I've made a personal doc tool based on Mistral OCR API at first, and then switched to Gemini Flash for the same price inline, or half price using batch API, and the difference is night and day. Mistral doesn't even come close on anything non-trivial. Longer story here: https://max.engineer/ringbinder
There are also skills that help LLM do the thing it can do without the skill, but faster (by cutting out unnecessary discovery). I guess for such skills the fail case is "being slow"?
I imagine many fail cases can burn a lot of tokens/usage/time because failing LLMs can be very persistent. Maybe some upper bound (turn count, timeout) would help too.
When I hear people making these claims (all unproven theories, or misrepresentation of what really happens), I want to know: what happened in democratic administrations that went in favor of a large corporate donor and against the public? Any specific example where they diverged, and a politician ruled in favor of the corp, and against their constituents?
What is unproven here? This is all found in various wiki articles or just being alive at the time (yes Obama did bailout banks over people, yes Clinton did condemn large swaths of the US to poverty).
I honestly don't understand your other question, you can watch any primary challenge race across the country and you'll see these dynamics play out. We're also dealing with cumulative effects that have taken place over decades (NAFTA is still impactful in many areas that if you run as D these districts you are guaranteed to lose).
If you're from a certain region and want specific examples LMK.
I think a lot of these beliefs are downstream of some perceived aloofness and intellectual elitism in the party combined with sour grapes about how 2016 turned out for certain grassroots demographics in the party.
I don’t think the vibes argument there is incorrect, Dems have failed to deliver for a long time, but the claims themselves really just make a conspiracy out of the shitty electoral situation Dems / progressives have been in since the creation of the senate 250 odd years ago.
Saying “US corruption isn’t new” is a truism. There are probably isolated incidents, and many unproven theories, but everyone is quick to agree with this statement because it’s a common feeling everyone has now for some reason. The reality of corruption is likely much smaller and more boring than people think.
What we’re witnessing now is what should be called corruption. That corruption that everyone has been screaming for years. But finally real.
Remember, the job of these people’s propaganda is not to say that they’re better than the other side. It’s to say that they’re all the same. That’s it. And when you claim that this corruption is just a continuation of previous corruption, just bigger, and not a difference between essentially not having and having corruption (there’s always some small percentage of corruption, just like any crime) is essentially sweeping for them. It’s repeating their talking points.
Yup, if i claim everyone is corrupt, then i can be corrupt. Ironically, if im corrupt, i probably honestly assume everyone else is, or at least superficially assume that, because if i don't, i might think other people are good and i am bad.
You actually can’t, because of the nature of incentives. If everyone else is corrupt and you’re not, you fall behind and get pushed out. This is how systems work.
We see the same thing with companies. If everyone else is using, say, shady dark patterns you’re not, you lose market share and go out of business. The only result then is that everyone must use dark patterns, it stops being optional.
If everyone is corrupt, how will you compete with the amount of money needed to campaign and maintain incumbency? You won’t.
The only solution is to make corruption systemically difficult or impossible. Individual solutions and morals will go absolutely nowhere, because they’re ineffective at a structural level. Corruption is contagious by construction, the very nature of our political structure makes it so.
I guess it’s more accurate to say that corruption didn’t start with Trump (he wasn’t even involved in politics when Citizens United was happening, for example). The US has been marching in that direction for a while.
The difference now is the openness and also the scale. If a president does one bad thing the press will dig into it, committees will investigate, etc. But what if the president does 20 bad things every single day? The press doesn’t know how to report on that and the legal process is as slow as molasses. And by tomorrow everyone will have forgotten because there’ll be new bad things.
> The US has been marching in that direction for a while.
It's trivial to remember corruption issues from 100+ years ago (I learned about one in middle school with Teapot Dome and political "machines", and those are hardly the full extent) so this is another one of those cliches that is easy to claim but is never proven. There's always some. Humans gonna human. But that doesn't mean either (a) there's always a high and critical amount in magnitude-of-impact OR (b) it's been definitely increasing.
Let's stop saying it as a general trend without examples.
On the flip side, let's keep pointing to all the specific Trump examples.
It's naive to believe that corruption is impossible or vanishingly rare. It's also naive to believe that the current administration is not a major step change.
There's a few I could recount from before this current onslaught, but the delineator is that those incidents of corruption were a once a year sort of thing. If you want examples there's the PATRIOT Act in 2001, No Child Left Behind in 2002, the 2004 rewrite of CAFE standards for vehicle emissions, and the 2007 bailouts of General Motors and Wells Fargo. From about 2000 to 2013 every year you would have one big thing that all the major news outlets like NBC or CBS covered, and then about a dozen smaller things that specialized entities with specialized interests like Mother Jones or Chalkbeat would cover. After Citizens United in 2013 things started to accelerate to about twice and two dozen times a year because the perpetrators could argue it wasn't corrupt, merely "politically motivated speech." Since 2017 however that has been shortened to twice a week and a dozen a day.
