Good for Warren. It's about time we saw a genuine trust-busting effort coming out of the White House.
The entire premise of capitalism is that free competition forces corporations to cater to consumers, and that premise is shattered when a company does not face serious competition. It's not healthy for the economy or society for a handful of incredibly powerful companies to dominate the nation.
We've done it before. Teddy Roosevelt did it, and rightly so. It's not like this is an untested, radical idea. Politicians have just been too afraid of challenging powerful companies.
Like I said, it's bold. I don't think it's going anywhere, but it's not lacking in courage or risk in speaking out. But we have to live in reality here. Even assuming she got elected and mamaged to get massive majorities in Congress, the current Supreme Court would never allow it to take place. The theft of Obama's pick will never be undone in this generation. Corporate power is enshrined for at least the next 25 years.
As I have said before, designating these companies as public utilities is a perfectly legitimate viewpoint, even a noble one. It just doesn't have any place in a time-period (now) when Net Neutrality has been gutted. Under a hypothetical (I'd argue unlikely) Warren Presidency, I have to be operating under that assumption that Net Neutrality would be forcefully reinstated. It almost goes without saying at this point. The internet should be a public utility, I don't think that is even a debatable question. The problem is going to be how you make the argument (which would eventually come before a court somewhere along the line) that search engines, video platforms, and social media are as well. Warren's plan is detailed and thought out, but, again, are we dealing with reality here, or wishful thinking?? Because I'm fairly certain that Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, YouTube and Apple are not going to just back down without a fight. And seeing as the influence and (especially) financial resources of JUST these 6 companies alone is basically bottomless and infinite, it's going to take more than rhetoric in a left-wing primary to get the job done.
And why is this just limited to tech companies?? PLENTY of industries have monolithic giants that basically control the whole board in regards to their particular field. Big Ag, pharma, waste disposal. Hell, you could even make an argument that Sony and Microsoft have near monopoly on gaming platforms if we are going this route. You can for sure make the argument that Comcast and Time Warner are wielding near monopolies in certain areas of the country in the telcom industry. Are we prepared to go all the way on this, or are we just going to limit it to the more noticeable presence of these giant online companies that operate websites because it is easier and simpler to explain to people??
So, while I agree with Warren in principle, I don't even remotely see where the American electorate is going to have the stomach for it, and that is mostly because all you are going to hear for the next two years and change about every Democrat in the country is the word "socialism", which SHOULDN'T be scaring anyone, but is going to regardless. And once Elizabeth Warren starts getting on a debate stage and talking about breaking up household names, that is only going to magnify. So someone needs to explain to me how you wage a rhetorical battle about this in a climate where Trump is going to be screaming about how "Pocahontas wants to turn us into Venezuela" on a daily basis. Because we all know that is what is going to happen. Because I am not at all convinced Democrats can just sit back and talk about policy when their opponent is just going to be flinging shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. And the later is WAY easier for people to wrap their heads around.
Good for Warren. It's about time we saw a genuine trust-busting effort coming out of the White House.
The entire premise of capitalism is that free competition forces corporations to cater to consumers, and that premise is shattered when a company does not face serious competition. It's not healthy for the economy or society for a handful of incredibly powerful companies to dominate the nation.
We've done it before. Teddy Roosevelt did it, and rightly so. It's not like this is an untested, radical idea. Politicians have just been too afraid of challenging powerful companies.
The problem is that market forces naturally favor fewer larger companies over a bajillion small companies. Companies get weeded out and merge and get bigger and bigger. Once large enough, economies of scale take over and they become natural oligopolies. I mentioned it before in the old Politics thread somewhere, but you can point to almost ANY industry, and find that roughly 80% market share of that industry is going to be controlled by 3-4 companies.
Airlines
Assurance Accounting
Banking
Telecommunications
Movie Studios
That's snapped straight off the top of my head. In the time typing this, I also thought about microprocessors and graphics cards.
No one is going to throw down 10-100 billion dollars for a small firm to start up and compete with "the big boys" in any of those. What we've got, is what we're always going to have.
Breaking up the big tech companies was something I used to admire Bannon for saying and something I had hoped the Trump admin would do. To hear Warren come out and endorse it is a sign we're on the right track.
No one is going to throw down 10-100 billion dollars for a small firm to start up and compete with "the big boys" in any of those.
You don't need to wait for a small firm to show up and start competing with a major company. Splitting the company into two, for example, would already mean there were two large companies of roughly equal size who could compete.
The industry in question would still be the same size and have the same people in it. Breaking up big companies doesn't mean eliminating them or shrinking them; it means splitting them up.
The only difference is that more people would have to compete to gain market share, rather than collude to preserve market share.
Market forces nature favor certain things, but that doesn't make them either good or even inevitable. Economies of scale and efficiency aren't the only reasons some companies take over a market: anti-competitive behavior, name recognition, and control of resources let large companies stay on top regardless of how well they're serving customers.
you can point to almost ANY industry, and find that roughly 80% market share of that industry is going to be controlled by 3-4 companies.
Honestly, I think that just demonstrates how endemic the problem really is. Is it really realistic that 3-4 companies just happen to be so superior to everyone else that they honestly earned 80% of an entire industry between them?
One of the main reasons companies get so big is simply because they can buy out smaller ones and combine their strength in mergers. That's not a reflection of their competence or efficiency; it's simply a reflection of how much power they have to manipulate the market through sheer wealth.
