Politicians get money from pharmaceutical companies.
Pharmaceutical companies then create a product and the primary customer is politicians using tax dollars.
Nope. No conflict of interest there at all.
I've always struggled to think of a solution to this issue of politicians being absolutely incapable of being objective and completely selfless/devoted to representing their constituents.
In this case, politicians can be donated to/supported by and invest in pharmaceuticals, same as they can be endorsed by literally anybody, including the hot dog stand in a friendly neighborhood. With the extreme nature of what they've done to us, the only right thing to do (beyond the actually right thing to do) is to essentially deny individual politicians their right to invest or receive donations from pharmaceutical companies, right?
But where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide what is a "bribe" vs what is a "donation/contribution"? Who gets to decide which industries can use their capital to be politically active? Fuck, I shouldn't have to be asking a question like that last one, but the federal government fucking hydra monster has become so unfucking-fathomably enormous...
What do you think the solution to this kind of bullshit is? Not allow politicians to have any kind of financial freedoms, strict wages for them and every single financial exchange they make is public record at all times? Politicians vying for money is perhaps one of our greatest ills... people shouldn't want to be politicians. They should do it because they view their service as a duty, because it fucking is. And with duty, sometimes you have to deal with shit that sucks- such as surrender certain rights and being held to a different standard than everyone else- because of the responsibility you wield.
Any thoughts?
Kick all the jews out of America
Problem solved
But where do you draw the line? Who gets to decide what is a "bribe" vs what is a "donation/contribution"?
I don't draw a line. They are all bribes.
Who gets to decide which industries can use their capital to be politically active?
Whoever has the monopoly on force. If it was me, the answer would be none of them. They don't need to be politically active. They already have workers who have an economic interest in voting to protect their jobs. "What if they don't have enough American workers for that?" Some corporatist might whine. I say they don't need a say.
What do you think the solution to this kind of bullshit is?
Everyone knows what the solution is.
Raising fines, punishment, jail, etc for politicians, and actually execute these
Puts on horsepaste blinders. Hummina hummina hummina! I can't see you!
(post is archived)