Most active commenters
  • (5)
  • ceejayoz(5)
  • Whoppertime(5)
  • monetus(5)
  • CamperBob2(3)
  • candiddevmike(3)
  • zarathustreal(3)
  • quickthrowman(3)
  • hkpack(3)
  • ivan_gammel(3)

←back to thread

167 points ceejayoz | 79 comments | | HN request time: 1.839s | source | bottom
Show context
ceejayoz ◴[] No.43664706[source]
Long read; these bits were notable to me:

> But the insurer’s defense went even further, to the very meaning of “prior authorization,” which it had granted women like Arch to pursue surgery. The authorization, they said in court, recognized that a procedure was medically necessary, but it also contained a clause that it was “not a guarantee of payment.” Blue Cross was not obliged to pay the center anything, top executives testified. “Let me be clear: The authorization never says we’re going to pay you,” said Steven Udvarhelyi, who was the CEO for the insurer from 2016 to 2024, in a deposition. “That’s why there’s a disclaimer.

> At the trial, Blue Cross revealed that it had never considered any of the appeals — nor had it ever told the center that they were pointless. “An appeal is not available to review an underpayment,” acknowledged Paula Shepherd, a Blue Cross executive vice president. The insurer simply issued an edict — the payment was correct.

> On several occasions, though, Blue Cross executives had signed special one-time deals with the center, known as single case agreements, to pay for their wives’ cancer treatment.

replies(5): >>43665139 #>>43665359 #>>43665603 #>>43665652 #>>43665927 #
1. HumblyTossed ◴[] No.43665139[source]
This is the frustration that leads to getting a dictator wanna-be elected President. People are SICK SICK SICK of these shenanigans and seriously want it to change.
replies(3): >>43665152 #>>43665314 #>>43665343 #
2. CamperBob2 ◴[] No.43665152[source]
How does electing a dictator who promises "Vote for me and I will make it worse" help, though? That's the part I don't get.

If the dictator promised to round up these CEOs and send them to El Salvador without a trial, that would be one thing... but the opposite is true, and I think the electorate understood that well enough.

replies(10): >>43665171 #>>43665175 #>>43665193 #>>43665198 #>>43665204 #>>43665282 #>>43665299 #>>43665301 #>>43665353 #>>43665385 #
3. HumblyTossed ◴[] No.43665171[source]
Because people are desperate for something to change. The status quo is literally killing people.

I'm not saying I agree with their voting decision, but I can, in part, understand their frustration.

replies(5): >>43665320 #>>43665473 #>>43665481 #>>43665490 #>>43665536 #
4. y33t ◴[] No.43665175[source]
People are getting screwed every which way so any change seems like an opportunity for improvement. Even Ukraine was excited to see Biden leave office so they could at least have a chance for a better arrangement with America.
replies(1): >>43665852 #
5. throw10920 ◴[] No.43665193[source]
Desperation makes most intelligent beings, including humans, less rational - not more.
6. candiddevmike ◴[] No.43665198[source]
30% of Americans would rather have nothing than see people who they consider undesirables have anything.
replies(2): >>43665233 #>>43665361 #
7. zarathustreal ◴[] No.43665204[source]
Boggles the mind that people like this exist, it’s like everyone lives in an entirely separate reality.. how do we fix this?
replies(1): >>43665611 #
8. zarathustreal ◴[] No.43665233{3}[source]
A charitable interpretation would be that they consider justice (consequences that fit the choices one makes) more important than ownership of material things

..and frankly they’re not wrong. No unjust system can maintain itself in the long term, the choice is “personal sacrifice” or “destroy everything” and it’s quite easy to make

replies(2): >>43665289 #>>43665311 #
9. ◴[] No.43665282[source]
10. CamperBob2 ◴[] No.43665289{4}[source]
That seems like a narrow definition of "justice." Shouldn't it also encompass freedom from the consequences of prejudicial choices made by others? Not every negative consequence arises from one's personal actions, after all.
replies(1): >>43665310 #
11. CPLX ◴[] No.43665301[source]
Because they want to punish and humiliate the establishment that let this happen and so they pick the person that seems to also hate and be hated by the establishment.
12. rayiner ◴[] No.43665310{5}[source]
> Shouldn't it also encompass freedom from the consequences of prejudicial choices made by others