Imagine if Olympic athletes could pay their opponents to stay at home during Olympic events. We'd never tolerate that, or treat the resulting victories as legitimate. Yet that's how major companies have been operating for decades.
This is not meant as instigation: I honestly want to know what people think.
What is to be had from breaking up tech companies? Along what lines would they be broken up? What is the hoped-for end situation? What is the justification for such an aggressive intrusion into private business? These are not trusts...
YouTube and Google could be chunked.
Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp would be a start. Why does Facebook need to own and operate two messaging systems?
Also, it's called the World Wide Web for a reason. Yes, these are all American companies, but this move would also have massive international implications as well, which is something that isn't even being factored in.
Erik Prince remains one of the most malevolent forces in all of America, and the fact that he is still in a proximity to power after the Iraq War-era should worry any reasonable person to absolutely no end:
The massage parlor story isn't having a happy ending for Republicans.
Li "Cindy" Yang, the woman who founded the Orchids of Asia Day Spa in Jupiter, Florida — where Patriots owner Robert Kraft was caught allegedly paying for sex from trafficked women — watched the Patriots-Rams Super Bowl with Donald Trump.
In fact, the woman in charge of the massage parlor has seemingly hung out with every major member of the Sunshine State GOP except Marco Rubio. The list includes Gov. Ron DeSantis, Sen. Rick Scott, Rep. Matt Gaetz, and even Florida resident and blockheaded Fox News pundit Dan Bongino.
She was photographed in Trump's booth for a selfie with Trump during the SUPER BOWL and she's a member of maralago.
So now you know Trump's involved with another sex trafficking person besides his ten year buddy pedophile Jeff Epstein. Shocked?
This is not meant as instigation: I honestly want to know what people think.
What is to be had from breaking up tech companies? Along what lines would they be broken up? What is the hoped-for end situation? What is the justification for such an aggressive intrusion into private business? These are not trusts...
YouTube and Google could be chunked.
Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp would be a start. Why does Facebook need to own and operate two messaging systems?
But I mean... what will the end result be? You think there will be two major search portals? That's not going to happen.
The massage parlor story isn't having a happy ending for Republicans.
Li "Cindy" Yang, the woman who founded the Orchids of Asia Day Spa in Jupiter, Florida — where Patriots owner Robert Kraft was caught allegedly paying for sex from trafficked women — watched the Patriots-Rams Super Bowl with Donald Trump.
In fact, the woman in charge of the massage parlor has seemingly hung out with every major member of the Sunshine State GOP except Marco Rubio. The list includes Gov. Ron DeSantis, Sen. Rick Scott, Rep. Matt Gaetz, and even Florida resident and blockheaded Fox News pundit Dan Bongino.
She was photographed in Trump's booth for a selfie with Trump during the SUPER BOWL and she's a member of maralago.
So now you know Trump's involved with another sex trafficking person besides his ten year buddy pedophile Jeff Epstein. Shocked?
David Corn of Mother Jones may be a decidedly left-wing reporter, but he is a damn good one, and has been for years. And as I saw this this morning, I was reminded of what the main NFL reporter on ESPN Adam Schefter said when the story broke about Robert Kraft, which was that this was a wide-ranging investigation and that Bob Kraft was NOT the biggest name involved.
Every time you turn over another rock with these people, there is something else underneath. The corruption is just breath-taking. In light of this news, it has to be asked (though we should have been asking it anyway): Just what was given up in those White House meetings that days later resulted in Ivanka's patents being granted??
CMV the President shouldn't vacation at a golf club that he owns nearly every week. It's a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax payer money in security costs and he is pocketing a lot of that too so it's corruption. Also, foreign executives and spies are buying access to him while he's there. He was completely full of crap with his 'drain the swamp' line, the people that believed that have to be feeling really dumb by now.
CMV the President shouldn't vacation at a golf club that he owns nearly every week. It's a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax payer money in security costs and he is pocketing a lot of that too so it's corruption. Also, foreign executives and spies are buying access to him while he's there.
ALL of his businesses are a problem. And he has properties everywhere. It is in no way unreasonable to expect him to cut ALL ties to these if he is going to assume the office of the President. Obama had no ties to any personal businesses while in office. Bush sold all his holdings in his various companies. Clinton certainly didn't have any. Shit, Jimmy Carter was forced to sell his frickin' PEANUT FARM when it became a controversy. But Trump is still pocketing money from a international business empire?? How stupid are we to let this continue. Again, every single property he owns might as well have a neon sign above the door that says "Bribes, insert envelope here". This article is basically a small book on how many there are. It literally has a table of contents to navigate it. It's absolutely astounding:
Any one or two of the situations mentioned in this very long article would be enough to prompt a massive, Presidency threatening scandal for almost any other person in the office. And, again, because absolutely nothing matters anymore, but sheer VOLUME of his corruption, Trump has inoculated himself from any serious scrutiny on this issue by simply flooding the zone with so much blatant corruption that even the news media becomes numb to it and can't keep up.
This is not meant as instigation: I honestly want to know what people think.
What is to be had from breaking up tech companies? Along what lines would they be broken up? What is the hoped-for end situation? What is the justification for such an aggressive intrusion into private business? These are not trusts...
