependent on Congress having a spending bill in place at that time.

 

Edited Saturday at 12:56 AM by Rillion

[tobetrained]

1 hour ago, Rillion said:

If there is no government there are no corporations since there are no rights anymore including property rights. A corporation would be nothing more than an agreement by the people involved to follow their own set of rules that they would have to self enforce as would any other group of individuals.

Exactly. 

A business, a corporation, a merchant...names of same meaning: people who are selling or trading goods and services. These people are not dependent on government and less dependent on others, esp. farmers.

I'm not implying, as some do, to get rid of government. It has a role. I'm just saying they are not gov't entities.

re: USPS, um, I don't know why we're having a tit-for-tat on this. If the US Federal gov't "goes away" as in my example, and now to your point above, re: Constitution, it's a null document -- the government it defines no longer in exists. But, as it has an income stream independent of taxation, the USPS can continue...if people want to mail stuff and send boxes and lease data files, etc.

[tallslenderguy]

Trying to simplify the complex (and i'm not sure that can be accomplished).  To me it seems basic, money can buy influence in so many different ways. i think it's rational to say that people, SIG's, etc., give money to support and/ or influence a particular cause that they perceive will benefit them, on all sides of the political fence. 

"Musk was the biggest individual donor to political committees during the 2024 election cycle, spending roughly $290 million, mostly through his own super PAC, America PAC, in support of Trump."

[think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/31/elon-musk-2026-election-donations-00758992

my problem with this is i want the election system watered down to individuals, without one voice or group having a greater say or influence.  As part of reform, i envision (simplistically) all donations for campaign use going into a central source that gets equally divided between those running.  i know, this may have lots of holes in it, it's just a basic idea that i am juxtaposing against the current system.  

i've given money to a couple of political candidates, and the result is i get click bated constantly with what, to me, are deceptive "polls" that always end with "how much will you donate."  At which point, i always leave, and i wonder how many feel the same way.  It feels like selling vs selecting, and the highest bidder wins. 

[tobetrained]

3 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

To me it seems basic, money can buy influence in so many different ways. i think it's rational to say that people, SIG's, etc., give money to support and/ or influence a particular cause that they perceive will benefit them, on all sides of the political fence. 

But this is an assumption. What cannot be proven: 

• would the candidate have done it anyway*, in your terms what a donor would, "perceive will benefit them"
• did the candidate seek out like-minded donors

For instance, deregulation of the financial markets has been mainstay of the Republican platform for decades. So, is any donor to Republicans just cravenly greedy? Do they not have the right to believe deregulation is better? And, as always, voters get to have the final say:

3 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

my problem with this is i want the election system watered down to individuals, without one voice or group having a greater say or influence.

Isn't that the vote -- one person, one vote -- where this comes into play, exactly.

In the last two elections, Dems have outspent Reps yet lost, the reverse has been true too. And sometimes the greater spender wins. Money doesn't guarantee electoral wins.

So buying influence is a crap shoot and if it wasn't -- let's say a candidate or party is likely to win -- then they wouldn't need the money and be burdened by the influence you imply.

My issue:

3 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

As part of reform, i envision (simplistically) all donations for campaign use going into a central source that gets equally divided between those running.  i know, this may have lots of holes in it, it's just a basic idea that i am juxtaposing against the current system.

Quick functional issues around this: aren't you instilling a two-party system? What about independents? etc. But I don't want to detract from your intent -- which I do have an issue with:

Free speech is being able to support whomever you want. It becomes a very slippery slope when an authority -- via regulation like this -- determines how you can give support and when.

And, play this forward: People will stop giving or lower their campaign donations as they don't want to equally support the opposition.

But as I've tried to get across, voter influence during an election is driven by issues that are not limited to influence by campaigns. In your version, influence and money will flow outside of campaigns as people want to support their own thing.

This flow can be more and more to "advocacy" groups -- which is separate from political regulations as they may not mention candidates or elections. I posted the article on a separate topic, influence is gained and hammered down by more than money, in the Political Extremes and Parties topic.

Beyond advocacy there are other areas, e.g., corporate messaging, marketing and advertising.