Not necessarily? That’s hardly within the traditional American notion of the scope of government. Core american principles focus on protecting people from the government, not the government protecting people from each other.

replies(2): >>43665383 #>>43665815 #
13. candiddevmike ◴[] No.43665311{4}[source]
You can choose your race? Or the social hierarchy you're born into? Or your gender? What is unjust about equality?
replies(1): >>43665701 #
14. throwawaysleep ◴[] No.43665314[source]
So they vote for the shenanigans? As that’s what they did.

The American people basically legalized fraud and looting for the next four years.

replies(5): >>43665338 #>>43665688 #>>43665931 #>>43666144 #>>43666551 #
15. anderber ◴[] No.43665320{3}[source]
You can never doubt that things can get a lot worse, no matter how bad they currently are. This is what we're finding out now.
16. api ◴[] No.43665338[source]
They vote for the person who is not saying "we will continue business as usual," which has been the Democrat message.

The Democrats have succeeded at suppressing the populist wing of their party, which led to them being defeated by the populist wing of the Republican Party.

replies(2): >>43665661 #>>43665734 #
17. quickthrowman ◴[] No.43665343[source]
But the person they voted for is normalizing these sorts of things, they voted FOR more corruption and self-dealing.
replies(1): >>43665684 #
18. ◴[] No.43665349{3}[source]
19. potato3732842 ◴[] No.43665353[source]
Common people across the board have been sick and tired of the establishment since 2000ish. First it was the tea party, then they voted for Obama because a younger black guy talking about change seemed credible, then occupy wall street, then Maga, then 2020/BLM, then Maga round 2. While these movements have all been coopted to various extents by various bits of the establishment power structure the underlying trend and common theme that is minting these (at least initially) grassroots is very clear and with each round the movements seem to gain a broader base. People of all political positions seek an alternate to the establishment.

If people could pull their heads out of their partisan asses they'd see this. The color of the dictator may as well be the result of a coin toss. This is the result of a long term trend.

replies(3): >>43665506 #>>43665580 #>>43665724 #
20. quickthrowman ◴[] No.43665361{3}[source]
“If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you.”

President Lyndon Baines Johnson

replies(1): >>43665757 #
21. candiddevmike ◴[] No.43665383{6}[source]
> Core american principles focus on protecting people from the government, not the government protecting people from each other.

What part of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" do you think doesn't involve protecting people from each other?

replies(1): >>43668339 #
22. beej71 ◴[] No.43665385[source]
Some people feel that anything different must be better. But they are unfortunately incorrect.
23. ◴[] No.43665393{3}[source]
24. ceejayoz ◴[] No.43665415{3}[source]
> Obamacare destroyed a system that made most people very happy with it. I've experienced it myself. I was perfectly happy with my insurance until its price skyrocketed and they denied me all sorts of stuff in the last 10 years.

Insurance premiums have been on a steady sloped upwards march since the 1970s.

25. jghn ◴[] No.43665468{3}[source]
> which a majority of Americans do not want

You may want to go look at how all the individual attributes of the ACA poll once they're phrased that way and not as in "Obamacare"

26. ◴[] No.43665473{3}[source]
27. simonh ◴[] No.43665481{3}[source]
So they vote for the party that eviscerated the ACA and defends the medical insurance industry.

Look at Trump’s talking points. It’s all about immigrants, foreigners and wokeism that are coming to get what you have.

The US is a wealthy, prosperous nation, and I think even lower income segments of the US population are aware they’re night and day better off than people in the same economic segment in the countries immigrants come from. Wanting more is part of it, but it’s mainly about not sharing what Americans have, even though it’s not actually under threat. That doesn’t matter, people still feel threatened.