The biggest one I want to see broken up is Google, and for the simple reason that I think they are genuinely dangerous at this point. Other companies, when they want to manipulate society and policy, give money to politicians and some of them buy a media company. There's a paper trail and we know what's going on and can take that into consideration. When Google wants to manipulate policy and society, it is doing it from behind the scenes, with next to no accountability, and the bigger they get and the more refined their research gets and the more total data about everyone's lives they collect they harder and harder it will be to resist whatever pull Google is trying to have via owning everyone's data, owning politicians, owning the single largest gateway to information anywhere, and manipulating it to their own ends. When you think about what Google is actually capable of, and the fact that they are on a path towards being more involved in trying to manipulate society, and not less, it should be pretty obvious they have an amazingly out-sized influence in society that should be curtailed. I mean Sanders talks about the undue influence of the Koch brothers lol, the power of freakin Google is more than an army of Koch brothers could hope to achieve.
To be fair I actually think you are correct that sufficiently strong regulation- of some kind- could potentially do the same thing. But I worry the sheer size and power of Google makes such regulation next to impossible to achieve, without them being broken down.
The biggest one I want to see broken up is Google, and for the simple reason that I think they are genuinely dangerous at this point. Other companies, when they want to manipulate society and policy, give money to politicians and some of them buy a media company. There's a paper trail and we know what's going on and can take that into consideration.
There actually isn't, rather often. GOP legislation has actually made it easier for campaigns to fail to disclose the sources of their funding. We don't always know which companies or PACs are trying to buy influence from which politicians.
The biggest one I want to see broken up is Google, and for the simple reason that I think they are genuinely dangerous at this point. Other companies, when they want to manipulate society and policy, give money to politicians and some of them buy a media company. There's a paper trail and we know what's going on and can take that into consideration.
There actually isn't, rather often. GOP legislation has actually made it easier for campaigns to fail to disclose the sources of their funding. We don't always know which companies or PACs are trying to buy influence from which politicians.
The biggest one I want to see broken up is Google, and for the simple reason that I think they are genuinely dangerous at this point. Other companies, when they want to manipulate society and policy, give money to politicians and some of them buy a media company. There's a paper trail and we know what's going on and can take that into consideration.
There actually isn't, rather often. GOP legislation has actually made it easier for campaigns to fail to disclose the sources of their funding. We don't always know which companies or PACs are trying to buy influence from which politicians.
And we never will. There is no law that can't be circumvented by the lawless. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, only that it's like trying to hold back the Atlantic Ocean with one finger.
The only true power we have is to select trustworthy people. That is not going to happen unless the current holders of power are thrown out. Unfortunately, whenever that happens, there's always other unscrupulous individuals ready to take advantage of the chaos and fill the power vacuum. IMHO, the only answer is to educate the masses so that the majority of all people see clearly and are able to discern reality for themselves.
Most of the people here in this thread seem to think liberals have the answers. They don't, any more than the right does. Both sides like to believe they're the sole purveyors of what's right, and they're both full of shit.
Meh. I think some people have the answers, and I do think those people are more often liberal than conservative, but I don't place my trust in any one party or any one person, no matter how qualified or "pure" or scandal-free or charismatic they may be. Having no loyalty to the Democratic party doesn't mean I'm a centrist.
I don't think we can rely on electing "trustworthy" people unless we ban campaign contributions. The reality is, you can make any human being look like an absolute scumbag if you invest in opposition research and spend millions of dollars paying for public advertisements to hurl accusations against your opponent in a place where everyone will see them. You don't need to have a strong argument in order to shape public opinion, necessarily; you just need to have enough money to put your ideas up front.
When you see a political ad on TV, that's not because that person's campaign had stronger ideas, of course. It's because they could afford to pay the TV station to run that ad over and over again, and even making voters smarter isn't going to stop them from seeing and hearing those ads over and over.
It's an inherent element of human psychology that we believe things more when we hear them repeated very often, since we're a social species and we evolved to adopt the views of the society we live in. How often do you argue out loud with your friends, even when you do disagree with them? Political campaigns take advantage of that by paying to have their arguments spoken louder and more often, and even the smartest people aren't immune to that influence.
A perfectly trustworthy candidate can lose an election if enough mud is thrown at them and they can't throw enough mud back at their opponent. A lot of election results boil down to how much mud you can buy and how many hands you can pay to throw it.
Relying on elections to give us the right leaders is only truly safe as long as the elections are fair and free from manipulation, and right now, they're not--not completely, and not as much as they could be.
I think you can ban this kind of manipulation. I mean, we're talking about ads on TV and on your news feed. It's not like law enforcement wouldn't be able to compel a news station to tell them who paid for a given political ad. You can't make a political ad available to the public without leaving a paper trail for law enforcement to follow.
If CNN runs a Jack Johnson campaign ad, it's already public knowledge which company hosted it--it was CNN. If law enforcement asked CNN who paid for that ad, CNN couldn't really say "What ad? We didn't host any Jack Johnson ad." If they don't have documentation of who paid for that ad, it would be proof that they had destroyed evidence, which you could prosecute. If they do have documentation, law enforcement could access it--and if it violated a rule, you can prosecute that.
Ads are public by definition. If somebody runs a parade through your hometown, it's not like the police couldn't figure out who was behind it, if they were asked to do so. Ads are no more secret than parades; it's just that their funding isn't necessarily public knowledge.
