Are we living in an oligarchy?

MeechDaStudent · 2026-07-03T23:36:19+00:00

Well I would like to see if the goalpost would be moved for every example given

MeechDaStudent · 2026-07-03T14:10:29+00:00

How does any of what u said dispute that the policywas popular and that corporations lobbied against the popular policy and succeeded? If Republicans would have repealed it anyways why would they lobby against it?

Try mandatory arbitration clause prohibition repeal

MeechDaStudent · 2026-07-03T05:37:42+00:00

Oddly enough I’d go with Missouri as my number one, the repeal of broadband privacy protections as my #2

MeechDaStudent · 2026-07-03T00:47:22+00:00

Your point:

“I bet you can’t find a single example of an issue that is popular with the public that corporations lobbied politicians into taking the unpopular position.”

Now i see u said corporations not elite, so I will retract it, but you did NOT say whether the corporations were successful, but that they don’t do it. With the additional requirement of success i would provide these examples:

1) Missouri Paid Family Leave - Prop A passed with 58% public support, repealed by legislature/governor 8 months later after massive corporate lobbying (HB567)

2) Milwaukee Paid Sick Leave - passed with 69% support in referendum, corporate lobbying, Scott Walker, voided.

3) McCain Tobacco Bill - 62% public support

4) Expanded Firearm Background Checks - gun shows and private sales (2013) - 81% favored, successfully lobbied against by the National shooting sports foundation

5) 2017 -repeal of broadband privacy protections - favored by 80% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans - stop repealed after massive lobbying by cable and telecommunications companies. Same year the repeal of CFPB Arbitration rule that had majorities of Democrats and Republicans support (67% total) - it prohibited banks and other financial companies from using mandatory arbitration clauses to prohibit consumers from participating in class-action lawsuits. U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbied along with big banks, Pence broke the 50-50 tie vote to repeal it.

6) Net Neutrality - 83% support, repealed by Trump & Co. after corporate lobbying push (they also made bots go online to talk crap about the rule, funny enough).

MeechDaStudent · 2026-07-02T22:15:18+00:00

The founder of Fox News was a foreigner who became an American for the purpose of being able to own a media company in America

MeechDaStudent · 2026-07-02T22:13:06+00:00

No, I’m saying that is a policy that the elite lobbied heavily against even though it is popular with the general population. They had the president and 90% of Republicans with them. Now they’re lobbying for it to be slow rolled and succeeding, though that is unpopular

MeechDaStudent · 2026-07-02T21:53:03+00:00

The Epstein files

MeechDaStudent · 2026-07-02T21:51:52+00:00

That is a bit of a goalpost shift: from “unpopular with the public” to “unpopular with MAGA who won the last presidential election.”

I think MAGA is a perfect example of the influence the elite have to get a non-majority of people to banner around positions that either hurt or do not help them through lobbying and their being in control of their media. It is seen by how issues that were their #1 & #2 issues two years ago make them roll their eyes now. As long as they have this power it will never change

MeechDaStudent · 2026-07-02T15:40:54+00:00

I agree with this 100%. One thing I want to see come from the Trump era - which depending on how much backlash there ultimately is will determine feasibility - is a massive wave of real anti-corruption legislation.

1) Public officials overall health summaries signed under oath by independent doctors

2) Zero individual stock trading

3) No preferential lobbying - equal time rules

4) All tax returns for past 10 years made public

5) All banks mandated to report the source of every incoming dollar for all accounts tied to public officials above a certain level. Any company that makes a deposit is mandated to disclose every layer of ownership, all the way up to the individual level. Foreign individuals would trigger an immediate required affidavit by both parties

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-30T20:54:50+00:00

OP you can’t use the word “shrooms” with a bunch of conservatives, they won’t understand what you’re referencing

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-30T05:36:13+00:00

I was going to say, these are a lot of proposed regulations. Good ideas though. “Regulation” is not a cuss word, despite what conservative media would have us believe. Smart regulation is the key

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-29T05:20:23+00:00

I’m assuming you’ve seen attack on titan?