> On the flip side, let's keep pointing to all the specific Trump examples.
"They" (the cult that worships Trump) would simply presume "TDS" over such an idea, but the fact here is that Trump absolutely is "off his rocker batshit insane" (to a degree we've not seen before in any U.S. president yet), and anyone who claims that he's "good for America" is just as (or more) insane than he is (or they genuinely do hate the U.S.A. and only support him because they know the kinda harm he's capable of doing).
Another fact is that if one really gives a damn about corruption, then you gotta start dealin' with it sometime or it just continues to get worse, and now is probably a good time to start, since it's currently lookin' so outta control that nearly everyone with more than a couple of braincells can easily see it and can't plausibly deny it, and givin' it time to fester doesn't seem like such a great idea. Historically it's never once been good to let the rot fester, and it never led to anything good for anyone to do so.
The big cheap lever that everyone has is voting, and using whatever social leverage you have to get people around you to change their vote.
Primary legacy democrats. In NYC, the primary was the real election. Then vote in the replacement Democrat. Replace any Republican in any elected positions, then start taking a closer look at the local D machine.
"Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically all of these examples came late in the primary -- after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory -- but they belie the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."
Ah yea, the famously successful political approach of “discard half the people, they don’t matter, then throw away half of the ones left over”. Works very well.
This isn't about individuals. The Republican Party is completely complicit and as long as members of that party hold office they will continue. I would love to have multiple qualified candidates to choose from across the spectrum but right now the system has been co-opted and a hard reset is the appropriate response.
Maybe if they don't like the results of the elections, they'll hold new ones until the "good" result comes out (true story, happened in Romania (a EU country) two years ago).
There was proven massive illegal funding of advertising for one candidate and the election result was annulled and rerun under the existing statutes and regulations under Romanian law, ordered by professional judges in a public legal process that was procedurally fair and had appropriate evidentiary requirements.
Stop parroting lines from organisations dedicated to delegitimising liberal democracies.
Protest. Insistently try to convince people around you to join you. Initiate and organize these things.
The have been many, many protests throughout history. Some did nothing, some changed history. Many of them were done under much, much more dangerous and difficult circumstances than a protest today in the US. Yes, some American protesters have already died at the hands of the authoritarian government, but that is only going to get worse and worse if you let it.
Not really interested in getting into a debate here, I’m just pointing out that GGP said “openness and also the scale”, to which you ignored the “scale” part and pretended it’s only about being corrupt in the open versus in private. I can point this out without making a comment at all (although I have my opinions) on whether I agree if the scale has changed.
(To be clear, I absolutely believe the scale has increased tremendously, but arguing about this is gonna be fruitless because it’s all subjective, there’s no hard numbers for any of it, and anything I can point out, you can just say “well that’s because they’re doing it in the open now, they were always doing it”, which is just as unfalsifiable. There’s basically no good outcome to debating this.)
> arguing about this is gonna be fruitless because it’s all subjective, there’s no hard numbers for any of it
I was just genuinely curious what somebody with your set of opinions has in mind for a time frame, because "1/100th the corruption" is too vague for me to quantify in my head.
As for arguing, I generally don't expect to change opinions with comments, especially those of whom I'm engaging with directly, so no worries there.
1/100th is hyperbole. But it has gone up. My opinion on the timeframe is the obvious one:
Since Trump. Entirely.
I generally think there’s actually not that much corruption in politics in the US. Mostly just insider trading, if you count by dollar amount. But I think generally there have been studies on the net worth of people before they are elected to public office versus after, and it’s within a few percentage points of the general population. There’s also the issue of lobbying firms hiring ex politicians but to be honest there’s something to be said for an ex-politician as a lobbyist: they have expertise and connections, they’re valuable to lobbying firms even if there’s no favors involved.
What we have now is:
- The president openly hocking a cryptocurrency and making billions off of it
- Taking money for early access to his posts on truth social, which is essentially how he communicates to the public. “Give me money and I’ll tell you first”
- Giving pardons to his supporters in a brazen and obvious way
- Taking donations from private donors to fund his pet projects like the White House ballroom
I could go on but like I said, I’m not really interested in the actual debate here because nobody’s gonna change their minds if they haven’t already.
But the previous administration denying a fair primary process gave us the present one due to forcing an unpopular candidate. They collude with each other so much that they're effectively one party.
Where do you get the $250B crypto number. He is corruptly profiting of his position, plain as day, but $250B in crypto? Really? What's the point in ridiculous exaggerations like this when the truth is bad enough?