The only reason we don't know where that money comes from is because law enforcement is not being asked to follow those trails and make that information publicly available.
Meh. I think some people have the answers, and I do think those people are more often liberal than conservative, but I don't place my trust in any one party or any one person, no matter how qualified or "pure" or scandal-free or charismatic they may be. Having no loyalty to the Democratic party doesn't mean I'm a centrist.
I don't think we can rely on electing "trustworthy" people unless we ban campaign contributions. The reality is, you can make any human being look like an absolute scumbag if you invest in opposition research and spend millions of dollars paying for public advertisements to hurl accusations against your opponent in a place where everyone will see them. You don't need to have a strong argument in order to shape public opinion, necessarily; you just need to have enough money to put your ideas up front.
When you see a political ad on TV, that's not because that person's campaign had stronger ideas, of course. It's because they could afford to pay the TV station to run that ad over and over again, and even making voters smarter isn't going to stop them from seeing and hearing those ads over and over.
It's an inherent element of human psychology that we believe things more when we hear them repeated very often, since we're a social species and we evolved to adopt the views of the society we live in. How often do you argue out loud with your friends, even when you do disagree with them? Political campaigns take advantage of that by paying to have their arguments spoken louder and more often, and even the smartest people aren't immune to that influence.
A perfectly trustworthy candidate can lose an election if enough mud is thrown at them and they can't throw enough mud back at their opponent. A lot of election results boil down to how much mud you can buy and how many hands you can pay to throw it.
Relying on elections to give us the right leaders is only truly safe as long as the elections are fair and free from manipulation, and right now, they're not--not completely, and not as much as they could be.
I think you can ban this kind of manipulation. I mean, we're talking about ads on TV and on your news feed. It's not like law enforcement wouldn't be able to compel a news station to tell them who paid for a given political ad. You can't make a political ad available to the public without leaving a paper trail for law enforcement to follow.
If CNN runs a Jack Johnson campaign ad, it's already public knowledge which company hosted it--it was CNN. If law enforcement asked CNN who paid for that ad, CNN couldn't really say "What ad? We didn't host any Jack Johnson ad." If they don't have documentation of who paid for that ad, it would be proof that they had destroyed evidence, which you could prosecute. If they do have documentation, law enforcement could access it--and if it violated a rule, you can prosecute that.
Ads are public by definition. If somebody runs a parade through your hometown, it's not like the police couldn't figure out who was behind it, if they were asked to do so. Ads are no more secret than parades; it's just that their funding isn't necessarily public knowledge.
The only reason we don't know where that money comes from is because law enforcement is not being asked to follow those trails and make that information publicly available.
You would have to put your trust in law-enforcement in that case. Law enforcers are just as prone to corruption, if not more so. I prefer to put my trust in my own discernment. I tend to not believe any political ad regardless of who funded it. That kind of scepticism can either come from enlightenment or indoctrination, unfortunately. My hope is that someday education will value freedom of the mind, rather than turning out clones. I'm not holding my breath...
You could just limit the amount you can spend on elections, so that one side can't simply bury the views of the other as a result of having more money. I would have thought not having the airwaves full of political ads might actually be quite popular ...
You could just limit the amount you can spend on elections, so that one side can't simply bury the views of the other as a result of having more money. I would have thought not having the airwaves full of political ads might actually be quite popular ...
Make political ads free, illegal or limit the money. It will all work out the same. Without education, the vote is worthless. Sorry but it's true. You don't need to see an ad to make up your mind if you can think for yourself.
Edit: I'd like to clarify a bit. The Democrats had near total power in the mid-70's and they didn't make any sweeping changes. The Republicans had control for much of the early 2000's and 2016-2018 and they really didn't do shit. The Dems had control again from 2008-2010 and didn't accomplish anything except for Obamacare (which isn't much at all). I still say why fulfill your promises when you can make them again and again and blame the opposition foe not accomplishing them? Even better, why fulfill them when you can use the same Goddamned promises again in the next election and have the same expectation of getting the same Goddamned votes next time? It's a shell-game to keep us agitated and hoping that next time will be different when it never is. My Trump vote, was a statement that it's time for a change. Unfortunately it turns out that it was more of the same in spades. The only consolation is at least his philosophy is closer to mine than Hillary's was. Maybe I'll try Bernie next time. We haven't had a liberal outsider yet so it may be worth a try...
It's just not true that Obamacare didn't mean much at all. It didn't mean much for YOU are anyone else who already had health insurance, but 20 million more people have health insurance now than did in 2010. It would have been far, far higher if certain Republican governors hadn't blocked the Medicaid expansion. That's over 6% of the entire population of the country getting a potentially life-changing or (more importantly) life-saving service. It's the most significant domestic policy in decades, maybe since the '60s. That's to say nothing of the fact that it eliminated the downright evil practice of freezing people with pre-existing conditions out of the marketplace. It was nowhere near perfect, there were flaws all over the place, but the end result is not a couple hundred thousand more people getting medical insurance (which would be important in and of itself), but 10s of millions. And that is IN SPITE of the fact that their were full-bore attempts to sabotage it from the minute it was passed. For how maligned it was at the time, it has sure become a remarkably durable and popular piece of legislation the farther you get away from the Tea Party rallies.
So Democrats did deliver on the decade-old promise about healthcare. It wasn't what most liberals wanted (universal coverage from cradle to grave), it sure as shit wasn't what conservatives wanted (even though it was basically designed in a conservative think tank), but it did accomplish what was POSSIBLE in that political climate. And what was Obama's campaign about aside from 3 things: rescuing the economy from the brink of disaster, doing something about healthcare, and extracting ourselves from Iraq. He accomplished all 3. All without a hint of personal scandal. Ethically, the guy was (again, on a personal level) as clean as a whistle. In most cases, it's pretty crazy to expect politicians to live on a higher moral plane than the rest of us, because it's just asking to be disappointed. But Obama basically did. His Administration was not perfect, his foreign policy was not perfect, his domestic policy was not perfect. But as to the character of the man occupying the office?? I think it's basically unimpeachable when compared to nearly anyone who came before him, aside from Jimmy Carter. Because, as the first African-American President, he HAD to be. And despite all that, despite his family literally being the model for what conservatives have said African-American families should strive to be, he was torn apart anyway. And the backlash to his 8 years in office was to elect the absolute most corrupt and morally bankrupt person imaginable to try tear apart his legacy.
I'll never get the over the dichotomy of the waning days of the campaign in 2016 out of my head, in which Barack Obama dealt with a conservative heckler by telling his audience to stop yelling at him, to respect him because he was a veteran, that he had earned the right to speak his mind, and that the crowd shouldn't boo him, but they should vote instead. And then you had Trump who was, without question, inciting violence from the stage when he wasn't smearing Gold Star families.
It's just not true that Obamacare didn't mean much at all. It didn't mean much for YOU are anyone else who already had health insurance, but 20 million more people have health insurance now than did in 2010. It would have been far, far higher if certain Republican governors hadn't blocked the Medicaid expansion. That's over 6% of the entire population of the country getting a potentially life-changing or (more importantly) life-saving service. It's the most significant domestic policy in decades, maybe since the '60s. That's to say nothing of the fact that it eliminated the downright evil practice of freezing people with pre-existing conditions out of the marketplace. It was nowhere near perfect, there were flaws all over the place, but the end result is not a couple hundred thousand more people getting medical insurance (which would be important in and of itself), but 10s of millions. And that is IN SPITE of the fact that their were full-bore attempts to sabotage it from the minute it was passed. For how maligned it was at the time, it has sure become a remarkably durable and popular piece of legislation the farther you get away from the Tea Party rallies.
So Democrats did deliver on the decade-old promise about healthcare. It wasn't what most liberals wanted (universal coverage from cradle to grave), it sure as shit wasn't what conservatives wanted (even though it was basically designed in a conservative think tank), but it did accomplish what was POSSIBLE in that political climate. And what was Obama's campaign about aside from 3 things: rescuing the economy from the brink of disaster, doing something about healthcare, and extracting ourselves from Iraq. He accomplished all 3. All without a hint of personal scandal. Ethically, the guy was (again, on a personal level) as clean as a whistle. In most cases, it's pretty crazy to expect politicians to live on a higher moral plane than the rest of us, because it's just asking to be disappointed. But Obama basically did. His Administration was not perfect, his foreign policy was not perfect, his domestic policy was not perfect. But as to the character of the man occupying the office?? I think it's basically unimpeachable when compared to nearly anyone who came before him. Because, as the first African-American President, he HAD to be. And despite all that, despite his family literally being the model for what conservatives have said African-American families should strive to be, he was torn apart anyway. And the backlash to his 8 years in office was to elect the absolute most corrupt and morally bankrupt person imaginable to try tear apart his legacy.
Obamacare is way too fucking expensive to be a major accomplishment. The Democrats fell way short of what they could have accomplished is my point. Democrats are idealistic, Republicans are realists. Both are assholes in their own way. Pie in the sky won't solve our problems any more than never changing. We're being controlled by the polar extremes instead of finding common ground. Two-party system, yay!
It's just not true that Obamacare didn't mean much at all. It didn't mean much for YOU are anyone else who already had health insurance, but 20 million more people have health insurance now than did in 2010. It would have been far, far higher if certain Republican governors hadn't blocked the Medicaid expansion. That's over 6% of the entire population of the country getting a potentially life-changing or (more importantly) life-saving service. It's the most significant domestic policy in decades, maybe since the '60s. That's to say nothing of the fact that it eliminated the downright evil practice of freezing people with pre-existing conditions out of the marketplace. It was nowhere near perfect, there were flaws all over the place, but the end result is not a couple hundred thousand more people getting medical insurance (which would be important in and of itself), but 10s of millions. And that is IN SPITE of the fact that their were full-bore attempts to sabotage it from the minute it was passed. For how maligned it was at the time, it has sure become a remarkably durable and popular piece of legislation the farther you get away from the Tea Party rallies.
