Corruption is Legal in America

Most voters aren't relevant anymore. Princeton confirmed it in a study earlier this year. It's neatly summed up here: this video

Corruption is a world-wide problem and that includes all nations. Corruption is Legal in America [Video] this video

Those two issues are orthogonal to each other. On some plane of understanding, business executives understand that lack of money makes commerce grind to a halt. It's a form of tragedy of the commons, in monetary philosophy. Henry Ford understood this concept; it's why he paid his people well to make cars... which his workers bought. > there is no discourse on how to handle everyone when nobody needs to work. I was in haste in that sentence. Things like UBI are being discussed. However, the flip-side is the actual actions that grind down the worker to a 'nothing': robotic/computer work is ideal for every job, to the minds of the Silicon Valley exec. UBI/Minimum Income: It's been given a many great names through the years. But it's understood as a way for everyone to receive the basic necessities of life, plus a bit more. But this idea requires buy-in of the population at large. Or at least, buy in from the "rich" ( this video ) The problem with Silicon Valley is that they have an assumption this either this already exists somehow, or it will magically appear. What instead happens, is that people lose jobs, wages are forced yet lower and lower, and the human is removed carte blanche in the favor of unpaid robotic labor. On an individual company level, this helps the bottom line of the company (race to the bottom). However, when this idea is expanded to wider and wider areas, it gentrifies the owner class away from everyone else. For in that eventuality, not even upper class jobs e

The people who were funding Trump/Hillary were funding them equally. Is doesn't matter who won, they banks, oil companies and large media conglomerates still control the country like they have for the past several decades. I see in our future ... the exact same presidency. More US led wars. More predator drones. More CIA guns and money to fund revolutions that we then fight with out predator drones. Just remember the election is like Whose Line is it Anyway, the points are all made up and none of it matters. this video

You don't really have a say in the US, at least. Laws pass 30% of the time, whether the voters love it or hate it: this video

For anyone doubting the absolute veracity of this comment, here's a 5 minutes video on how laws are made in America: this video

"if you are invested in an issue, find a way to get involved (reach out to you representative etc.) and have a voice in the discussions, rather than waiting idly by and demonstrating against the result." this video The data seems to show that simply isn't true. It isn't malice, but only representing the interests of those who finance your campaign and ensure you have a job for the next election, which is entirely not the point of our federal government.

Oh happy friend! There is only one choice. All our congresspersons represent the rich and Princeton University did the analysis to prove it: this video

I agree with your second point. Who controls what's considered fake news? Very little is done in the interest of the citizens of the USA anymore [1], so why would we trust our government or media to show us what's in our best interest? [1] this video (Fully Sourced in Description)

Reminds me of an old science-fiction where all events on the media were computer-generated fakes. There has been no "underestimating" of that potential. "Mind-warping" has been researched and is being research extensively by the CIA for some time. Most of that research is still top-secret, but well known are the extreme psychological manipulations of subjects during the MK-Ultra experiments. I will focus on the CIA and it's influence in the past, as this is more controversial and influential than that of other agencies/countries. The influence of MI5/6 or Mossad is great, but a lot of it is still hidden. The influence of the KGB was different, as the citizens did not really believe much in them to begin with. The Chinese are going a whole different way again. The CIA also did experiments involving the manipulation of the control of subjects in social media, like facebook. But it did not stop there. After the peace-protests during the Vietnam war, the CIA has infiltrated into the press and media and anti-war movements. They now use that influence to bend war and destruction into a peace-giving action. So we had "Freedom fighters" in Afghanistan etc. Which was portrait in the Rambo movie. And the US supported Saddam fighting Iran with US made chemical weapons. Later the US fights the parties that it created and armed. Some strange thing that keeps repeating in the US history. At the same time the CIA has the Phoenix program and other society destructive programs. They worked to

> On all sides. Goldman Sachs has their man in Washington, as does Planned Parenthood. I might be misinterpreting you here but it sounds as if you're saying that all is well and good since all lobby organisations are represented in Washington. The problem to me with this idea would be that not all of the people are represented by all of the lobby organisations. Which makes the system not even a mob rule, but simply a plutocracy. this video