Read this and imagined corruption as non-linear. What before is “isolated incidents”, spreads like an SIRS (Susceptible → Infectious → Recovered → Susceptible) infection model.
Even the graphs in the article suggest this. The low point for perceived corruption was 59% in 2006. So 20 years ago more than half of Americans already believed it. Even their OECD median graph's lowest point was 55%.
What I hate about the top comment is it is a thought terminating cliche. It sure as hell makes a difference when 90% of people believe the government is corrupt vs 60% of people. It treats the situation as binary. What also matters, and isn't shown in the graphs, is how corrupt people believe the government is. But we can also make some pretty good inferences here that more people think corruption is higher. There's a big difference between a leaky bucket with a few small holes and the bucket having such large holes that it's more accurate to call it a pipe.
> It’s to say that they’re all the same.
Exactly. It is the binarization of things. Extreminism is a lack of nuance. It is dehumanizing because we're all complex beings. It is a lie because the world and all of us have complexity to us. Extremism wins by making everything simple and easy to understand. "It's so simple, you just..." tune in and tune out. Don't think, just feel. Don't solve problems, just get angry. You get to feel high and mighty, because you're smarter than everyone else. If you were king for a day you could solve all the world's problems, because it is so simple.
I refer you to the Knapp Commission Report of 1972.
Page 1 (the very first words):
"We found corruption to be widespread".
Page 10:
"Commissioner Murphy in his early statements about corruption regularly included a pointed statement indicating that the corruption in the Department was limited to a few officers. On one occasion he went so far as to imply that there were no more than about 300 corrupt police officers in the entire Department. After Patrolman Phillips had completed two of his three days of testimony at our public hearings, Commissioner Murphy found it necessary to discount his testimony of widespread corruption, referring to him as a 'rogue cop.'"
"Smith defined it [the rotten apple doctrine] as standing for the proposition that 'police departments are essentially free of corruption except for the presence of a few corrupt officers who have managed to slip into police service and also into key assignments such as gambling investigations, despite rigorously applied screening procedures designed to keep them out.'"
"the Department now rejected this approach 'not just on principle, but because as a way of controlling corruption it had utterly failed.'"
Page 7:
"The Commission examined and rejected the premises upon which the rotten-apple doctrine rested"
Page 11:
". . . they [the public] are sick of ‘bobbing for rotten apples"
Page 5:
"investigations have occurred on the average of once in twenty years since before the turn of the century, and yet conditions exposed by one investigation seem substantially unchanged when the next one makes its report. This doesn’t mean that the police have a monopoly on corruption. On the contrary, in every area where police corruption exists it is paralleled by corruption in other agencies of government, in industry and labor, and in the professions."
Page 61:
"The Commission’s findings were hardly new. As long ago as 1844, when the state legislature created the New York police force as the first municipal police department in the country, historians record an immediate problem"
(This was followed by a brief summary of every previous scandal and Commission dating back to 1844).
When people say that US corruption is nothing new, they aren't condoning it, they're (in every case I've seen) drawing exactly the contrast you are making - it was like this before, but now it's so much worse!
Corruption was not isolated incidents and unproven theories before, there have been corruption scandals throughout US history and even similarly flagrant actions earlier in the US (read about the "robber barons" of the industrial era, the early figures in long-lived political dynasties like the Bushes or Kennedys or the history of organized crime groups like the Irish or Italian Mobs). Political machines built on graft and money laundering were just thought to be something of history books because nobody pays attention when things are going well and the past century has been pretty great for US citizens overall. We've come to dominate the world militarily and economically, righted historical wrongs and corrected contradictions in our society, and achieved a level of global cultural and political influence that is truly unprecedented in history. Now, we are probably going to go through another few tumultuous round of reforms and changes just as previously happened.
That's a lot of words to issue a reproach of people using manipulating "truisms" and propagandic non-specifics, without using any specifics of your own.
You might have a strong argument but you seem to be afraid to name anyone or anything.
Wow, i really dislike your argument. So instead of cleaning their acts on corruption, war crimes, and other abuses, the Democrats should just be held accountable to nothing because Trump is worse?
I'm sorry but your mindset is precisely what got Trump elected. The democrats abandoned the working people, propped up the military industrial complex even more, and enriched CEOs and bankers. Trump propaganda is not the reason people are not voting for them.
Just look at DSA. Why do you think so many both democrats and republicans end up supporting DSA candidates? Because they are the only mainstream candidates who are not 100% corrupt.
No, what got Trump elected is both the republicans falling in line en masse, and the lefty populists backstabbing democrats the entire time it was happening. This is why republicans support DSA — it helps democrats lose.