I’m a Brit. My mother is a wealthy middle class retired woman in a safe idyllic bit of countryside, but she is utterly obsessed with foreigners coming to rape and steal and destroy British society. They’re all coming to get us. She reads in the papers (The Daily Mail) and sees it on TV (GB News) every day.

28. hkpack ◴[] No.43665490{3}[source]
I see this tactic exploited to the maximum by foreign state propaganda machines.

In my country which was targeted to the max by Russian propaganda, they are using the same playbook as in the US right now.

1. take any real complicated issue and blow it out of proportion so people think that it is a life and death situation.

2. heavily promote the most unfit person for the job

3. blame the worsen outcome to the predecessor

Rinse and repeat and you'll see the country drown in chaos and everyone blames everyone.

You can always argue that it is the real people, but if you look really close to the systems of promoting the divisive content - the powerhouse of it is always bot networks only followed by real people.

I think that the most of the division in western societies have to be studied from the perspective of foreign influence.

replies(1): >>43665685 #
29. CamperBob2 ◴[] No.43665506{3}[source]
The color of the dictator may as well be the result of a coin toss

That seems disingenuous. Obama: "Vote for me and I'll bring you hope and change and healthcare and all this other stuff." Trump: "Vote for me and you won't have to bother voting again."

There is simply no room for BSAB rationalization here.

replies(1): >>43665796 #
30. pavlov ◴[] No.43665536{3}[source]
But in fact the candidate who pretends to be the alternative is supported by the very same vested interests that the voters hate. Wall Street and healthcare CEOs spent big on Trump.

This is a great achievement of the American media environment: people vote for the status quo fully believing they’re voting against it. And somebody ending up in a prison in El Salvador is the sacrificial lamb that is needed to make this equation work.

replies(1): >>43665842 #
31. namdnay ◴[] No.43665580{3}[source]
> First it was the tea party, then they voted for Obama

I very very very very much doubt these were the same people

replies(1): >>43665972 #
32. alabastervlog ◴[] No.43665611{3}[source]
Go back in time and stop this any of the other times we took a big step this direction. The thrust this direction has been going strong since the '70s.

We wrote out a detailed plan for jumping off a cliff, took several slow but steady and large steps toward the edge of the cliff, inched our shoes right over the edge, grabbed the railing, leaaaaaned way over, a little farther, a little farther, released finger go, then another, then completely let go. We're in free fall, the decades in which anyone could have stopped it are all in the past. There's nothing to grab, no path to turn around on, we're just falling now.

33. Whoppertime ◴[] No.43665661{3}[source]
People wouldn't be saying "they basically legalized fraud and looting for the next four years" if Bernie Sanders was President. People don't really see the populist left and populist right the same way.
replies(2): >>43666544 #>>43666574 #
34. Whoppertime ◴[] No.43665684[source]
Do you mean the people who voted for Donald Trump or the people who voted for "Fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma which gave a lucrative position to Hunter Biden" or "10% for the Big Guy held by H"? Just to clarify what you're talking about when you talk about voting for more corruption and self-dealing
replies(2): >>43665739 #>>43668304 #
35. ivan_gammel ◴[] No.43665685{4}[source]
The primary reason why Russia can exploit the failures of the system is that those failures exist. Western political elites are locked into old alignments and captured by special interests groups. They became more opportunistic and less values-driven, ignoring modern challenges and demographic changes and becoming less competent in general. This is why in Europe, which is more democratic than USA, we see significant changes in political landscape with new parties emerging on the right and on the left and getting visible share of votes. USA has a major flaw that doesn’t allow the country to escape bipartisan system, so it’s going to agonize in its current state until it finally breaks. Foreign influence here is really a secondary matter.
replies(2): >>43666049 #>>43666093 #
36. zarathustreal ◴[] No.43665701{5}[source]
Everything about equality is unjust, it’s literally the opposite of justice. You cannot have equality without injustice, there’s no way to fairly redistribute resources without taking from people who’ve earned what they have and giving to people who haven’t
37. fzeroracer ◴[] No.43665705{3}[source]
> Obamacare destroyed a system that made most people very happy with it. I've experienced it myself. I was perfectly happy with my insurance until its price skyrocketed and they denied me all sorts of stuff in the last 10 years.