So Democrats did deliver on the decade-old promise about healthcare. It wasn't what most liberals wanted (universal coverage from cradle to grave), it sure as shit wasn't what conservatives wanted (even though it was basically designed in a conservative think tank), but it did accomplish what was POSSIBLE in that political climate. And what was Obama's campaign about aside from 3 things: rescuing the economy from the brink of disaster, doing something about healthcare, and extracting ourselves from Iraq. He accomplished all 3. All without a hint of personal scandal. Ethically, the guy was (again, on a personal level) as clean as a whistle. In most cases, it's pretty crazy to expect politicians to live on a higher moral plane than the rest of us, because it's just asking to be disappointed. But Obama basically did. His Administration was not perfect, his foreign policy was not perfect, his domestic policy was not perfect. But as to the character of the man occupying the office?? I think it's basically unimpeachable when compared to nearly anyone who came before him, aside from Jimmy Carter. Because, as the first African-American President, he HAD to be. And despite all that, despite his family literally being the model for what conservatives have said African-American families should strive to be, he was torn apart anyway. And the backlash to his 8 years in office was to elect the absolute most corrupt and morally bankrupt person imaginable to try tear apart his legacy.
I'll never get the dichotomy of the waning days of the campaign in 2016 out of my head, in which Barack Obama dealt with a conservative heckler by telling his audience to stop yelling at him, to respect him because he was a veteran, that he had earned the right to speak his mind, and that the crowd shouldn't boo him, but they should vote instead. And then you had Trump who was, without question, inciting violence from the stage when he wasn't smearing Gold Star families.
If Trump and the Republicans have proven anything, they've proven you can get ANYTHING, you want when you're in control. The only reason we don't have a wall is because most Republicans DON'T want it! I repeat, idealism accomplishes shit. Obstructionism is far easier because people fear change instinctively. That's why if liberals want to accomplish something they need to go 'Damn the Torpedos' rather than trying to please everybody. I can't believe I'm saying this but at least the Republicans get the chance to 'try' some of their ideas. Democrats don't do anything unless nearly everybody agrees with them, lest they offend some 0.2% of the population...
@jjstraka34
Notice, you don't find me criticizing Obama. That's mostly because he was milktoast as a president. He could have tried to accomplish much more, except 'idealist'. I might have bitched more about him if he'd been more liberal, but maybe a few of your ideas would have at least been tried out...
Comments
Like I said, it's bold. I don't think it's going anywhere, but it's not lacking in courage or risk in speaking out. But we have to live in reality here. Even assuming she got elected and mamaged to get massive majorities in Congress, the current Supreme Court would never allow it to take place. The theft of Obama's pick will never be undone in this generation. Corporate power is enshrined for at least the next 25 years.
I think Trump's 2nd term is actually in jeopardy at this rate
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/08/elizabeth-warren-pushes-to-break-up-companies-like-amazon-and-facebook.html
And why is this just limited to tech companies?? PLENTY of industries have monolithic giants that basically control the whole board in regards to their particular field. Big Ag, pharma, waste disposal. Hell, you could even make an argument that Sony and Microsoft have near monopoly on gaming platforms if we are going this route. You can for sure make the argument that Comcast and Time Warner are wielding near monopolies in certain areas of the country in the telcom industry. Are we prepared to go all the way on this, or are we just going to limit it to the more noticeable presence of these giant online companies that operate websites because it is easier and simpler to explain to people??
So, while I agree with Warren in principle, I don't even remotely see where the American electorate is going to have the stomach for it, and that is mostly because all you are going to hear for the next two years and change about every Democrat in the country is the word "socialism", which SHOULDN'T be scaring anyone, but is going to regardless. And once Elizabeth Warren starts getting on a debate stage and talking about breaking up household names, that is only going to magnify. So someone needs to explain to me how you wage a rhetorical battle about this in a climate where Trump is going to be screaming about how "Pocahontas wants to turn us into Venezuela" on a daily basis. Because we all know that is what is going to happen. Because I am not at all convinced Democrats can just sit back and talk about policy when their opponent is just going to be flinging shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. And the later is WAY easier for people to wrap their heads around.
The problem is that market forces naturally favor fewer larger companies over a bajillion small companies. Companies get weeded out and merge and get bigger and bigger. Once large enough, economies of scale take over and they become natural oligopolies. I mentioned it before in the old Politics thread somewhere, but you can point to almost ANY industry, and find that roughly 80% market share of that industry is going to be controlled by 3-4 companies.
Airlines
Assurance Accounting
Banking
Telecommunications
Movie Studios
That's snapped straight off the top of my head. In the time typing this, I also thought about microprocessors and graphics cards.
No one is going to throw down 10-100 billion dollars for a small firm to start up and compete with "the big boys" in any of those. What we've got, is what we're always going to have.
The industry in question would still be the same size and have the same people in it. Breaking up big companies doesn't mean eliminating them or shrinking them; it means splitting them up.
The only difference is that more people would have to compete to gain market share, rather than collude to preserve market share.
Market forces nature favor certain things, but that doesn't make them either good or even inevitable. Economies of scale and efficiency aren't the only reasons some companies take over a market: anti-competitive behavior, name recognition, and control of resources let large companies stay on top regardless of how well they're serving customers. Honestly, I think that just demonstrates how endemic the problem really is. Is it really realistic that 3-4 companies just happen to be so superior to everyone else that they honestly earned 80% of an entire industry between them?
One of the main reasons companies get so big is simply because they can buy out smaller ones and combine their strength in mergers. That's not a reflection of their competence or efficiency; it's simply a reflection of how much power they have to manipulate the market through sheer wealth.
Imagine if Olympic athletes could pay their opponents to stay at home during Olympic events. We'd never tolerate that, or treat the resulting victories as legitimate. Yet that's how major companies have been operating for decades.
YouTube and Google could be chunked.
Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp would be a start. Why does Facebook need to own and operate two messaging systems?
Li "Cindy" Yang, the woman who founded the Orchids of Asia Day Spa in Jupiter, Florida — where Patriots owner Robert Kraft was caught allegedly paying for sex from trafficked women — watched the Patriots-Rams Super Bowl with Donald Trump.
In fact, the woman in charge of the massage parlor has seemingly hung out with every major member of the Sunshine State GOP except Marco Rubio. The list includes Gov. Ron DeSantis, Sen. Rick Scott, Rep. Matt Gaetz, and even Florida resident and blockheaded Fox News pundit Dan Bongino.
She was photographed in Trump's booth for a selfie with Trump during the SUPER BOWL and she's a member of maralago.
So now you know Trump's involved with another sex trafficking person besides his ten year buddy pedophile Jeff Epstein. Shocked?
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/kraft-spa-founder-li-yang-hung-out-with-rick-scott-ron-desantis-matt-gaetz-trump-11110348
I'm already using duckduckgo.com
Oh, it's already getting worse than even all that:
David Corn of Mother Jones may be a decidedly left-wing reporter, but he is a damn good one, and has been for years. And as I saw this this morning, I was reminded of what the main NFL reporter on ESPN Adam Schefter said when the story broke about Robert Kraft, which was that this was a wide-ranging investigation and that Bob Kraft was NOT the biggest name involved.
Every time you turn over another rock with these people, there is something else underneath. The corruption is just breath-taking. In light of this news, it has to be asked (though we should have been asking it anyway): Just what was given up in those White House meetings that days later resulted in Ivanka's patents being granted??
ALL of his businesses are a problem. And he has properties everywhere. It is in no way unreasonable to expect him to cut ALL ties to these if he is going to assume the office of the President. Obama had no ties to any personal businesses while in office. Bush sold all his holdings in his various companies. Clinton certainly didn't have any. Shit, Jimmy Carter was forced to sell his frickin' PEANUT FARM when it became a controversy. But Trump is still pocketing money from a international business empire?? How stupid are we to let this continue. Again, every single property he owns might as well have a neon sign above the door that says "Bribes, insert envelope here". This article is basically a small book on how many there are. It literally has a table of contents to navigate it. It's absolutely astounding:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/
Any one or two of the situations mentioned in this very long article would be enough to prompt a massive, Presidency threatening scandal for almost any other person in the office. And, again, because absolutely nothing matters anymore, but sheer VOLUME of his corruption, Trump has inoculated himself from any serious scrutiny on this issue by simply flooding the zone with so much blatant corruption that even the news media becomes numb to it and can't keep up.
The biggest one I want to see broken up is Google, and for the simple reason that I think they are genuinely dangerous at this point. Other companies, when they want to manipulate society and policy, give money to politicians and some of them buy a media company. There's a paper trail and we know what's going on and can take that into consideration. When Google wants to manipulate policy and society, it is doing it from behind the scenes, with next to no accountability, and the bigger they get and the more refined their research gets and the more total data about everyone's lives they collect they harder and harder it will be to resist whatever pull Google is trying to have via owning everyone's data, owning politicians, owning the single largest gateway to information anywhere, and manipulating it to their own ends. When you think about what Google is actually capable of, and the fact that they are on a path towards being more involved in trying to manipulate society, and not less, it should be pretty obvious they have an amazingly out-sized influence in society that should be curtailed. I mean Sanders talks about the undue influence of the Koch brothers lol, the power of freakin Google is more than an army of Koch brothers could hope to achieve.
To be fair I actually think you are correct that sufficiently strong regulation- of some kind- could potentially do the same thing. But I worry the sheer size and power of Google makes such regulation next to impossible to achieve, without them being broken down.
Noted.
And we never will. There is no law that can't be circumvented by the lawless. I'm not saying we shouldn't try, only that it's like trying to hold back the Atlantic Ocean with one finger.
The only true power we have is to select trustworthy people. That is not going to happen unless the current holders of power are thrown out. Unfortunately, whenever that happens, there's always other unscrupulous individuals ready to take advantage of the chaos and fill the power vacuum. IMHO, the only answer is to educate the masses so that the majority of all people see clearly and are able to discern reality for themselves.
Most of the people here in this thread seem to think liberals have the answers. They don't, any more than the right does. Both sides like to believe they're the sole purveyors of what's right, and they're both full of shit.
I don't think we can rely on electing "trustworthy" people unless we ban campaign contributions. The reality is, you can make any human being look like an absolute scumbag if you invest in opposition research and spend millions of dollars paying for public advertisements to hurl accusations against your opponent in a place where everyone will see them. You don't need to have a strong argument in order to shape public opinion, necessarily; you just need to have enough money to put your ideas up front.
When you see a political ad on TV, that's not because that person's campaign had stronger ideas, of course. It's because they could afford to pay the TV station to run that ad over and over again, and even making voters smarter isn't going to stop them from seeing and hearing those ads over and over.
It's an inherent element of human psychology that we believe things more when we hear them repeated very often, since we're a social species and we evolved to adopt the views of the society we live in. How often do you argue out loud with your friends, even when you do disagree with them? Political campaigns take advantage of that by paying to have their arguments spoken louder and more often, and even the smartest people aren't immune to that influence.
