all 25 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 54 points 4 days ago (5 children)

Democrats need to get Citizens United reversed. Too bad all states didn't have Montana's ballot to ban corporate money, which would have been a small start.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    There's a slim chance this will happen in the next two administrations. But, if two of Thomas, Alito, or Roberts dies, or quits before January, Trump will get two more appointments. They might quit just to give him that opportunity. If that happens, then it will be a long time still before we can get rid of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago*

    Pack the Supreme Court, make the Reps bitch and moan about it.

    Why wait?

    I don't even care if it ends up holding, or even working at all, but we need that 'Lyndon Johnson cockslaps you in the bathroom' kind of energy.

    Oh, the Reps want an actual law that caps the Court? Sure, if you kill the Electoral College.

    See, you can just assert your own framework of negotiations, instead of just taking whatever the Repulicans lay down as their terms, and then working within those.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 4 days ago (11 children)

    Financial obesity is neurotoxic, an existential threat to any society that tolerates it, and needs to cease being celebrated, rewarded, and positioned as an aspirational goal.

    Corporations are the only ‘persons’ which should be subjected to capital punishment, but trillionaires should be forced to transition into billionaires, and billionaires should be euthanised through taxation.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago (9 children)

    and billionaires should be euthanised through taxation public infrastructure.

    FTFY.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (8 children)

    That’s one potential indirect result of taxation, but their wealth is unnecessary to provision the components of a society. The reason to tax billionaires is because no one should be tolerated hoarding that level of wealth.

    They should be euthanised because they shouldn’t exist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (7 children)

    The reason to tax billionaires is because no one should be tolerated hoarding that level of wealth.

    The reason liberals love chanting "tax the rich!" is because it sounds good while posing zero threat to billionaires in any way whatsoever.

    The only way to break the power of billionaires is through public infrastructure - the pharma bros can't make profit off medicines if it's being manufactured publicly, for instance.

    The technocratic left and the libertarian left can spend all day arguing how public infrastructure should be run, but the one thing both understands is that the only correct course is public infrastructure.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (6 children)

    I’m not saying we should merely ‘tax the rich’, I’m arguing the rich should be eliminated through taxation. It’s also merely an opening salvo of what needs to be done to correct the debased social structures we currently inhabit, which I consider your suggestion to be complementary and compounding to mine. They’re both necessary, but individually they’re insufficient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    I’m arguing the rich should be eliminated through taxation.

    What's the point of trying to tickle them out of existence? If you can break their power - for which we already have a tried-and-tested economic mechanism (ie, the aforementioned public infrastructure) - why not just expropriate all their ill-gotten private property?

    Attempting to tax them will achieve nothing except giving them ample time and opportunity to use their wealth to poke a million-and-one holes in your tax laws - which, surprise, surprise, they already do on a daily basis.

    As I said before... when liberals start peddling something as a (supposed) "solution" it's a pretty sure fire bet that it's absolutely nothing of the sort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (3 children)

    it would be much easier to kill them than tax them. why not do it? its not like they aren't all guilty.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (2 children)

    it would be much easier to kill them than tax them.

    And who will be doing all that killing?

    You?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    who will make sure they actually pay that tax? you?

    violence is required either way. we pay the same price for gold or pyrite. why not take gold?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • who will make sure they actually pay that tax? you?

    Maybe check who it is that you are replying to.

    violence force is required either way.

    FTFY.

    why not take gold?

    You haven't answered the question - who will be doing all the killing?

  • source
  • parent
  • that would've been enough if carter had passed it in his second term, but their crimes and the way they have shaped society to benefit them demand retribution. the rich need to be killed, the systems are all theirs and cannot be trusted to handle them gently but firmly.

    the only answer sane coherent they have left for ourvsurvival is their extermination.

  • source
  • parent
  • I think laws could maybe be compatible with capitalism if the amount of protection you got from them was inversely proportional to the amount of money you have, just like the amount they can restrict you.

    legal to do anything that doesnt leave a mark or offend passerby to the dentist with a yacht a mcmansion in an expensive city and a cozy retirement stashed away, straight up legal to live stream 'hostel' of a billionaire.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Majority Democrats’ tactics are, in a word, Trumpian. Denying our reporters basic press access that is being offered to other “friendlier” outlets is a brazen attempt to punish us for past reporting, which has never been disputed on factual grounds.

    The denial comes at a time when the White House has also tried to shut out members of the press whose coverage was critical of the administration. Both parties have increasingly restricted press access to campaign political events in unprecedented ways while literally rolling out the red carpet for media outlets and influencers who won’t ask challenging questions, including pundits like Matt Yglesias, who is a featured speaker at Majority Democrats’ conference.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 4 days ago

    what? but didn't they just say they were gonna investigate corporate america? surely they wouldn't have lied about that!

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 4 days ago

    Democrats have billionaire backers, Republicans are so fully owned by billionaires they’re slowly being replaced by them at this point.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago

    Liberals gonna lib.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    Anyone have a non-paywall link?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment