Bernie was our compromise
Bernie was our compromise
If they can elect a felon to the white house, so could we.
Edit: Better image, thanks to @[email protected]
You're viewing part of a thread.
No I think that clearly was. But you are ignoring pressures by various elected officials and civil society on the anesthesia policy. Luigi may have been a factor but he clearly wasn’t the only factor.
I don’t think most of these decision-makers really understood why Luigi did what he did, or why so many people supported him. They think they’re the good guys. And it’s not at all clear that this policy change will protect them from the kind of person who does this anyway. So the causal link is not as clear as you imply.
That said, I’d be interested to hear health care execs talk about how this made them feel or behave, if any are willing to be honest. Maybe I am wrong, it’s difficult to know.
But you are ignoring pressures by various elected officials
Seriously? Both parties are very well bribed to protect their sociopathic corporate greed from civil society.
https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/industry-detail/F09/2024 https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/unitedhealth-group/summary?id=D000000348
If there were elected officials working against them, there were a hundred elected officials being called by the companies telling the parties to get their spoiler members, because the DNC and RNC only promote on your ability to get the bribe money aka "fundraise," back in line.
Accepting bribes doesn’t mean they are slaves to industry. Politics is never that simple. They still have their own agenda and different constituencies to keep happy and are subject to public pressure as well. The weight of each of these factors differs in each particular case, such that some elected officials still work to limit corporate power some of the time.
The article you posted outlines many such actions. They objectively happened, so I’m not sure where your incredulity is coming from.
I don't accept that taking the money of an industry doesn't mean you aren't a beholden slave to it. It is the very basis of promotion in both parties. You must be a spoiler candidate that both parties loudly hate more than one another to not accept corporate bribe money and be elected.
This whole idea of "well when they took the money, herp derp, did they get caught on 4k hdr with atmos audio saying 'thank you for the bribe, I will do your bidding in exchange for this bribe that Im taking here, officially, I'm taking bribes for favors up in here!' then it isn't acktually a bribe" is lunacy. No bribe ever has happened that way, and money in the sums they bribe aren't given for nothing.
Corporations aren't charities, the opposite in fact, when they "donate" 50k to sick kids, it's marketing. They always then spend millions marketing they donated 50k to sick kids so buy our product. They never spend money they don't expect return on.
It is intentionally obtuse to make the claim that you can accept corporate money as an elected official and not be their lackey. It's the reason in our dystopic money in politics nation many go into politics explicitly, they'd like to be bought please and thank you, look how good I am at "fundraising!" promote me and I'll get even bigger "donations!"
This seems to be more of an argument against a point you imagine someone like me would make than the one I actually made. Yes, bribery is commonplace, that's not what I'm disputing. But politicians also do sometimes go against corporate interests for various reasons. This is an observable fact and your own source proves it. So you are just wrong about this one, sorry, it's not really debatable.
This is not to say it never has influence or isn't harmful. But this kind of black and white thinking is part of why the left is so ineffective. Most people have a very poor understanding of the way politics actually works. It's all about bargaining power. Bribery is a powerful bargaining chip but it's not the only currency in the game and it can be outplayed with the right strategies, especially organized actions by the public and civil society. The capitalists have all of the money, but money is only powerful because it makes people do things. We can do equally or more impactful things without money if we seize the real power of mass movements.
And fundamentally, I don't think murdering people is a very effective way to build mass movements because it's chaotic, morally questionable, and it scares people. Sure, it gets already existing radicals fired up but there are other ways to do that and it's not the most important aspect of why a movement succeeds or fails which is effective strategy and massive public support.
Currency is the only currency any party promoted official in our dystopia acts upon with regards to economic policy.
Considering you claimed I was arguing against an "imagined point" and then proceeded to claim against the exact point I made, that bribery somehow isn't the primary source of action or inaction in our fully corrupted, fully captured government, I believe I've made my point.
Neoliberals man... "Die in the streets, but here have a cause ribbon, your existence is valid and I acknowledge it, now please die as you're lowering property values, not because I hate you though but because the free market has spoken, that's a super important distinction!"
https://apnews.com/article/business-nancy-pelosi-congress-8685e82eb6d6e5b42413417f3d5d6775
With "friends" like these...