So, put this together, with campaigns raising less and/or with some type of equal dispersion -- they then become more dependent on special interest groups to facilitate basic campaign functions -- like GOTV and direct comms -- as the campaign have relatively little money. Again, this get to the referenced separate topic above, Political Extremes and Parties.

Edited Monday at 05:32 PM by tobetrained
minor edits

[tobetrained]

@tallslenderguy you previously asked for thoughts, articles, and books:

Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy
Donald Kagan

The reforms Pericles, instituted as part of Athenian Radical Democracy principles, was to pay politicians, jurists, and other government servants (incl. military).

A fundamental reason was as Athens had not been doing so -- not paying government servants, and I'm tying into modern campaign finance here too -- the MORE corrupt and dependent those servants are to others OR the more wealthy they must be.

Take Oregon, for instance, when I lived down there people talked happily about not paying their state politicians. I don't know the extent or if that still continues. Yet, this creates a class structure where only those of certain wealth can participate and/or are subject to backroom deals. Basically, if you work at McDonald's, you can't afford to be a state representative. And if you're not getting paid, you are more likely to be corrupted by money or influence.

[tallslenderguy]

On 2/9/2026 at 9:30 AM, tobetrained said:

But this is an assumption. What cannot be proven: 

• would the candidate have done it anyway*, in your terms what a donor would, "perceive will benefit them"
• did the candidate seek out like-minded donors

For instance, deregulation of the financial markets has been mainstay of the Republican platform for decades. So, is any donor to Republicans just cravenly greedy? Do they not have the right to believe deregulation is better? And, as always, voters get to have the final say:

Isn't that the vote -- one person, one vote -- where this comes into play, exactly.

In the last two elections, Dems have outspent Reps yet lost, the reverse has been true too. And sometimes the greater spender wins. Money doesn't guarantee electoral wins.

So buying influence is a crap shoot and if it wasn't -- let's say a candidate or party is likely to win -- then they wouldn't need the money and be burdened by the influence you imply.

Many things in life "cannot be proven."  One cannot prove that their car will start every time they push the start button, but millions of people rely daily on the perception that their car will start when they push the start button... even though their are surely times a car is not going to start. But, it's a  reliable assumption that's still exercised by millions daily with perceived benefit that results in them continuing to push buttons. 

i never suggested that "any donor to the Republicans [is] just cravenly greedy."    "This is an assumption."  

But "for instance,"  Musk paid millions of dollars to the trump campaign to get trump elected. Coincidentally, Musk ended up with a powerful position (DOGE) and influence when trump did get elected.  If one had the money and resources, one could study this seeking some sort of "proof" that Musk did or didn't donate for a perceived benefit.  In studies there's always a section where the funders and investigators declare whether there is a conflict of interest... because studies that "prove" a premise can be manipulated by the... "cravenly greedy?"  lol.  

my "simplified" premise is that money buys influence.   i believe that is a tried and true, rational belief that society runs on. Are there exceptions? Sure. 

As to "voters get to have the final say."  i cannot remember who said it, but i think it was Senator Ron Wyden in an interview yesterday, so paraphrasing: "the average voters soap box is not equivalent to the billionaires bank account."  

i prefaced my "simplified" when i posit my belief that big money buys political influence, but that is not to say it is a simple knot to untie.  i think it is true that more money spent does not automatically result in getting elected. There are so many factors in how said money is spent to influence the vote. 

Re: "buying influence is  a crap shoot."  Maybe, sometimes more than others.  Musk is back at it, donating millions.  One may think he's just a careless, ignorant gambler shooting craps. i think he is purposely buying influence because it seems apparent that he thinks it pays off. i do not think one can prove either assertion. 

On 2/9/2026 at 9:30 AM, tobetrained said:

My issue:

Quick functional issues around this: aren't you instilling a two-party system? What about independents? etc. But I don't want to detract from your intent -- which I do have an issue with:

 No,  the idea is not to "instill a two-party system,"  but to work towards (money is only one factor) a level playing field. i envision a process more centrist because it would be more inclusive. i think money is a major factor in the (primarily)  two party system we currently have.  i do wonder how it might effect an election if all those running had the same amount of money to work with(money NOT the only factor, but a major one).  