A perfectly trustworthy candidate can lose an election if enough mud is thrown at them and they can't throw enough mud back at their opponent. A lot of election results boil down to how much mud you can buy and how many hands you can pay to throw it.
Relying on elections to give us the right leaders is only truly safe as long as the elections are fair and free from manipulation, and right now, they're not--not completely, and not as much as they could be.
I think you can ban this kind of manipulation. I mean, we're talking about ads on TV and on your news feed. It's not like law enforcement wouldn't be able to compel a news station to tell them who paid for a given political ad. You can't make a political ad available to the public without leaving a paper trail for law enforcement to follow.
If CNN runs a Jack Johnson campaign ad, it's already public knowledge which company hosted it--it was CNN. If law enforcement asked CNN who paid for that ad, CNN couldn't really say "What ad? We didn't host any Jack Johnson ad." If they don't have documentation of who paid for that ad, it would be proof that they had destroyed evidence, which you could prosecute. If they do have documentation, law enforcement could access it--and if it violated a rule, you can prosecute that.
Ads are public by definition. If somebody runs a parade through your hometown, it's not like the police couldn't figure out who was behind it, if they were asked to do so. Ads are no more secret than parades; it's just that their funding isn't necessarily public knowledge.
The only reason we don't know where that money comes from is because law enforcement is not being asked to follow those trails and make that information publicly available.
You would have to put your trust in law-enforcement in that case. Law enforcers are just as prone to corruption, if not more so. I prefer to put my trust in my own discernment. I tend to not believe any political ad regardless of who funded it. That kind of scepticism can either come from enlightenment or indoctrination, unfortunately. My hope is that someday education will value freedom of the mind, rather than turning out clones. I'm not holding my breath...
Make political ads free, illegal or limit the money. It will all work out the same. Without education, the vote is worthless. Sorry but it's true. You don't need to see an ad to make up your mind if you can think for yourself.
Edit: I'd like to clarify a bit. The Democrats had near total power in the mid-70's and they didn't make any sweeping changes. The Republicans had control for much of the early 2000's and 2016-2018 and they really didn't do shit. The Dems had control again from 2008-2010 and didn't accomplish anything except for Obamacare (which isn't much at all). I still say why fulfill your promises when you can make them again and again and blame the opposition foe not accomplishing them? Even better, why fulfill them when you can use the same Goddamned promises again in the next election and have the same expectation of getting the same Goddamned votes next time? It's a shell-game to keep us agitated and hoping that next time will be different when it never is. My Trump vote, was a statement that it's time for a change. Unfortunately it turns out that it was more of the same in spades. The only consolation is at least his philosophy is closer to mine than Hillary's was. Maybe I'll try Bernie next time. We haven't had a liberal outsider yet so it may be worth a try...
So Democrats did deliver on the decade-old promise about healthcare. It wasn't what most liberals wanted (universal coverage from cradle to grave), it sure as shit wasn't what conservatives wanted (even though it was basically designed in a conservative think tank), but it did accomplish what was POSSIBLE in that political climate. And what was Obama's campaign about aside from 3 things: rescuing the economy from the brink of disaster, doing something about healthcare, and extracting ourselves from Iraq. He accomplished all 3. All without a hint of personal scandal. Ethically, the guy was (again, on a personal level) as clean as a whistle. In most cases, it's pretty crazy to expect politicians to live on a higher moral plane than the rest of us, because it's just asking to be disappointed. But Obama basically did. His Administration was not perfect, his foreign policy was not perfect, his domestic policy was not perfect. But as to the character of the man occupying the office?? I think it's basically unimpeachable when compared to nearly anyone who came before him, aside from Jimmy Carter. Because, as the first African-American President, he HAD to be. And despite all that, despite his family literally being the model for what conservatives have said African-American families should strive to be, he was torn apart anyway. And the backlash to his 8 years in office was to elect the absolute most corrupt and morally bankrupt person imaginable to try tear apart his legacy.
I'll never get the over the dichotomy of the waning days of the campaign in 2016 out of my head, in which Barack Obama dealt with a conservative heckler by telling his audience to stop yelling at him, to respect him because he was a veteran, that he had earned the right to speak his mind, and that the crowd shouldn't boo him, but they should vote instead. And then you had Trump who was, without question, inciting violence from the stage when he wasn't smearing Gold Star families.
Obamacare is way too fucking expensive to be a major accomplishment. The Democrats fell way short of what they could have accomplished is my point. Democrats are idealistic, Republicans are realists. Both are assholes in their own way. Pie in the sky won't solve our problems any more than never changing. We're being controlled by the polar extremes instead of finding common ground. Two-party system, yay!
If Trump and the Republicans have proven anything, they've proven you can get ANYTHING, you want when you're in control. The only reason we don't have a wall is because most Republicans DON'T want it! I repeat, idealism accomplishes shit. Obstructionism is far easier because people fear change instinctively. That's why if liberals want to accomplish something they need to go 'Damn the Torpedos' rather than trying to please everybody. I can't believe I'm saying this but at least the Republicans get the chance to 'try' some of their ideas. Democrats don't do anything unless nearly everybody agrees with them, lest they offend some 0.2% of the population...
Notice, you don't find me criticizing Obama. That's mostly because he was milktoast as a president. He could have tried to accomplish much more, except 'idealist'. I might have bitched more about him if he'd been more liberal, but maybe a few of your ideas would have at least been tried out...