Then that is how it is in the rest of the World. I don't see why USA should be held with a different set of standards when literally all elections fought in every part of the world works through donations (be it corporate or private citizens). Very few countries banned corporate donations and those who did actually made it even worse. Take Brazil for instance: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/here-s-what-happened-...
Only the rich could contest elections (as they used their own money). People from lower/middle income strata hardly received any donations.
Banning corporate donations doesn't stop corporates from influencing elections. Corporates can themselves fund and run campaigns on individual issues that concern them and mobilize support with clever messaging.
> Money went from person A to person B. Person B made a decision so only person A profitted. I see a pattern. Don't you?
Yes everyone can see a "pattern" but that doesn't amount to corruption. That amounts to just an allegation. An allegation needs to be established through some legal route where in it is concluded without shred of doubt that the office was misused for helping out someone. Either a money/document/wiretapping trail that can connect the two things. If you cannot establish it then it remains a "conspiracy theory". Nothing more.
Rich getting mega-rich, and poor remain in poverty.
If that is an allegation, then I am a conspiracy freak (I am not).
When we speak about USA and you bring Brazil in the discussion (whataboutism), you lower the bar. My "ideal" societies (progress, freedom, respect, and other such 'metrics') do NOT include Brazil, China, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Turkey. Brazil has selected as a ruler a former army general* who enjoys militarisation and is a fan of a dictatorship. I think the discussion ends here. Brazil may be doing 100 other things "good", but "showed that in 2010, about 6 percent of the Brazilian population lived in favelas and other slums" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Favela). 6%? Seriously?
I (-apologies for the bias-) prefer to hold in highest standards the EU, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a very few more. Although imperfect, still far better standard of Living than other countries/regiions.
That said, my ideal society is a Star Trek (TNG) one, where everyone contributes how they can, in a balance matter, everyone has free healthcare, everyone has a food replicator and never goes hungry.
*to avoid any misunderstanding, I am a honorable discharged army officer (of my country - NATO member), and I respect the Military-ies and what Military represents (protect the integrity of the land/sea/air)(and do NOT interfere in politics)
Edit: Brazil is a corrupt nation. Perhaps if the haves start caring for the have-nots, and the poverty/inequality is reduced, education is improved, then in 10-20-30 years Brazil will be VERY different to what it is now. These things take time. Moving to a good direction won't take you there tomorrow.
Please do not take HN threads in generic ideological directions. There's never anything new in these discussions, which makes them off topic here. They also quickly turn into flamewars, which we're trying to avoid.
Please do not take HN threads in generic ideological directions. There's never anything new in these discussions, which makes them off topic here. They also quickly turn into flamewars, which we're trying to avoid.
> 100 million died due to Communism/Socialism in the past century
Leninism and it's descendants (I won't quibble over the number, because it's not important since the ascription of blame is wrong as is the dichotomy it's framed as part of), which Socialist (and even Communist) opponents have been calling “State Capitalism” since before the first of those deaths occurred.
> But yeah, the bad guy is Capitalism here.
Leninism, et al., and Capitalism can both be bad. It's not a binary choice between those two options (as proven by the fact that the the developed world has largely abandoned the system originally described as Capitalism for the modern mixed economy, which while retaining some features, including some problematic ones, of Capitalism significantly mitigates some of it's acute problems; we've already largely chosen a third way, though plenty advocate a return to naked capitalism, there's no reason we couldn't instead choose a fourth.)
Then that is how it is in the rest of the World. I don't see why USA should be held with a different set of standards when literally all elections fought in every part of the world works through donations (be it corporate or private citizens). Very few countries banned corporate donations and those who did actually made it even worse. Take Brazil for instance: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/here-s-what-happened-...
Only the rich could contest elections (as they used their own money). People from lower/middle income strata hardly received any donations.
Banning corporate donations doesn't stop corporates from influencing elections. Corporates can themselves fund and run campaigns on individual issues that concern them and mobilize support with clever messaging.
> Money went from person A to person B. Person B made a decision so only person A profitted. I see a pattern. Don't you?
Yes everyone can see a "pattern" but that doesn't amount to corruption. That amounts to just an allegation. An allegation needs to be established through some legal route where in it is concluded without shred of doubt that the office was misused for helping out someone. Either a money/document/wiretapping trail that can connect the two things. If you cannot establish it then it remains a "conspiracy theory". Nothing more.