On 2/9/2026 at 9:30 AM, tobetrained said:

Free speech is being able to support whomever you want. It becomes a very slippery slope when an authority -- via regulation like this -- determines how you can give support and when.

"Isn't that the vote -- one person, one vote -- where this comes into play, exactly.

In the last two elections, Dems have outspent Reps yet lost, the reverse has been true too. And sometimes the greater spender wins. Money doesn't guarantee electoral wins.

So buying influence is a crap shoot and if it wasn't -- let's say a candidate or party is likely to win -- then they wouldn't need the money and be burdened by the influence you imply."

On 2/9/2026 at 9:30 AM, tobetrained said:

And, play this forward: People will stop giving or lower their campaign donations as they don't want to equally support the opposition.

"But this is an assumption."

On 2/9/2026 at 9:30 AM, tobetrained said:

But as I've tried to get across, voter influence during an election is driven by issues that are not limited to influence by campaigns. In your version, influence and money will flow outside of campaigns as people want to support their own thing.

This flow can be more and more to "advocacy" groups -- which is separate from political regulations as they may not mention candidates or elections. I posted the article on a separate topic, influence is gained and hammered down by more than money, in the Political Extremes and Parties topic.

Beyond advocacy there are other areas, e.g., corporate messaging, marketing and advertising.

So, put this together, with campaigns raising less and/or with some type of equal dispersion -- they then become more dependent on special interest groups to facilitate basic campaign functions -- like GOTV and direct comms -- as the campaign have relatively little money. Again, this get to the referenced separate topic above, Political Extremes and Parties.

You do not have to "get across" the obvious.  Of course "voter influence during an election is [also] driven by issues that are not limited to influence by campaigns."   Though one could argue that campaigns try to identify and capitalize on those issues.  "Influence and money already flow outside of campaigns, as people want to support their own thing" that's nothing new: "organized religion, ACLU, WWF, ACU, Citizens United, ad infinitum.  

OF COURSE, money is not the only factor in any of these advocacy organizations, but i think it can be argued money is a major factor in any influential organization. 

Advocacy organizations, corporate messaging, marketing and advertising are all social influencers. The goal is to prune, trim that influence when it comes to representative election and make it more dependent on engaging the individual voter. People will still go to church and be influenced on how to vote, or watch tv and be influenced by media, or donate to organizations that agree with their beliefs and desires. That's another topic also needs attention. 

Again, i reassert, to me reform is not just about campaigns and getting elected (or re-elected). It's also about the influence money plays with people in office.  

i do not think we should just leave things as they are, that the system that got us where we are today isn't working well.  Do you agree or disagree with this?  

You write a great deal explaining how and why [you think] i am wrong, but when i ask you for your solution, you give the briefest of answers.  i have asked for thoughts and opinions, i have not asked for "books." i'm as likely to read a book you suggest as you are likely to watch an entire video i post lol. Neither of us has managed to sway the other :-).  Right or wrong, my perception of you is that you sort of like a movie critic criticizing my every production, which tends to put me in a continuous defensive position with you.  Could you please provide your detailed solutions, or reasons why things should remain the same if you believe all is good?

 

[tobetrained]

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

i do not think we should just leave things as they are, that the system that got us where we are today isn't working well.  Do you agree or disagree with this?  

You write a great deal explaining how and why [you think] i am wrong, but when i ask you for your solution, you give the briefest of answers.  i have asked for thoughts and opinions, i have not asked for "books." i'm as likely to read a book you suggest as you are likely to watch an entire video i post lol. Neither of us has managed to sway the other :-).  Right or wrong, my perception of you is that you sort of like a movie critic criticizing my every production, which tends to put me in a continuous defensive position with you.  Could you please provide your detailed solutions, or reasons why things should remain the same if you believe all is good?

Above was your final summary. Let's take the first part, you wrote:

"i do not think we should just leave things as they are, that the system that got us where we are today isn't working well.  Do you agree or disagree with this? "

I disagree, completely. I don't believe there's a way to fix this and the effort, in this case, can make things worse. Since before and after the invention of democracy it has been a problem, the intersection of money, influence, and power.

"I'm as likely to read a book you suggest as you are likely to watch an entire video i post lol."

