this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
382 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3650 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

People care when their drinking water is contaminated with lead. They care if their medicines aren’t safe and effective, or if somebody takes all the money out of their investment accounts. Those things don’t make people happy. Yet it’s administrative agencies that are guarding against that and protecting their rights. So when the Supreme Court starts to dismantle important features of these agencies, it matters because it’s destabilizing a really important part of government

all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 164 points 4 months ago (4 children)

It's really very, very simple.

Regulation of things like pollution serves the interests of the people broadly, but undermines the interests of a handful of obscenely wealthy sociopaths.

And much of the current Supreme Court explicitly works NOT to serve the interests of the people broadly, but to serve the interests of the obscenely wealthy sociopaths.

And that's it, right there. Just as has happened in numerous past civilizations, the power structure in the US has become so warped and corrupted - so entirely in the control of sociopaths - that it not only no longer even pretends to serve the interests of the people, but tends to explicitly work against their interests.

And the hell of it is that the ruling class is so far gone in corruption and shallow self-interest - so sincerely deeply mentally ill - that they don't recognize that ultimately they're working against their own interests - that serving the interests of the people maintains the health of the society from which they benefit, and that working against the interests of the people undermines that health. Like any other mindless parasite, they're going to destroy their host, and in so doing, ultimately destroy themselves.

And the US will just be added to the ever-growing list of societies destroyed through the machinations of a relative few profoundly mentally ill people granted undue wealth and power.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Welp, that about sums it up.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

America has an oligarch problem

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Have you seen my can of Oligarch-B-Gone?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Humanity has an oligarch problem.... We aren't the first, and I'd be surprised to hear we were the last.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

To further your point, I've never understood why American billionaires want us to be more like Russia. Yes, it will make line go up in the short term. Do they know what happens to Russian billionaires? They have a tendency to fall out of windows.

I don't know why they think they can get one of those without the other.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago

Mm... sort of.

The US had the enormous advantage of starting its life with material resources of which most can only dream, so it couldn't help but achieve some fairly significant success, and as long as things were relatively easy, it generally did. But it never quite managed to pull its head out of its ass. Its material advantages made it so that it generally managed to get by in spite of the fact that it's head was firmly lodged up its own ass, but that also meant that it never learned anything. So it just stayed in a diminishing circle of bad decisions until it reached a point at which smart decisions were necessary, and it revealed itself to be mostly incapable of making them.

And at the moment, it's actually subject to a mass movement that lauds the days of the bad decisions as the good old days, since the people still have their heads too far up their asses and can't recognize the reality that they were always bad decisions, that the prosperity that accompanied them was simply due to the US's enormous material advantages and in spite of, rather than because of, the bad decisions, and that a return to those bad decisions in an era in which those material advantages have been squandered is just going to make things even worse.

Which, granted, is still sort of a "good run" - much smarter people have still failed to do even close to as well, since they were stuck starting out with pretty much nothing but disadvantages.

But one can't help but wonder what could've been had we not had our heads so firmly lodged up our asses...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Turn America fascist (ANY%)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And the hell of it is that the ruling class is so far gone in corruption and shallow self-interest - so sincerely deeply mentally ill - that they don't recognize that ultimately they're working against their own interests

I come across this sort of comment more and more - the fact that sociopath billionaires extending their influence to the political and judicial system are, in fact, mentally ill.

Believe me, they're not.

They know very well what they are doing. It's just that their wealth isolates them from the consequences of it. They don't care about healthcare, climate change, education, unemployment, because that's for the 95% to worry about. They are rich enough to don't give a fuck, and they feel safe doing so.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They know very well what they are doing. It’s just that their wealth isolates them from the consequences of it. They don’t care about healthcare, climate change, education, unemployment, because that’s for the 95% to worry about. They are rich enough to don’t give a fuck, and they feel safe doing so.

And that rather obviously describes someone who's rather obviously mentally ill.

Specifically, they lack empathy and have little to no conscience, so have little to no concern for the harm their decisions might cause to others. Those are the hallmarks of both antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

They have a conscience, they have empathy, it's just that they only do for their friends, families or people in their social circles.

Most people act like this. There are people working in terrible conditions in Bangladesh or China to create stuff the western countries buy at Walmart, forever 21, Amazon... Where's the empathy for them? Where's the empathy for the guy that lost his job 6 months ago and has been sleeping in a tent since, and only got 75 cents after 2 hours of panhandling?

Individually, we can't help everyone so we often look the other way. That doesn't make us psychopaths.

Furthermore, saying rich people have mental illness frames the problem as a psychological one when in reality it is a socio-economic problem that requires a political solution.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We are being actively dragged back in time to a point where it was less difficult for the rich and powerful to control us like livestock

[–] [email protected] 32 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The darkly amusing part is that they’ve also expanded access to firearms and defended the second amendment in a lot of ways. It’s almost as if they’re asking us to solve the problem ourselves.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It may be useful to defend the 2nd amendment now, to galvanize a portion of the population. But when it's no longer useful, they'll clamp down hard on that too (just like Reagan did when the Black Panthers started arming themselves in the 80s)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

My MAGA dad got pretty pissed off when I told him it'd be the Republicans who come to take his guns away.

[–] [email protected] 55 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I wish the EPA had the kind of power it did in Ghostbusters (original).

[–] [email protected] 32 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Yes, it's true: since the ruling, the EPA has no dick.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (5 children)

You know, everyone hates that guy, but he was the only reasonable person in that movie.

Ghosts aren't real, and the Ghostbusters were reckless. Egon and Ray built an unstable containment apparatus without permits or inspections in an old firehouse with shoddy electrical wiring. They built back-pack carried laser weapons capable of annihilating a city block with an errant crossing of the streams.

Ray also manifested StayPuft Gozer.

