The real uplifting news is bootlickers getting kicked in their metaphorical shins in the comment section.
If the courts had intervened to stop Brian Thompson before his healthcare murder spree then maybe Luigi wouldn’t be being prosecuted right now. This trial isnt about luigi, its about covering up the chain of political failures that led us here.
The amount of people who died as a result of Brian Thompson’s leadership of united healthcare should be investigated instead
Western democracy is at risk until this is done. We literally don’t deserve to exist if we can’t figure this basic stuff out - i.e. when our own people are dying, maybe the empty private hospital beds and ample staff resources should be used to save those lives. Because people are… gonna die otherwise. The fact that anything else needs to be said is the problem.
‘Western style democracy’ has never been truly democratic because of how money influences elections and politicians. True democracy isn’t possible as long as there exists a capital class in society. The capital class will not give up its wealth without a class war.
Hence the need to remove
- money as Free Speach
- corporations are people
- lobbying is legal
But changes to these policies won’t occur because these policies already exist.
And they are self sustaining, as long as money can buy politicians, no politician would ever be able to stop it on their own.
I asked chatgpt for a solution. It’s not promising:-
Even though U.S. policies like equating money with free speech, treating corporations as people, and legalizing lobbying are deeply entrenched, history shows that even long-established systems can change through persistent, multifaceted efforts. Here’s how such changes might occur:
- Constitutional and Judicial Pathways
Constitutional Amendments: The most sweeping change would come from amending the Constitution. For example, an amendment could clarify that money is not a form of free speech or that constitutional protections apply only to human beings, not corporations. Although amending the Constitution is difficult and requires broad political consensus, it would directly override existing legal interpretations.
Judicial Reinterpretation: Change can also occur gradually by influencing judicial interpretations. By electing or appointing judges who are open to rethinking established precedents—such as those set by decisions like Citizens United—legal opinions on campaign finance and corporate rights can slowly evolve.
- Legislative and Regulatory Reforms
Reforming Campaign Finance Laws: Even without a constitutional amendment, Congress and state legislatures can pass new laws to restrict political spending. Measures might include public financing of campaigns, strict spending caps, and full disclosure of contributions to reduce the outsized influence of large donors.
Regulating Corporate Political Activity: Statutory reforms can be introduced to redefine the role of corporations in politics. For instance, laws could ban corporate contributions to political campaigns or limit their lobbying activities, effectively reducing the political clout that comes with corporate personhood.
Tightening Lobbying Regulations: Legislatures can also impose stricter rules on lobbying—such as enhanced disclosure requirements, limits on the “revolving door” between government and private industry, or even temporary bans on certain types of lobbying. These measures would curb the direct influence that special interest groups can wield over lawmakers.
- Grassroots and Electoral Strategies
Building Public Pressure: Change often starts from the bottom up. Grassroots movements, advocacy groups, and citizen coalitions can mobilize public opinion, use social media to raise awareness, and pressure elected officials to prioritize campaign finance and corporate reform.
Electoral Reforms and Voting Engagement: Changes like anti-gerrymandering efforts, ranked-choice voting, and other electoral reforms can help shift political power towards a broader base of citizens. Increased voter participation and support for reform-minded candidates can gradually reshape the political landscape.
State-Level Innovations: States can act as testing grounds for reform. Successful state-level initiatives—such as stricter campaign finance laws or innovative transparency measures—can provide models that encourage national adoption of similar policies.
Summary
Though deeply entrenched, policies like “money as free speech,” corporate personhood, and legal lobbying can change. Through constitutional amendments, new laws to reform campaign finance and corporate influence, and powerful grassroots mobilization, we can reshape our political system to be more democratic and representative.
These avenues illustrate that while the current biases are strong, a combination of legal, legislative, and grassroots actions can pave the way for meaningful political reform.
And on that score, I often muse if we should be grateful that MAGA and Trump are accelerating the timetable as they have… Capitalism, world economics and geopolitical problems as they were 20 years ago could have been sustained well into the 22nd century. We are so good at avoiding change at all costs!
Now we are headed for a societal collapse, once the ruffians who instigated it are out of the way I think the future for humanity looks quite bright indeed. We may even beat climate change, so long as we… beat all the nasty billionaires, nazis, dictators and oligarchy first… holds head in hands
That’s an interesting thought. In the slow system we might’ve been boiled like a frog, but now that things are changing much faster, we may be able to jump out of the water before we die.
And land in the flames instead.
Capitalism is an inherently unstable system due to the contradictions that define it. Scapegoats are necessary to prevent working class from rising up, and economic conditions in the US have gotten so bad that most people no longer care about sustaining the status quo. So I don’t think the current rise of fascism could have been prevented without a socialist alternative.
Also Biden had already changed the geopolitical landscape when he openly funded an (even domestically) deeply unpopular genocide.
That’s part of the problem, we don’t have ample hospital beds nor staff resources.
I don’t know if and am not saying there are enough to cover the gap… But there are certainly plenty of unused resources in the private hospital system. Doctors, nurses, beds, medicines that could be put to use saving lives, preventing trauma and improving the livelihoods of people in the public system.
The private medical system has siphoned too much from the public for too long. It should always have been a premium tier for the wealthy to enjoy caviar and have cable TV in a private room after surgery. Instead, people who go to a public hospital for urgent emergency care are being sent home to die in error, instead of the ICU, because public emergency rooms are catastrophically overloaded.