Mainstream democrats who actually know how to govern unfortunately don't have great rhetorical skills, easy slogans and sound bites, or the social media skills required to fight back against populist pundits. The mainstream media at one point also started going insanely harsh on normal democrats, while giving lay up interviews to trumpers, to avoid being accused of TDS.
Democrats fail to fight on both fronts because they often suck at being influencers, and are actually good at governing. They're boring government officials, nerds that try to actually tackle difficult problems in good faith, by taking all stakeholders into account, and finding feasible solutions.
Things are not simple. You're in a populist rabbit hole. It's easy to hate these suit wearing "corporate" dems if you don't actually appreciate the complexity of modern problems we're solving.
What you call "normal" democrats are not solving problems for most people and are not in good faith. They maximized social inequalities since Bill Clinton and deregulated anything that was meant to protect people. That's not "good at governing", unless governing very narrowly means serving the elites.
Some things are not simple, and i'm really not a DSA fan (they're too mild in many regards to solve the problems we're facing) so i'm not really in their rabbit hole. But DSA is not what i'd call populist; they're making realistic and mild social promises based on rational/scientific study of solutions (and seeing what worked in the USA in the past, and what works in other countries, such as 100% free healthcare).
You, on the other hand, seem to be down a rabbit hole where making billions of people suffer for your little privilege is just business as usual and asking questions is dangerous. Things are not simple, but they're definitely simpler if someone tries to actually solve them which no mainstream politician is actually doing. Here in France, it took dozens of thousands of workers with guns post-WWII to have free healthcare for all, and it's been working surprisingly well ever since (although to be fair, since absorbed and reformed by the State, much less so).
The ones (perhaps not so much candidates but national leadership?) that outright pursue Russian interests are surely 100% corrupt, if you count 'semisecretly serving an entirely different and hostile country' as corrupt. I get that the counterargument is 'yes but USAID and NATO are existentially evil and so anything for the purposes of destroying NATO is legitimate', but at that point you're Sephiroth-posting and I don't feel obligated to respect that at all.
It has been there over 50 years, with the ratchet tightening toward where we are now not each year - but mostly in the shadows, not in your face laughing.
Two things change each year:
- how much the populace has been proven to “take”
- how much further the empire’s attention is spread out, leading to it not serving its own interests and citizens, aside from continuity of governance
Not everyone pointing out corruption is normalizing it, by the way. I’m personally looking forward to the conclusion of that.
What we had before is a normal amount of corruption. There's no such thing as having zero crime. Just like we can say that air travel is safe, despite there being incidents, we can say there is no corruption, despite there being incidents.
The talk of shadowy cabals and conspiracies are fashionable, but never proven.
Corruption that actually meaningfully hurts the country and the world at scale (in recent history) only started with this administration.
You're going down a populist rabbit hole, I've been there, it's not a good one.
> What we had before is a normal amount of corruption. There's no such thing as having zero crime.
These two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
Also, “normal” isn’t good. In fact, “normal” often seems like a horrible bar to aim for.
> Corruption that actually meaningfully hurts the country and the world at scale (in recent history) only started with this administration.
You don’t do the sort of systemic damage observant people have been pointing out for MANY administrations. Is this one bad? Yes.
But it’s really weird and incorrect (based on the definition of the words) to say the corruption only just recently became real / meaningful / harmful.
Observant people pointing out corruption is not corruption. Real prosecuted corruption exists. That's why we have courts. Otherwise, it's conjecture that everyone is too eager to believe. Any behavior that can be explained, among other things, with corruption, is just added to the roster, because being cynical protects you from accidentally coming off foolish or naive. But it isn't serious.
This is the first time in recent history we went from normal amount of incidents of corruption to straight up corrupt administration.
> “normal” often seems like a horrible bar to aim for.
If "normal" is a horrible bar to aim for, you should figure out what a world with zero crime would look like. I don't think you would ever want that world if you take time to think about it.
Not sure how we can just go ahead and slice up the world into "tightly-knit communities", but even if we could, there's domestic violence, feuding, and mafia that arises just fine in those environments.
How do we determine that there’s corruption? If we did that by just pointing out that something looks or feels like it, why not treat all crime this way? There is a reason we created a judicial system. Things very often look and feel completely not how they really are.
There exists unprosecuted corruption for sure, just like any other crime, but claiming that it’s somehow happening on an outsized scale vs expected normal baseline? Based on what? Listening to people pointing it out who have everything to gain from selling this narrative? Conjecture and vibes?
Again, things can be complicated, even bad. That doesn’t mean they’re corrupt until there’s credible evidence specifically of corruption taking place.
Because government and law enforcement should be held to a higher standard.
Here’s the closest and easiest reach to obvious regulatory capture from the other scumbag party:
“I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute—if we do bring a criminal charge—it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.”
Lots of Americans are aware of regulatory capture.