Venkman was a charletain and a fraud, as well as a narcissistic sociopath.

Winston was just a guy they hired off the street.

Shutting down their nuclear "ghost containment" apparatus was the responsible thing to do. Walter Peck deserves a medal, or maybe a prosthetic device for his downstairs mixup.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

First off, in the world of Ghostbusters, ghosts absolutely are real, though their appearances seem to be somewhat sporadic.

Second, Peck was a man who abused his power and nearly caused an apocalypse.

I'm not saying the Ghostbusters were entirely in the right, but Peck absolutely went too far because of his own personal biases. When he first went to the firehouse to investigate, he started out just fine. When he asked to see the containment unit, Venkman asked a perfectly valid question, "why do you want to see it?" From there, Peck immediately went off on a tangent, accusing the Ghostbusters of being frauds, and threatening legal action, to which Venkman responded in kind.

The next time Peck shows up, he has barged in and shuts everything down without thought of the consequences. Even the people he brings along for support think it's a bad idea.

It's like somebody built a bomb in their back yard, and instead of properly defusing it, he insists they take a sledgehammer to it.

Imagine how this goes if he kept his cool in the first meeting. Venkman likely shows him the containment unit, and Spengler explains how it works. If it really does run afoul of EPA regulations, the Ghostbusters get a fine, and are asked to bring their equipment into compliance. Maybe they have to retrofit a few things, but in the end, there's probably no explosion of ghosts, and possibly Vinz Clortho and Zuul never manage to link up (as their meeting was facilitated by the chaos of the aftermath), preventing Gozer from entering our dimension.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Thanos is the hero we need

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You know, everyone hates that guy, but he was the only reasonable person in that movie.

Much like the EPA!

They built back-pack carried laser weapons capable of annihilating a city block with an errant crossing of the streams.

Those were "unlicensed nuclear accelerators" -- way worse than mere lasers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Ghosts aren't real

You make some good points, but how can you expect people to read past this!? In-universe, ghosts are 100% real. That's the entire premise of the movie!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I would argue they have a tiny dick and no balls, but potato potato.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 4 months ago

You cannot have a functioning industrial/post industrial society without a bureaucracy. The chevron deference was an acknowledgment of that

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely agreed. The middle class is disproportionately paying for the taxes in this country and the only thing I want mine used for is to keep us safe and maintain our infrastructure. The Republicans and this disastrous Supreme Court is doing everything in their power to divert taxes from the beneficial usage that many want it to be used for to tax cuts for the super wealthy and giveaways to corporations. Fuck them all and I'd rather see our country divide and burn than drown slowly in this cesspool of shit.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago

We don't think about it a lot, but part of the cost of buying groceries is also the cost of garbage service. Everybody has to pay for the disposal of their own waste. For most households, it is a minimal cost, and it may even be so minimal that it's rolled into another expense that you don't even see (included with rent, municipal taxes, etc.).

For manufacturing, however, it's a totally different story. Industry produces huge amounts of waste, and often they don't pay to dispose of it properly. The word "giveaway" is exactly right. We are, paying for their cleanup expenses.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Well I don't get to vote for the Supreme Court and last time court expansion was talked about it couldn't even get through the opposition within the Democratic party. All I can do is vote for this to continue of vote for it to get worse. Sorry.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You vote for the Supreme Court every time you vote. The people you elect appoint justices who work their way up,and approve justices in Congress. Local elections matter. Even there you are either voting for people who are working their way up or appoint other judges.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yes and none of the people on my ballot want to expand the court that's the point.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Probably because you don't vote in the primaries. That's where people with more fringe ideas are located. Vote them up if they share your fringe idea. You can complain about the "system" all you want, the people who run the system were put there through primaries and generals. Learn how to use the tools available to you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The primaries were decided mathematically before my state got a chance to vote. My primary vote didn't matter this year and this isn't the first time this has happened. Downballot all the usual suspects won as well since turnout is always lower when this happens.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There's been debate about changing the size of the supreme court for a long time. The problem is that if one party does it, the next one can do the same to stack in their favor. That said, just 9 members that are permanent installed with no oversight makes them arguably the most powerful body in the nation. Just one crooked member can be devastating.

I don't have a perfect solution, but I'd start with something more like 21 members, strict oversight into their finances, a third party that mandates recusal, and a shelf life.

The damage of these 6-3 decisions could last decades or worse. They certainly don't represent the people that are much closer to 50/50 conservative/liberal than 2/3 extremely conservative.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

The issue I have with Dems NOT stacking the court given the chance is that the GOP absolutely would - and might still if they wanted to future-proof their stranglehold. Stack the court. Get a shim in place (SCOTUS term limits, oversight, anything). Don't worry about what the GOP might do, worry about what they ARE doing and maybe try getting ahead of the problem for a change.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

and that is what your parents were told by their parents who were told by their parents

same things your kids will tell your grandchildren who will then go on to tell your great grandchildren

"Kept voting the same party in and the outcome was always the same because of that damn other party! and that same other party is making sure my party can't do anything!"

doing something over and over without changing any variables but expecting a different result than the one you keep getting is insanity not voting

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago

The Supreme Court had consistently been moving many issues to the left over many decades until very recently, so I don't know what you're talking about here at all. This is the direct result of the Republican Party, from Mitch McConnell refusing to even entertain the possibility of Obama filling Scalia's seat to Trump appointing 3 justices. There's a dose of Ginsburg's narcissism in there too, she should have retired.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

You vote for the person who selects the people for SCOTUS. There are two very old members (Thomas and Alito) that will likely be replaced in the next 4 years. Are you willing to let trump replace them with 40 year olds and fuck us for decades to come?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Be sure to thank a conservative for this SCOTUS. Conservatives did this. They will never stop.