Sure, they may not get their way 100% of the time, but studies have shown that corporate lobbying highly correlates with what U.S. politicians support or don't support. Meanwhile, what the People support has ZERO correlation with how politicians will vote for something. this video Also, the U.S. system of "vote transparency" (votes are anonymous in almost all other cases, and for good reason) in Congress means that the lobbyists know which politician voted for what, and the politicians also know that the companies donating tens of thousand of dollars to them will know how they voted, too - so they will vote "accordingly" if they want that income stream to continue in the future. This is a rotten/corrupt relationship/dependency that should not exist in a democracy that's supposed to listen to the "voice of the people".

Lol, not. Congress doesn't care much what the american people want, but rather disctract them with abortions and talks about scary socialism that might give them what they actually want and probably not what they fear. this video

It comes down to power. Studios don't own theatres because they aren't powerful enough to lobby for that, but if were more profitable for studios and theatres to be vertically integrated (spoiler alert: it would), then you'd bet it'd happen. Maybe Disney will take the lead on that one. Look, I don't like it either, but common people have statistically insignificant impact on whether or not legislation is passed. this video

It's a tough issue, for sure, because the playing field is just so unequal. To even be able to approach these issues in a more equal way you'd probably have to start a lawsuit and go through a process of discovery because the corporation is bound by all these bizarre legal, financial, and political motives that don't apply when people are interacting with each other. This leads to corporations responding to such requests in a way that's inherently against the interests of the public answering these questions. Without a system in place that further aligns and incentivizes companies interests with their users the only way you can really approach this in a more equal manner is something like a lawsuit. Many times the problem is incredibly complex and while some people, even C level people may be all for providing this transparency it breaks down at scale and the company is at the end of the day beholden to its own interests and perpetuating itself. I recently saw this video on YouTube about some of the shadiness going on with Roblox: link The official answers they are giving is basically meaningless legalese and that's becoming more and more common. As I said before since Roblox isn't entering into this conversation in good faith the only way to force that conversation would be legal actions. Any kinds of laws further aligning the needs of clients/the general populace against the needs of big corporations/political elite have a really hard time passing because the system is se

Capitalism inherently exploits economically unequal systems, and thus incentivizes them in both the private and public sectors (especially in the US where politicians are basically owned outright[1]). So, yes, it is "companies"... or more specifically, large wealth-owned profit-takers, that are the root cause of the supply-demand curves AND the zoning AND all of the other contributing factors. The fact that there are different sets of capitalists (rent and investment exploiters versus labor exploiters) who have varying influence on politicians is secondary to the fact that the politicians are primarily if not solely doing the bidding of capitalists. Attempts at corporate externalizing of risk happen in multiple contradictory directions, thus causing inconsistent public policy. Regardless, privatized-profit motivated externalization of public risk is the core problem. GDP-centric increases in productivity mean precisely fuckall for working class quality of life until we solve for the fact that the entirety of increased productivity gains have gone to the wealthy in the past 5 decades[2]. I do think as a society we should build more affordable housing in densely populated areas, but allowing capitalists to hold the reins for that would accelerate all of the problems of late stage capitalism. Lastly, Japan has succeeded where others have failed because of a cultural difference which highly values new builds over old homes. They dispose of their homes and rebuild, as often as the

Power and office are two different things. Someone can exercise a great deal of power in advancing or killing legislation while never holding office and allowing all the office holders to call them names on TV. What matters is what policies are enacted. Here's a nice video on the topic that summarizes a Princeton study this video

But would she have been if he didn't? You don't have to like him to acknowledge that the world's richest man with more followers than Joe Rogan has listeners (the most popular podcast period) has power. It's not inconceivable. When presidents do this they call it the "bully pulpit" because he uses his reach to the people to have them put pressure on their reps, which I wish we saw more of, because "Congress doesn't care what you think": this video