Yet: folks aren’t even discussing fixing it yet. Everyone is just pointing and mentioning, like a meteor is coming.
Where does this fall in your argument? This looks more than “complicated” - whatever that means (please do better).
This was a descriptive, not a prescriptive statement, of a real problem. He literally says that it is concerning that prosecuting large institutions can cause economic harm. He isn't saying they won't prosecute, he says it's difficult because of the downsides. Holder made a mistake of wheeling out a complex nuance to a public that isn't prepared to handle it.
I don't understand where is the evidence of malicious force trying to self-serve? Anything specific that points to corruption here? Is this like "yay, Holder gave us a loophole! We just need to build an incredibly large, successful business, and now it will be difficult for Holder to prosecute us, so we can finally start being corrupt"? Is that what you're saying?
What large successful business would want to squander it all on corruption on an off chance that the economic inconvenience would save them from prosecution? They are the most incentivized to identify and remove that sort of PR and legal cancer from their org.
I’m saying you’re dangerously shit at reading between the lines if you don’t see the scheme when an ex-government person gets $400k+ per instance to show up and speak to financial institutions they/their administration didn’t prosecute out of profitability (or even majorly inconvenience their compliance department).
> What large successful business would want to squander it all on corruption on an off chance that the economic inconvenience would save them from prosecution? They are the most incentivized to identify and remove that sort of PR and legal cancer from their org
Plenty. All the way back before the East India Trading Company - work your way out from there.
Many business structures and owners only follow laws as is convenient - expected, if the only true consequence is a $$,$$$ speeding ticket and/or inconvenience ls that the ownership is insulated from.
> He isn't saying they won't prosecute
> That was the direct context of his statement.
He prosecuted them, and chose fines over criminal punishments. If this was due to maliciousness or corruption, I'm glad that whoever openly explained it all in this interview gave up his plot. /s
> I’m saying you’re dangerously shit at reading between the lines if you don’t see the scheme when an ex-government person gets $400k+ per instance to show up and speak to financial institutions they/their administration didn’t prosecute out of profitability (or even majorly inconvenience their compliance department).
I'm saying that you're so good at reading between the lines, that you no longer see the lines. You say all these random facts, but aren't connecting them to prove any corruption. If our judicial system worked the way you read between the lines, we'd all be in prison.
> All the way back before the East India Trading Company
What happened in 1600s has zero bearing on what happens today. Even the world in the 80s and 90s is no longer remotely the same.
> if the only true consequence is a $$,$$$ speeding ticket
Nobody ever actually knows what fine they will get. One day it's a fine, another day it's a judge making an example. No business exec in their sane mind would ever risk this. No lawyer in a sane mind would ever advise this. It's an incredibly uninformed, foolish position to only see a couple of perverse incentives, and be completely blind to the overwhelming amount of positive incentives.
> What happened in 1600s has zero bearing on what happens today
Unchecked ignorance.
What relevant examples of getting away with corruption can we glean from a pre-enlightenment, pre-formal-police, pre-constitution, pre-checks-and-balances, pre-judiciary-act, pre-telegraph, pre-paper-trail, pre-free-journalism, pre-internet, pre-camera-phones, pre-surveillance, pre-data-centers, pre-whistleblowers, pre-structures of accountability world?
Corruption has gotten magnitudes harder to get away with (even since 00s), which is why history is irrelevant here. You would need something extraordinary, like becoming a president with criminal immunity and self-pardon powers, and getting an electoral majority to support you being openly corrupt.
> Saying “US corruption isn’t new” is a truism. There are probably isolated incidents, and many unproven theories, but everyone is quick to agree with this statement because it’s a common feeling everyone has now for some reason. The reality of corruption is likely much smaller and more boring than people think.
Corruption in the US been extensively documented and proven. The revolving door at regulatory bodies, dark money, gerrymandering, no-bid contracts, "kids for cash", the collusion at the DNC before the 2016 primary, unconstitutional domestic spying by the NSA (along with the directer James Clapper lying to congress under oath without consequence), the lies the George W. Bush administration sold the public to justify his wars (and just about everything else surrounding them including profiteering, the use of torture, and many other war crimes), the Whitewater scandal, etc.
You can go back in time as far as you like and you'll find things like The Teapot Dome scandal or The Whiskey Ring.
The kind of corruption we're seeing today is exceptional, but to pretend that anything before now was "isolated incidents" and "unproven theories" is beyond ridiculous. Things right now are bad enough that we don't have to blind ourselves to our own history in order to make it appear worse. It is worse. It doesn't change the reality that corruption has been an ongoing problem in the US and maybe if we'd been more aggressive about punishing it we wouldn't be here today. Sweeping any of it under the rug is the last thing we should be doing.