People were not happy with the system. I'm old enough to remember the pre-existing condition bullshit insurance companies pulled to avoid paying out in all situations. They classified the stroke my mother had in 2004 as a preexisting condition and refused coverage sending my family into bankruptcy.

It was still a bandaid solution on a rotting wound but this revisionist history of the pre-ACA era does not exist.

38. kergonath ◴[] No.43665724{3}[source]
> then they voted for Obama because a younger black guy talking about change seemed credible

Some people voted for Obama because he made them hope for a better future. Some people voted for Trump because he promised them hell for other people. They are nothing alike.

39. LeafItAlone ◴[] No.43665734{3}[source]
Well that was very short sighted. Because the other person was clearly saying how they’d make it much much worse.

But nobody had ever accused the voting public of the U.S. of being able to see the past the end of their nose.

https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2024/project-2025-could...

40. quickthrowman ◴[] No.43665739{3}[source]
I mean the guy that is shaking down law firms and countries and universities and immigrants. The guy that launched a multi billion dollar pump and dump crypto scheme on the eve of his inauguration. The guy that is almost certainly selling pardons to people like the former CEO of Nikola. The guy that is possibly tipping off his friends and donors about when a tweet of his will send the stock market up 10%.

I don’t give a shit about Hunter Biden, he wasn’t the president. Nepotism happens everywhere, good luck stopping it. Hunter Biden is a crackhead and shouldn’t have had the position he did, but he is a sideshow to distract you. Trump himself was impeached for withholding foreign aid from Ukraine to try and boost his reelection chances, but you conveniently left that part out. I’ll admit it was partly political, but it still happened.

If the Biden family was doing corrupt things like receiving bribes, by all means prosecute them. If there’s evidence Joe Biden got kickbacks from Burisma, the DoJ should file charges. There’s not a personality cult for Biden like there is for Trump.

Trying to compare an actual convicted felon who is nakedly corrupt in public vs a guy who has a few accusations is ridiculous in the same way as presenting young earth creationism as equally valid as the universe being 13.7B years old. It’s “but both sides!” at its worst. Joe Biden is no saint, he’s a politician after all, but he’s not even close to Trump. Bob Menendez (D, NJ) is much closer to Trump than Biden, he was actually tried and convicted for corruption. I’m glad he was found guilty.

replies(1): >>43666531 #
41. potato3732842 ◴[] No.43665757{4}[source]
And that wasn't even his most spicy quote. That man is a goldmine when it come to politicians saying the quiet part out loud.
replies(1): >>43665832 #
42. Whoppertime ◴[] No.43665796{4}[source]
People voted for Obama hoping for an end to war in the Middle East. A lot of people who were protesting the Iraq War when George Bush was president had no problem with Obama expanding the conflict into Libya. The Snowden scandal happened under Obama, and showed that the excesses of the Patriot Act didn't stop under Obama. Can you understand why some people who voted for Obama hoping for peace in the middle east and a re-establishment of civil liberties could end up jaded?
43. wnoise ◴[] No.43665815{6}[source]
> not the government protecting people from each other.

That's literally the purpose of both criminal and civil laws.

44. ceejayoz ◴[] No.43665832{5}[source]
This is a critique on his part, of opposition to the Civil Rights Act he eventually got passed.
45. LeafItAlone ◴[] No.43665852{3}[source]
>Even Ukraine was excited to see Biden leave office so they could at least have a chance for a better arrangement with America.

That doesn’t align with what I saw. Can you provide evidence? Because it was pretty clear to me that it would go exactly as it has, which is pretty terribly for Ukraine.

- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Trump%E2%80%93Zelenskyy...

- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna200977

replies(1): >>43666455 #
46. mikeyouse ◴[] No.43665911{5}[source]
“Big pharma” spent nothing on Bernie Sanders because healthcare execs hate him and he doesn’t take money from corporate PACs. Individual, low level employees donated to him for the same reason they donate to any other politician. This has been widely known and understood since the baseless false equivalency was raised months ago and that you still repeat it just demonstrates the depths of the bad faith.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-rfk-jr-misrepresented-...

replies(1): >>43667485 #
47. giuseppe_petri ◴[] No.43665931[source]
> legalized fraud and looting

That's just government in a nutshell, regardless of country, party, political leanings, etc.

How does it go? "What's the difference between government and organised crime? One of them is organised."

replies(1): >>43667016 #
48. AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.43665972{4}[source]
They don't have to be the same people if they were the people who showed up in the primary to vote for someone like Ron Paul and then stayed home on election day when the Republicans nominated an establishment candidate instead.

But also, you might be surprised. Elections aren't decided by the bulk of partisan voters who show up to always vote for the same party and then cancel each other out. They're decided by the much smaller number of people willing to vote for a candidate instead of a party, and therefore move votes from one column to the other.

49. AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.43666049{5}[source]
Ironically the fix for this is quite simple. Use score voting instead of first past the post.

Score voting is simple: It's the voting system the judges use in the Olympics. Voters give each candidate a score. Highest average (i.e. the one who would get the gold) gets the seat.

The flaw in first past the post is that it gives any viable third party the powerful incentive to merge with the major party they're most similar to, because otherwise they split the vote and both lose. So you get a two party system. Score voting doesn't have that, you don't have to change any other part of the system to make it work, and then the two party system everybody hates goes away.

replies(1): >>43667095 #
50. hkpack ◴[] No.43666093{5}[source]
It is absolutely the same playbook in Europe, with an increased complexity that you cannot target Europe as a whole, since every country has its own issues (and politics, and culture, language, etc.).

For example I see on the Irish social media the misplaced efforts of Russian propaganda which doesn't make much traction because of the lack of deeper understanding of the issues and just copy-pasting the rage baits from other countries.

However, I expect that it is temporary, until more budget is allocated to it.

I would encourage everyone to study what is open from the Russian KGB archives to understand that it has a century of experience of influence, supercharged by social media, access to paid influencers and now AI.

replies(1): >>43667148 #
51. redczar ◴[] No.43666144[source]
The system needs a major overhaul. The DNC was making sure that did not happen while they had power. Instead of an orderly rewrite a wrecking ball was put in power. The DNC today is like Kerensky in 1917.
replies(2): >>43666307 #>>43666976 #
52. the_snooze ◴[] No.43666307{3}[source]
The Democrats have repeatedly shown they are feckless, ineffective, and beholden to special interests. In California where they are a supermajority, they can't make any progress on the much-touted high speed rail system because everyone wants their piece of the pie. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-...

>“SNCF was very angry. They told the state they were leaving for North Africa, which was less politically dysfunctional."

No surprise that enough people would say "we gotta do something else."

