• WanderWisley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    It’s crazy to me that I’m a year older than JD. When we were younger we probably watched the same show on tv. Ate the same snacks, listened to the same songs. Yet I grew up to be well adjusted and open minded to the world and different people and their identities. And JD grew up to be a POS racist, pedophile protector, and couch fucker.

  • bedwyr@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 hours ago

    And the broadcast network loses their license renewal in, oh wait, that already happened. They don’t lose the broadcast license but it’s a big thing, it’s locked in for a long time or something but they have to fight a big long legal battle or something I forget.

  • evenglow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    139
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Pressed on specifics, he said: “There are things that are false and things that are true.” The segment was especially tense, with Vance at one point saying, “I have to defend my boss — I know you guys don’t always appreciate that,” and then ending up at: “Let’s talk about the book! I’m here to sell books, please!” Presumably, that part was supposed to be funny — but no one was laughing.

    JD’s job is to protect the people. Not to defend Trump.

    The people are JD’s boss. JD is a public servant. He is not Trump’s servant.

    • tigermountain@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Isn’t this the same guy that got caught in a lie and basically said something like ‘sometimes I lie to make a point’?

    • dmtalon@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      It’s funny, not funny how much these people (the vast majority of politicians on both sides) have forgotten that. And that’s because money rules. Until it is no longer lucrative to be in politics nothing will change. Reduce the financial wins of becoming a politician and the people gravitating towards that career will change.

      And maybe that’s a little harsh, some of them probably started out with good intentions to fix something local to them or their community, but power corrupts all. (power = money here). Reduce the money, and reduce the functional lifetime appointments (term limits) things would get better.

      • kreskin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I went to a rich kids high school. Their philosophy was that “you are the leaders of men because you come from influential families”. They didn’t sugar coat how the world works, even at that tender developmental age. Some people have a different fundamental view of how the world works and why, although I like yours.

      • orclev@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        29
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        This is maybe going about things backwards. We definitely need to get bribes out of politics, particularly those coming from corporations (aka PACs) because they make it more profitable to hold specific opinions hence it’s paramount to overturn citizens united. On the other hand if you reduce overall pay for politicians (I.E. money not tied to particular political stances) then that discourages anybody who actually needs money from holding political office thereby turning it into a game exclusively for the rich to play when they’re bored.

        What we need is regular people holding political offices so ironically we probably want to make it more profitable to hold the office not less, but we definitely need to make that the only money politicians earn while in office. The tricky part here is how to kill the usual corporate lobbyist loophole where some corporation promises a politician a cushy job doing essentially nothing for high pay in exchange for voting a specific way.

        • Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I think every single elected representative needs to be under the direct scrutiny of a panel of seven people from their own constituency, made up of ordinary citizens from all walks of life. This panel has the mandate to scrutinize every expense, investigate every “donation”, question every vote that representative has made in the house/senate/etc… and ask “Does this representative continue to work for our district’s interest?”

          If the answer ever becomes no, they have the authority to oust him immediately and have a recall election.

          And yes, I’m fully aware that this was the original Marxist ideal of the concept of the Soviet before Stalinism purged that all away and went full authoritarian.

        • arctanthrope@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I think you’re the one who’s got it backwards. you think $174,000/yr isn’t enough to motivate the average Joe? you think someone making a million a year is gonna take an 83% pay cut if they can’t take bribes and do insider trading on the side? closing the loopholes and leaving ordinary pay as-is seems like a great way to get rich people out and ordinary people in

          • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            5 hours ago

            I see both of your points. But in defense of politicians getting paid, I’ve considered running for my town council but it would be a huge pay cut with a massive workload.

      • Serinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Term limits give lobbyists more power and increase the effectiveness of money in politics.

        • bedwyr@piefed.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Term limits will also make the last term of a lawmaker unanswerable in any way to voters so they can sell out. For executive positions they make sense as executives can rig the game and create patronage networks that keep them in office indefinitely. For legislatures it’s a horrible idea that will make things worse.

          • dmtalon@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Sell out assuming the fist part isn’t fixed (taking the non salary money out making it illegal for it to be lucrative

        • GirthBrooksPLO@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Other way around, preventing people from forming decades long relationships with lobbyists reduces their effectiveness.

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Does it? Seems to me that it’d speed up the representative to commercial position pipeline.

            • GirthBrooksPLO@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 hours ago

              The commercial position pipeline is the aftermath of the problem. When an industry like Big Tobacco can call up someone their long time government whore McConnell, they know he will put out every time. If they have to contend with someone new every few years, you might get a few people who have actual principles, and tell them to pound sand.

              If we get enough of principled people, we can end lobbying for good.

                • GirthBrooksPLO@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  25 minutes ago

                  He’s doing pretty well cultivating a new generation of Democrats not beholdened to Corporations and AIPAC. Mamdani, platner, AOC, etc are crushing polls.

  • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    The problem is that Vance’s knee-jerk reaction to being challenged by a woman is to patronize or dismiss, and an all-female panel in front of an all-female studio audience wasn’t going to allow that. He’s also terrible at being, or even seeming, off-the-cuff and candid. When he said that Trump’s economic policies were going to “pay serious dividends” and Behar immediately asked, “When?” his smile began to wear thin as he hit back: “Well, Joy, what happens is that construction jobs build the factories and people go back to work.” It was condescending and weak all at once.

    • bedwyr@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 hours ago

      They already did, I read about this like a week or two ago in reuters. They are trying not to renew their broadcasting license saying the view is news and not giving equal time to republicans or something.