You listed a bunch of things only some of which are bad, and none of which are clearly corrupt. Did you know that things can be bad, and still not corrupt?
When you delete a customer database at work, it doesn't have to be because you're corrupt.
You're believing conjecture, because it makes you feel smarter, like you can see through the facade. The reality is that you're probably afraid to come off naive. We have to be stronger and fight this urge to cry wolf about everything, because sometimes real ones show up.
> You listed a bunch of things only some of which are bad, and none of which are clearly corrupt.
Charitably, you might be using a different definition of corruption than most of the world uses. Even if we limit ourselves to only a narrow definition of only political corruption, the abuse of government power for private gain, most of what I listed would still be (sometimes literally) textbook examples of it. The revolving door, dark money, "kids for cash", no-bid contracts, Teapot Dome, these are examples of how we've seen bribery and cronyism play out in the Untied States. Voter suppression for example is a form of electoral corruption. While you're welcome to play at semantics or choose your own definitions for what you feel is and isn't corruption, claiming that "none of the things" listed were "clearly corrupt" is simply false.
I think we'd agree that a worker deleting a database doesn't have to be corruption, but that also doesn't mean it can never be an act of corruption either. I'm not talking about conjecture, just documented history, some of it recent. There are people in prison right now for their roles in it and many others who should have been, or who should still be, locked up for it, but who have escaped justice because of corruption.
It's difficult to imagine what "real ones" would even look like to you personally, but be assured that to the rest of us the US has a very long and well documented history of real corruption.
Let's take revolving door. Who would you want to be in charge of regulating an industry, a person who knows it inside out or a newcomer who has no idea how anything works? How would the latter have any hope at being an effective regulator? You would never accept this kind of lack of experience anywhere else in life. But for some reason we're all used to pointing out revolving doors as some kind of gotcha, without giving it the basic level of thought.
Dark money sounds bad, but anonymity doesn't imply corruption. Money also isn't enough. Look at billionaires trying to run for president, and where they got. You'll also be hard pressed to find any example where a politician picks a stance that goes against their constituents' opinion, in favor of money. Usually money piggybacks on a public opinion that already supports them, or is largely indifferent. History has shown that pumping money can rarely reverse public opinion to a significant extent, but sometimes can dissuade a positive opinion into indifference. Even that, unclear if it’s still possible in today’s world.
Kids for cash — I didn't know what it was at first. Sure, that's straight corruption. A couple of judges committed crimes, got caught, and received prison sentences.
I could go down every example you made, but I hope the sample above illustrates what I mean. "Documented history" is conjecture until it's adjudicated. You're making a mistake of putting "documented history" (insinuations of corruption in dark money, revolving doors, voter suppression) in the same bucket as clear and adjudicated corruption (like kids for cash), and based on this mixed bucket of good and bad examples, make a conclusion that there's always been outsized corruption in US, compared to normal baseline. Your basis for that conclusion is flawed.
The US has been suffering from late-stage capitalism for quite a while now. The obvious example is Citizens United allowing corporations to make unlimited political bribes. We just pretend it is okay by calling it "lobbying", but with the current slide into fascism the megacorps no longer feel the need to pretend.
I dont think it existed nearly at the same level, not even close. And honestly, even now, i still think it's a handful of actors doing a lot of it.
Kinda like when women say that men harass them in the bars and a lot of men seem confused because we don't think we harass them, when it can be like 1 guy harassing 20 women in a bar on the same night.
Can you prove any corruption from another President similar to one very obvious case of corruption, where the UAE invested in a very clearly scam crypto company run by Trump's family (who have no crypto expertise) and then very soon after got contentious export licenses for Nvidia chips?
Grant and Harding are famous for being personally corrupt.
Nixon resigned to avoid impeachment for political corruption.
Reagan colluded with Iran to prevent the release of hostages during Carter's re-election campaign and later sold them weapons to bypass congressional oversight.
These are just a couple well known examples at the presidential level, I am sure that for every one we know about there are dozens if hundreds of similar examples.
Go further down the scale to the congressional, state, city, and municipal levels and you encounter even pettier levels of corruption where you can buy votes for 5 figure construction contracts or just simple cash handoffs.
Like everyone here said, they just don’t even care about being “caught”. Not ten years ago most of this stuff would likely end a career or land you in prison.
Now it’s just, “So what? Nobody can do anything.”
It’s not better that the corruption is blatant. They’re rubbing our faces in it, and not the least bit concerned about consequences. The message is clear… there aren’t any, anymore.
And the most insulting was how they telegraphed it all. Accuse people of things they clearly didn’t do… and then actually do all those things.