In Australia we’ve taken the disadvantage of the poor a step further, like we often do, and have propped up the private system advantaging it even further, e.g. by forcing people to pay a tax for not having private insurance, labyrinthian bureaucracy of referrals that rack up consultation fees and achieve nothing for patients, etc.
In the US, the system is overwhelmed in large part thanks to the financial side pushing for ever increasing patient loads and reduced staff. So nurses are saddled with more patients than they can safely take care of because an empty bed is lost profit. This has a cascade effect because staff are leaving the industry as a whole because of the understaffing, stress, and poor pay/life balance.
I don’t know if the ACA has the same tax as your system does, but I know my state also has a tax penalty if you’re not covered by insurance. The upside to this, though, is that the state offers insurance. It’s not a great system (before you even get into the plague of issues with the finer points of the system), but it’s better than just leaving people to fend for themselves.
Pathetic.
you don’t have to be into the whole killing part. me too. what’s up?
I just think that sending your own hard owned money to a murderer is pathetic, and everyone else upvoting this and encouraging this disgusting behaviour are also pathetic. This complete loss of all morals and integrity just because a victim was in a situation you politivally disagree with is completely embarassing.
But making donations to a convicted felon who claims to be super rich and is nothing more than a con man and sexual abuser is ok? I choosing to stand with Luigi.
Classic whataboutism. I never said donating to Trump was ok.
I, too, stand with Luigi, but that isn’t an argument; that’s whataboutism.
it ain’t no victim. it’s literally all of us.
edit; also, morals and integrity? seriously?
Gonna wanna see the source code on that “Pray” button. I don’t think it actually does anything.
on desktop the button has a counter for how many people have pressed it, so it does something :)
Holy crap! Do we now have the technology to quantify thoughts and prayers?
don’t go too far into that one and yeah, we’re making progress
we have the technology!
dude is there a Pray Button on the various controllers. someone is about to try and convince you.
Lol, it’s the Schrödinger’s guilt. The news is supposed to be uplifting both because the guy is praised as a hero for killing someone and because he is presumed not guilty.
Personally, i don’t have any sympathy for him, regardless he’s guilty or not, some things he said are really disgusting.
I don’t know anything about what he said, but I can’t condone murder - especially if it was for nothing.
It’s Schrödinger’s vigilantism.
Part of me wants there to be a vigilante hunting down those who prey on the weak by breaking the social contract.
But another part of me doesn’t think the people who would be willing to do said hunting should even be free in society to begin with.
Clearly something(s) has to change, but what?
Send him to 1789 France
I have it on good authority from my son that Luigi was in a haunted mansion that day.
Love to see it
Taking out the leader of an evil (corpo) empire is heroism, not subject to murder charges.
I don’t want to dampen the good mood, but even if this is sent anonymously, is there any risk of the information of who is the donor being hacked, especially by corporate overlords who have every incentive to see Luigi and his supporters get punished?
Proxy account or donor is outside US, in a suitable country
Edit: There is legal protection, so if that donor doesn’t have any potentially problematic business it’s safe ig.
such a silly bunch a shit. YOU CAN’T DO THAT. unless you have the intelligence of a human.
Thats hot
What does this mean, exactly? More resources to hire more lawyers or something?
How a 30k donation to a murderer counts as “uplifting news”? If anything it’s depressing
Innocent until proven guilty.
Before we engage in name calling for this suspect, know that yesterday was blatantly clear the system is stacked against him to the point where the courts did not Los him to go into PA for another legal procedure.
See the thing here is that they were giving evidence even to MAX for the documentary and not his legal team, who correctly called some of the evidence inadmissible in court.
So before you feel like calling him a murderer see. The facts and wait for the events to unfold.
You have evidence he murdered someone? Why haven’t you told anyone?!
He told the dude that made his Filet-o-fish.
How’s that boot taste?
He didn’t murder anyone.
Profile picture matches this comment
The donation doesn’t go to a CEO who has murdered hundreds, possibly thousands of people.
It is going to someone who acted in defense of others. Or who might not be the person who even did that, which is why he deserves a fair trial.
Oh, go lick a boot, dweeb.
Why are you lying? Nobody’s been convicted of murder.
It’s the best news all day, go back to Reddit corporate shill
You’re asleep at the wheel.
this is like saying donating to a guy who killed someone actively killing others is never uplifting news. Sure leave the school shooters alone
They’re saying that they find due process to be lacking and the prosecution to be political.
Do you think it’s depressing that someone would donate money to the defense of someone they think is being inappropriately prosecuted?
If you think they’re guilty, you should still want them to get the best defense possible, so that when they’re found guilty it’s airtight. Our justice system is based on an adversarial model. If the prosecution, with the resources of the state, can’t successfully argue that they did it and that their arrest and all procedures were properly followed, do you really want that to still mean someone faces the death penalty?Context is hard for you?
I agree. I don’t think this sub should get political.
It’s uplifting news and has nothing to do with politics. Perhaps Reddit is a better place for you
Everything is political. The sooner you get over this “I’m tired of politics, let me enjoy my doomscrolling” attitude, the more respectable you’ll be.
No it isn’t. This is how subs like r/technology got ruined, the whole thing got filled with “political post that involves technology” instead of just “technology”.
Everything is politically when you have people at the top wanting to take away your rights and be able to have their followers kill you in the streets.
It actually is.
I think you’ll find across the spectrum, people are frustrated to the point where it’s not a political issue
Yeah, because there’s surely not enough political communities on there already
this is uplifting but i agree
That one will be last against the wall
What are you saying here…?