Calvin and Hobbs: There's Treasure Everywhere.

Now you will never be able to read it! Don't try...no backsies. YOUR LOSS.

"Right or wrong, my perception of you is that you sort of like a movie critic criticizing my every production, which tends to put me in a continuous defensive position with you."  

I've agreed and disagreed with your comments over time. The agreement convos tend to be quick. If someone else would post the video you have I would equally be critical, I find those sources very politically biased. Discussing that and trying to demonstrate their extremes (not yours, personally) is fair game, no?

"Could you please provide your detailed solutions, or reasons why things should remain the same if you believe all is good?"

I believe an attempt to remove money from the equation of "money, influence, and power" simply makes campaigns even more dependent of outside influences as those campaigns/politicians have no way to manage their own voter impact.  The outcome of that is even more a corruption of power, as special interest groups -- effectively -- become the campaign arms of the candidate.

As four solutions or way for things to work: I repeatedly stated in the convo, if a billionaire wants to bankroll a campaign to take on a large corporate interest in a way in which I support, I'm good with that. AND, if I'm good with it in a way I like then I must be equally OK with it in the other direction.

What I rail against is the outrage machines of both main parties with their ideological wings. My solution, as in this convo based NOT on you but the person's in the video you posted, is to call it out, doggedly.

I'm a dog. Bark!

[tallslenderguy]

1 hour ago, tobetrained said:

Above was your final summary. Let's take the first part, you wrote:

"i do not think we should just leave things as they are, that the system that got us where we are today isn't working well.  Do you agree or disagree with this? "

I disagree, completely. I don't believe there's a way to fix this and the effort, in this case, can make things worse. Since before and after the invention of democracy it has been a problem, the intersection of money, influence, and power.

"I'm as likely to read a book you suggest as you are likely to watch an entire video i post lol."

Calvin and Hobbs: There's Treasure Everywhere.

Now you will never be able to read it! Don't try...no backsies. YOUR LOSS.

"Right or wrong, my perception of you is that you sort of like a movie critic criticizing my every production, which tends to put me in a continuous defensive position with you."  

I've agreed and disagreed with your comments over time. The agreement convos tend to be quick. If someone else would post the video you have I would equally be critical, I find those sources very politically biased. Discussing that and trying to demonstrate their extremes (not yours, personally) is fair game, no?

"Could you please provide your detailed solutions, or reasons why things should remain the same if you believe all is good?"

I believe an attempt to remove money from the equation of "money, influence, and power" simply makes campaigns even more dependent of outside influences as those campaigns/politicians have no way to manage their own voter impact.  The outcome of that is even more a corruption of power, as special interest groups -- effectively -- become the campaign arms of the candidate.

As four solutions or way for things to work: I repeatedly stated in the convo, if a billionaire wants to bankroll a campaign to take on a large corporate interest in a way in which I support, I'm good with that. AND, if I'm good with it in a way I like then I must be equally OK with it in the other direction.

What I rail against is the outrage machines of both main parties with their ideological wings. My solution, as in this convo based NOT on you but the person's in the video you posted, is to call it out, doggedly.

I'm a dog. Bark!

Okay, this helps me understand you much better.  i'm not convinced that we cannot make things better and i somehow never managed to connect that your approach would be laiz a faire.  i also continue to suspect i am not making myself clear with you (either? lol) in how i am presenting this. i do not mean to present this as a all or nothing proposition, but more as an ongoing refining or evolutionary process.  i do not believe i am being manipulated (my words, not yours) by the "outrage machines,"  but believe i am independently outraged lol. 

i think i end up identifying money as a tool of corruption, but i do not believe that money itself is 'the root of all evil.'   Nor have i ever meant to suggest "removing money from the equation," rather looking for ways to manage it so one representative  or candidate does not have a financial advantage over another.   So my goal is not so much limiting money as a support, rather looking for a way to give everyone an equal voice... which is probably impossible, but i still think it's a worthy goal, that we can do better than doing nothing at all.  i'm not ignorant of the fact that xyz corp has more money that Joe Smith, thus has more ability to put up billboards with propaganda, exploit AI, etc.. Mr Senator knows this too. Mr Billionaire is in better position to buy favor from existing or future politicians than i am, because a politician may want more than what my vote can provide.  So i'm really looking for ways to attract and police? for honesty and integrity. i'm outraged by a president taking a gift of a jet, or tearing down a chunk of the White House, or____________, and then our supposed checks and balances not working.  And yeah, i do associate money as part of the corrupting factor and i believe we need  to find ways to reduce things like grift.  