They've always rubbed our faces in it in modern times. There was a time, not that long ago, when Presidents wouldn't accept payments for speaking after office. It only began with Gerald Ford. Previously it was felt that it would impugn the integrity of the office, and obviously it 100% does. Nonetheless, now presidents are happy to e.g. bail out companies and then take tens of millions of dollars in speaking fees for 30 minute chats with those exact same companies.
The real issue is that partisanship tends to blind certain people to corruption when 'their side' is in office, which largely works as an enabling factor. When nobody cares or nothing happens over a 'little' corruption, it just leads to a little more, and the next thing you know - you get to where we are.
My feeling about all the corruption talk is that everyone is at different points on the "oh yeah now I see it" curve. I've noticed that I'm really annoyed at people who are just now getting it as I've been seeing it for 20+ years. Because people who are further behind didn't see it before they have no idea how bad previous corruption was and only see the new corruption as a unique evil, unmatched by anything that ever happened in a million billion years. Which then makes for very tiresome arguments about how bad it used to be back in the day. They actually argue that it used to be fine, but NOW it's bad.
Anyhow kind of a rant but it's an insight I had as to why nobody can agree on anything despite lots of folks probably being honest/good faith actors.
I think when people grow up with something it grows to become all they know, and so they assume it's normal and everything else is aberrant. So the overt corruption of now a days (or at least of yesterdays) is not even seen as corruption, because otherwise surely somebody would do or say something about. Surely.
So large 'awakenings' require localized extreme circumstances, or at least the perception of extreme circumstances. That perception keyword is what makes everything so dumb, but I won't complain. More people being 'aware' is a great thing, regardless of how we get there.
Reading things like this help me understand how so many people fall for scams. You're so extremely trusting that it's hard to wrap my mind around... I can't relate on any level.
Bad news is, you're probably in the midpoint of that meme bell curve. Grown up structures and institutions are designed well, with accountability built-in. Many many good people work in them, who hate corruption as much as you do. Bad actors are whistle-blowed upon, persecuted, convicted, and imprisoned. It's incredibly difficult in practice to do anything significantly corrupt and stay unnoticed. I don't know if you work (like, at a large-size workplace), but imagine doing something shady at your work, surrounded by your colleagues. It's not easy. The amount of surveillance, paper trail, auditing that government work entails is way more than any normal business.
The irony is that your unending cynicism is actually turning you into a fool for the other side: the populists that constantly discredit institutions. They figured out that your cynicism (aversion to being scammed?) is so strong, that it can be used to scam you. They only need to discredit everyone else, that's easy. Make conspiratorial allegations based on perceived outcomes, not actual proof. Sell you all the cynicism in the world: everything is broken, everyone's bad, and you're one of the smart ones who sees it. US institutions are corrupt and worthless. This lets them pretend to be experts, because you're now a guest in their version of reality. And they directly financially benefit from your attention.
Institutions maintain real internal accountability (none of these alternative media populists do), implement real processes that work, tackle real issues in ways that take into account all stakeholders, and don't just produce slogans and talking points. I know they're old and not cool, but they work. Unfortunately, very few groups are left that actually defend them, you all got scammed by relentless, self-serving, financially incentivized alternative media into thinking that everything is broken.
Just because things are complex, doesn't mean they're broken. Just because measures taken aren't always satisfying, doesn't mean they are malicious. Don't get scammed into this world view by people who directly financially benefit from selling it.
Prove him wrong. Show us documented cases of corruption from, say Obama, or Biden, or Bush Jr. And then we'll compare it to the documented cases of Trump corruption, starting with his 2 crypto pump-and-dump schemes and his family's fake crypto company (3 already very brazenly open ones and there are more!) and let's see if you can pull similar for any of the previous presidents of the 21st century
Looked this up and it seems like most if not all high level officials divested from companies they worked for or would profit from. Cheney still owned stock in haliburton but it seems he gave away profits when selling those to charity, he did get a large parachute when he left them.
This is very different from the current admin at least. But direct profiteering by high level officials didn't happen or they were very good at hiding it. They did make their friends and old colleagues very rich, maybe that it reason enough?
And I am someone that considers that administration to be full of war criminals that manufactured a reason to invade Iraq.
But Cheney never profited from any of that increased work. He donated every single investment profit from Halliburton stock (since he was paid in it and held it as VP) to charity. That's like 1000x less corrupt than even one of the 3 situations of Trump corruption from only his most recent term that I outlined
He just bombed civilians in the middle east. Current administration is both bombing civilians in the middle east and stealing from civilians in the US.
Do you have a source that says it was an analytical error? Everything I've read over the years suggested they knew there were no WMDs, yet went with the narrative. Here's one post that cites a CIA report that shows the administration knew there were no WMDs.
Not directly, but indirectly by declining any punitive actions. Ideally the banks earnings should've been used up towards the bail out punishing shareholders in the spirit of the free market. But if I remember at that time, execs paid themselves large bonuses immediately following the bail out.