replies(1): >>43666342 #
53. redczar ◴[] No.43666342{4}[source]
Yeah. The people who keep touting how the alternative to the Democrats is much worse don’t understand that voting for the less bad option, over time, leads to the same bad outcome. Just takes longer to get there. They also don’t understand human behavior. It’s unappealing to keep voting for the less bad option. It makes people lose interest in voting.
replies(1): >>43670510 #
54. y33t ◴[] No.43666455{4}[source]
It was in an Economist article sometime around December; unfortunately I canceled my subscription because of their screen-hijacking ads, so I'm not able to find it. Problem was, Ukraine was being chipped away slowly by Russia and Biden wasn't giving them more aid. The thought was that Trump may shake things up a bit so they at least had a chance to improve their situation. Obviously that hope was misplaced, but Biden was too afraid of provoking of Russia to do anything but slow them down. Ukraine knew they were suffering a slow death, so basically any change was reason for hope.
replies(1): >>43667037 #
55. Whoppertime ◴[] No.43666531{4}[source]
We can't prosecute the Biden family because they all got pre-emptive pardons. https://youtu.be/4EpUpC9fCSg Did Trump actually withhold foreign aid from Ukraine, or did he threaten to do so? https://youtu.be/UXA--dj2-CY Because if it was threatening to cut funding this is a pot calling the kettle black situation https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/us/politics/trump-ukraine... And checking this NYTimes timeline, they say that the funds were released on September 20th. So the funding to Ukraine was not withheld, but delayed. The exact same thing that Joe Biden was doing. Saying in all caps "It's a great time to buy" before the stock market goes up 10% isn't insider trading, it's a politician delivering on his promises immediately.
56. ◴[] No.43666544{4}[source]
57. phendrenad2 ◴[] No.43666551[source]
Is there something in the water here on HN that prevents people from differentiating between intent and outcome..?
replies(2): >>43667029 #>>43667308 #
58. api ◴[] No.43666574{4}[source]
Sanders was not a choice.

I didn’t vote for Trump but I get it and him winning doesn’t surprise me.

replies(1): >>43672492 #
59. sterlind ◴[] No.43666976{3}[source]
> The DNC today is like Kerensky in 1917.

Or the Weimar Republic in 1932, say. Apparently its economy was in shambles. But that gives me no sympathy for those that installed its successor.

60. monetus ◴[] No.43667016{3}[source]
This worldview kind of unfairly discredits the beauracrats who aren't awful, which seem to outnumber the grifters? From the perspective of say DOGE, there is plenty of reason not to fire the former out of zeal for chasing the latter.
replies(2): >>43670055 #>>43671567 #
61. throwawaysleep ◴[] No.43667029{3}[source]
The party put in power did not even claim to oppose those things. The man put in power did the opposite when he was last in power.

As an analogy, I understand why someone might not trust the Boeing 737 Max. I would consider them in need of a court appointed guardian if they determined the alternative was to jump off a building as a safer way to fly.

62. LeafItAlone ◴[] No.43667037{5}[source]
If you do find that singular article, I’d be interested in reading it. I do have access to The Economist, so I’d just need a link.
63. monetus ◴[] No.43667093{5}[source]

  Big Pharma spent big on Bernie Sanders 
How did you come to this conclusion?
replies(1): >>43667214 #
64. ivan_gammel ◴[] No.43667095{6}[source]
Proportional system may work better, because it will guarantee that a political party will be represented by its best candidates and it is not affected by gerrymandering. I do not see though how one of them could happen in USA.
replies(1): >>43667146 #
65. AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.43667146{7}[source]
One of the best things about score voting is that it eliminates primaries. Each party just runs all of their candidates in the general election, and then the voters decide who is the best one.

PR puts the party instead of the voters in control of who gets the seats or otherwise requires the voters to support a party when they want to support a specific candidate.

Score voting also thwarts gerrymandering because you can't make two 55% districts for your party and one 90% district for the other party or the districts for "your" party would go to a moderate party instead.

66. ivan_gammel ◴[] No.43667148{6}[source]
Did you study anything from there (and can provide references) or just use your imagination?

KGB failed to prevent catastrophic dissolution of USSR and you suggest that they are some sort of masterminds who excelled in propaganda. That’s quite an exaggeration. Since 1990s both the West and Russia have lost their expertise in each other’s affairs. Russia may still have some influence in Central and Eastern Europe, but their conservative ideological drift limits significantly what they can achieve. A lot of local political mess there is basically local politicians shooting in the leg.

replies(2): >>43667487 #>>43696780 #
67. ceejayoz ◴[] No.43667214{6}[source]
They really, really wanted it to be true.
68. ceejayoz ◴[] No.43667308{3}[source]
“I didn’t mean to kill anyone” only counts if it wasn’t obvious you were going to kill someone.