[tobetrained]

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

Okay, this helps me understand you much better.  i'm not convinced that we cannot make things better and i somehow never managed to connect that your approach would be laiz a faire.

Hmmm... I understand how you got to laiz a faire, but I wouldn't call it that. To say that, I think, one would have to say there should be no restrictions "just cuz." I'm not doing that.

Here's a medical analogy:

Let's say someone falls down and gets hurt. You see a gash on their head and they say it hurts. You give them a couple ibuprofen. But you can't see the internal bruising elsewhere nor know their clotting problem. So now you've made things worse in your attempt to fix a real problem. [let's assume these descriptions actually make medical sense???]

I'm making the case fixing the money issue is the ibuprofen. The backroom deals of political influence are left unchecked and overcome all else. And that's before you get to the corporate messaging on issues.

Outside of the analogy, I look at candidate financing not as a corruption additive to backroom influence, it's an offset...like two waves which can cancel each other out (to some degree). And importantly, large contribution are public knowledge -- you know about Musk, Soros, etc. -- and can backfire as much as help. Backroom influence from special interest groups are in the shadows.

You said, "i do not mean to present this as a all or nothing proposition, but more as an ongoing refining or evolutionary process." I didn't take it that way.

You said, "...but believe i am independently outraged lol. " Then be outraged by the influence too! It's just as insidious. I would suspect, you would be less outraged by money if public disclosure of large financial contributions was not known. What would happen if these special interest groups had to publish their candidate pledges/questionnaires, release all data on fundraising and expenditures during election windows -- even not election-related. It might be easier to be angry if that info was made public. But it's in the shadows.

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

So my goal is not so much limiting money as a support, rather looking for a way to give everyone an equal voice... which is probably impossible, but i still think it's a worthy goal, that we can do better than doing nothing at all.

Here in yellow is where we disagree immensely, "...give everyone an equal voice..."

To me, equality ends with one person one vote as that is our voice, if you will. There is NOTHING implied in democracy beyond equality of the vote as anything more moves into the realm of ideology.

to that end, the quoted phrase is aligned to notions around collectivism...which I'm less inclined to follow vs. individualism (if forced into an either-or). 

1 hour ago, tallslenderguy said:

i'm outraged by a president taking a gift of a jet, or tearing down a chunk of the White House, or____________, and then our supposed checks and balances not working.  And yeah, i do associate money as part of the corrupting factor and i believe we need  to find ways to reduce things like grift.

Let's take these one by one:

"i'm outraged by a president taking a gift of a jet": as far as I understand, that gift is property of the US. I could be wrong. But to make your statement you do not recognize other cultures and the 1000s of years of trade and political interaction history of cultures across Eurasian steppes -- Middle East to China. Gift-giving was the basis of political dialog. You don't have to like it, but in being outraged are you A) trying to force other cultures to observe your social norms? B) Looking to be outraged when simple "dislike" works?

"tearing down a chunk of the White House": the White House has gone through major revisions many times. This might be more ludicrous than most but far from unique. So what outrages you? Can't you simply dislike it?

"our supposed checks and balances not working": They are being strained, maybe more so than in the past. But what's not working and who is the cause? I would argue Congress is at fault for much if not all of this after decades of abdicating its authority to a President -- both parties, they complain when out of power but do the same when in power. So to whom are you directing your outrage? [...I'm ducking!!...]

[tallslenderguy]

14 hours ago, tobetrained said:

Hmmm... I understand how you got to laiz a faire, but I wouldn't call it that. To say that, I think, one would have to say there should be no restrictions "just cuz." I'm not doing that.

Here's a medical analogy:

Let's say someone falls down and gets hurt. You see a gash on their head and they say it hurts. You give them a couple ibuprofen. But you can't see the internal bruising elsewhere nor know their clotting problem. So now you've made things worse in your attempt to fix a real problem. [let's assume these descriptions actually make medical sense???]