Most of the big ones. The government in fact was issued equity in these banks that they later sold to recover the funds. So it was very much necessary to preserve shareholder value.
This arrangement probably wouldn't have upset people so much were the people responsible for the crisis held accountable. Worse still, they paid themselves huge bonuses as soon as they got bailed out from the bailout money itself! All this made people question the real intention behind the bailout. Corruption is often effected indirectly, so as to give the perpetrator plausible deniability.
No, they’re not examples of corruption. Did Bush or Biden seek to profit from their actions financially? Not that I know of, unless you have proof showing what and how.
Corruption is not limited to financial profit. There are many ways to engage in acts of self interest like grant personal agenda, favours to friends/donors, quid-pro-quo etc.
That’s not an answer to the question. How did any of these presidents profit, financially or not, from their actions regarding Iraq or the 2008 financial crisis? What was the quid pro quo they received?
Well, the question primarily seemed to contest the scope of corruption, so I responded in view to that.
The big banks were one of the top donors to Obama's 2008 campaign. The fact that none of the banks were prosecuted or even held accountable for the crisis raises big questions how much the campaign funding influenced the way the bailout was structured. It also doesn't help Obama that he was famous for going after private funding after backtracking on his pledge not to do so.
Bush's story is similar but with energy companies the most famous being Halliburton who funded his election campaign and turned out to be the biggest beneficiaries to profit from the Iraq war. It probably wouldn't have upset people as much had it not been that the Bush family had close ties to this company and where Dick Cheney also happened to be the CEO. It was a big scandal at that time you can go read back on, but as is with many of these scandals everything seems to be forgotten or forgiven with time. I wouldn't be surprised if it's the same with Trump 20 years from now.
- Bush invaded Iraq because an oil company funded his campaign?
- Obama bailed out banks (a thing every government worldwide was doing) because banks funded his campaign?
There’s no evidence of these claims, compared to the evidence of a fucking private jet being bought for Trump in comparison. Also Trump has enriched himself, personally, more than any president in history by quite some margin, using the office of President. I just wanted to show what you’re equivocating about, here.
If you follow the way the private jet thing is done, it is structured as a gift to the government and not the president. It is perfectly legal and you won't be able to find any "proof" of corruption over it. This is how most corruption is done, in an underhanded manner, but everything by the book, with enough plausible deniability.
In many cases corruption is only known to the perpetrator, because it is a matter of intent. One can always proffer a different reason for what they are doing than what they actually intended and when those reasons later turn out to be false, you may never really know whether they acted in good faith in the first place.
So corruption largely comes down to perception end of the day. It is ultimately a matter of trust and when that trust is eroded, the perception of corruption grows. There's no smoke without fire. When we see smoke in a building, we do not go searching for proof of fire, we just gtfo because the risk is too much. We should do the same when we see red flags in people in powerful positions.
These people are also all wealthy with stable fortunes - they don't need a lot of cash because they have everything. Trump is also a rich guy, but he has a lot of debts and legal troubles and worries about leaving office, so he urgently needs cash to bankroll and bribe and attract likeminded individuals to help him.
Which US Administration said or did anything to prevent every US corporation from trading their manufacturing secrets for cheap labor, to the totalitarian country that they're all allegedly wringing their hands over for us?
Which one stopped the CIA from overthrowing democratic elections in other countries right from their inception, starting with Italy in the 50s and continuing with Operation Gladio all throughout Europe and moving into Southeast Asia as they worked with criminal groups to perfect their narco funded guerrilla warfare machine?
Did Trump even catch up to the number of bombs that "peace prize" Obama dropped in 8 years?
There are no sides, there's just a corporate Uniparty putting on some theater for you and you can absolutely prove that out if you dig past surface material and surface thinking.
I'm very surprised to realize that entertaining a thought of all AI going away is giving me a sense of… relief. I've been embracing AI, and did not expect this feeling at all.
Why does it beggar belief? If a loudly woke person started a computer club, would you want to join? Why is it hard to believe that someone loudly anti-woke starting a club cannot make people stay away?
My 8yo wanted to listen to news, so I made an experiment: have AI generate a news podcast episode every day where stories of any seriousness are unpacked and explained to kids. Includes topics like wars and politics, but avoids local crime.
No guarantees about the content, use your own judgement. Curious what people think about an idea like this.
Tech: research by GPT 5.6-Sol, clarity review loop with Kimi K3, audio by Gemini 3.1 Flash TTS. Hugo for static site, Cloudflare Pages + R2.
What do you mean by "Pi has a web search function"? Pretty sure Pi doesn't have one, except if you install some extension, but then Pi has every function.
reply