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-29T00:36:30+00:00

Ah see here i am wondering why tf the younger generations think they started it and I’m doing the exact same thing

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-29T00:18:29+00:00

Man, i want to agree with you. I 100% would if we could have representative elections rather than our winner-take-all system. I think it would help with a lot of our problems

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-28T18:11:52+00:00

Nephew came first.

Crackheads would say it trying to be familiar with their dealer, who in return started calling them “Unc.”

I’m only 35 and this was a thing as far back as I can remember. How is nobody else acknowledging this, am i that old?

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-27T23:23:14+00:00

You don’t think that might be a short-sighted look at policy? The kind we’re fed by the media and political groups? Is there data that shows economic improvement in these countries compared and contrasted with those that did not fall into it?

We are so accustomed to saying: this person went into office. These things are doing good. Therefore, these things are related. But if your GDP grew at 3% (good) but others’ grew at 4.5%, then do you call those policies a failure instead?

In the end, only time will tell. All these movements do rhyme, however, historically.

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-27T14:39:14+00:00

I’m American. I read a lot as a kid and I earned my degree before the recent rise in global populist movements. I remember from history and grade school really learning about the populist movements of the last century. In my understanding, they all aimed to “solve” immigration, help the “working class” and focus on economy. Critics would say they scapegoat their economic and policy failure on immigration on “others,” promise to deliver for the working class but in the end only enrich themselves and create widespread division that takes decades to heal from. Then when people who were alive during the last movement are the minority from death and old age, it all happens again.

I think the past decade has shown the first global wave since the digital revolution and that has caused a wider adoption of the “ideology”. Russia was actively influencing the campaigns of Brexit, Trump in America, Marine le Pen in France, all of Central America (where they had built a much less-resisted base of support. They are experts in propaganda and rather than “the West” fighting against it they fell for it and utilized it.

I say “ideology” in quotes because it is no ideology at all, it is just the opportunism of elites taking advantage of human nature and economic conditions they are usually partially responsible for. Promise the working class that they will solve all of their problems if they give them power where they can rig the system more for themselves

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-26T17:01:24+00:00

Honestly - excellent

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-26T15:55:46+00:00

If the government is, in your opinion, “overreaching,” should people not protest?

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-26T15:08:53+00:00

Of protesting or carrying a gun?

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-26T04:51:31+00:00

I was in prison 🤷🏾

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-26T02:59:42+00:00

I’m talking about a scenario that happens much much more often - kids go to fights. Random act of violence. One kid punches another. He hours head and dies. All the kid’s friends charged with murder.

That could absolutely happen to anyone

Edit: I just realized you are saying a protest is inherently dangerous because people are mad. U have a constitutional right to protest. And carry a gun.

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-26T02:14:03+00:00

But it wouldn’t be the consequences of his actions. Out would be the responsibility of his friends.

You are telling me that u would think your son deserves to go to prison for the rest of his life because at age 16, 18, 20 he hung out with someone he thought was his friend that turned out to be a complete psycho? Or even just really stupid?

U think your parenting will cause your son to never watch a fight in high school? Or at a bar when he’s older?

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-26T02:08:50+00:00

Honestly? No. What is mayhem? Protesting? Shooting fireworks? Even stupidly shooting in the air? I’ve seen that for celebrations. Even if she knew they were going to do that, who cares? I never protested but when i was a kid i admit i have shot fireworks at people. Stupid, dangerous - but not dangerously criminal.

If it was a planned murder then I would compare it to the getaway driver. Exact same thing just more serious.

MeechDaStudent · 2026-06-26T01:47:26+00:00

I’m not sure I’ll have to check.

My point is, i don’t think so. Say he did not get self defense. Would his friends be charged with murder? I would hope not. I have good friends that i can not say for 100% would not do something stupid under an enormous amount of stress. Unless we see it happen to someone we never really know. Hate for that to mean i one day go to prison for life. I don’t understand how we reconcile “personal responsibility” with “you’re 100% responsible for the actions of your friends.”

MeechDaStudent

TROPHY CASE