I'm making the case fixing the money issue is the ibuprofen. The backroom deals of political influence are left unchecked and overcome all else. And that's before you get to the corporate messaging on issues.

Outside of the analogy, I look at candidate financing not as a corruption additive to backroom influence, it's an offset...like two waves which can cancel each other out (to some degree). And importantly, large contribution are public knowledge -- you know about Musk, Soros, etc. -- and can backfire as much as help. Backroom influence from special interest groups are in the shadows.

You said, "i do not mean to present this as a all or nothing proposition, but more as an ongoing refining or evolutionary process." I didn't take it that way.

You said, "...but believe i am independently outraged lol. " Then be outraged by the influence too! It's just as insidious. I would suspect, you would be less outraged by money if public disclosure of large financial contributions was not known. What would happen if these special interest groups had to publish their candidate pledges/questionnaires, release all data on fundraising and expenditures during election windows -- even not election-related. It might be easier to be angry if that info was made public. But it's in the shadows.

Here in yellow is where we disagree immensely, "...give everyone an equal voice..."

To me, equality ends with one person one vote as that is our voice, if you will. There is NOTHING implied in democracy beyond equality of the vote as anything more moves into the realm of ideology.

to that end, the quoted phrase is aligned to notions around collectivism...which I'm less inclined to follow vs. individualism (if forced into an either-or). 

Let's take these one by one:

"i'm outraged by a president taking a gift of a jet": as far as I understand, that gift is property of the US. I could be wrong. But to make your statement you do not recognize other cultures and the 1000s of years of trade and political interaction history of cultures across Eurasian steppes -- Middle East to China. Gift-giving was the basis of political dialog. You don't have to like it, but in being outraged are you A) trying to force other cultures to observe your social norms? B) Looking to be outraged when simple "dislike" works?

"tearing down a chunk of the White House": the White House has gone through major revisions many times. This might be more ludicrous than most but far from unique. So what outrages you? Can't you simply dislike it?

"our supposed checks and balances not working": They are being strained, maybe more so than in the past. But what's not working and who is the cause? I would argue Congress is at fault for much if not all of this after decades of abdicating its authority to a President -- both parties, they complain when out of power but do the same when in power. So to whom are you directing your outrage? [...I'm ducking!!...]

You and i, and anyone reading this, have access to  the same resources.  Your and my reads are very different.  i think you mis-read and mis-label me and a lot of the stuff i post. For instance, i do not think the video i posted that started this exchange as extreme or alarmist.    i think we've reached an impasse, that neither of us is going to convince the other.  We each have agreed a few times, but generally we disagree. Neither of us has persuaded the other.   You or i or anyone can look at any of these points and investigate them individually, we've reached different conclusions.  

i think the current president and, those he has surrounded himself with, is fascist in desire and intent, and that terms like  "fascist" and "oligarchy" fit.   my read of you is you do not. We both have access to the same resources.  i think the current president is narcissistic, sociopathic and nihilist.  Again, i don't think you see him, and those he surrounds himself with, similarly.  You have all of the same reasons and sources available to you that i do, but your read of them is different from mine.  If you had any inclination to, generally,  agree, there are far better resources and arguments than me.   From the way you express your self (e.g. "...but as I've tried to get across...."), I suspect we both have felt like we are beating our proverbial  heads against a wall with each other. 

i've "simply dislike[d]"  many politicians and political acts in my lifetime,  trump and his cohorts strike me as "extreme."   i am expressing my outrage by participating in protests, writing to my representatives and posting stuff like i have on BZ.  i see the house on fire, and you seem to just see a fire in the fireplace.  

[tobetrained]

@tallslenderguy we agree on that on things we disagree! and there's nothing wrong with that.

4 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

 i see the house on fire, and you seem to just see a fire in the fireplace.

I understand how you feel that way.

It's not that I see just a fire in the fireplace, but I recognize that -- during the Biden administration and in culture more broadly -- other people felt the same way.

What I see: two political sides who want to burn each other's house down, and do so when they get the chance.

Life in today's politically-charged and polarized world is coping between two political extremes. I choose not to be outraged.