The outcome here was obviously what was going to happen. They promised these actions.

69. Whoppertime ◴[] No.43667485{6}[source]
"Corporations themselves cannot donate directly to federal candidates, but they can make donations through corporate PACs. The owners of companies and their employees also can make individual donations. For donations that exceed $200, campaigns are generally required to ask for information about the industry in which the contributor works, and they are required to disclose that information if provided.

In the 2019-20 Congressional funding cycle, Sanders received more money from people employed in the field classified by OpenSecrets as "pharmaceuticals/health products" ($1.4 million) than any other member of Congress. He also received roughly $400,000 from people employed in "pharmaceutical manufacturing."

This does not mean he received nearly $2 million from "the pharmaceutical industry," — it means the money was from people employed, in any capacity, in that field." So pharmaceutical companies cannot donate money directly to candidates, so they fact check it as false, saying it was the employees donating the money and not Pfizer directly, but acknowledging he did receive $1,400,000 from people that work in pharmaceuticals/health products, and $400,000 from people working in pharmaceutical manufacturing. Are we to presume that there is no strings attached when Bernie Sanders is receiving the money? Or are we supposed to offer the benefit of the doubt you wouldn't offer to a Republican politician who said that he didn't receive 1.4 million dollars from the NRA, but employees of the NRA, and a further $400,000 from people in Firearm Manufacturing

replies(1): >>43668488 #
70. hkpack ◴[] No.43667487{7}[source]
I am from Ukraine, and we have KGB archives opened for a while now.

It is a massive amount of information and it is studied rigorously by a lot of researchers. Unfortunately, most of the information I consumed are in Ukrainian. For example there is a book in Ukrainian released just few years ago from one of those [0]. But basically any researcher can get access to the whole archive and domestic ones wrote a lot of material. I am sure that it will get more popular on the west as well, while people will get understanding of the systems at work.

As far as I know Timothy Snyder is well known for his researches into Russia in his books such as [1]. However I've read only excerpts from it as we have better material in Ukrainian.

West generally doesn't understand Russia, it overestimates its military power and underestimates its propaganda influence. It also completely misunderstands its culture. Also west have a history to dismiss the voices of countries who do know Russia very well. But it is changing bit by bit.

[0] https://www.yakaboo.ua/ua/arhivi-kgb-nevygadani-istorii.html

[1] https://a.co/d/6kMHDnJ

71. antifa ◴[] No.43668304{3}[source]
Interesting that you're concerned about a guy who allegedly nepo'd his son into a job but not concerned about the guy who openly nepo'd multiple children/relatives into federal government positions.

Seems like if you genuinely cared about the Biden molehill you'd care even more about the Trump mountain?

72. rayiner ◴[] No.43668339{7}[source]
Thomas Jefferson coined that phrase. Show me where he talks about a muscular government protecting people from each other.

To a certain extent, that’s a baseline function of every government, sure. But there is a tension between “a government big enough to protect people from each other” and a “government big enough to deprive citizens of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The founding American principles draw the line between those two in a different place than other traditions.

73. monetus ◴[] No.43668488{7}[source]
This would be like saying the gun rights activists are only doing what the NRA tells them. Does the NRA have employees in the same numbers as the entire pharmaceutical+ industry? In your hypothetical though, in those numbers, it would be weird to think all the donors were paid intermediaries for the lobbyists and CEOs. I have trouble believing that the people invested in the industry and supporting sanders were paid intermediaries as well. That is fairly conspiratorial barring evidence otherwise.
74. zzrrt ◴[] No.43670055{4}[source]
I wouldn’t be so sure DOGE has such restraint or good faith. Vance said in 2021, “I think what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, and replace them with our people.”

https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/16/24266512/jd-vance-curtis...

replies(1): >>43671499 #
75. spiderfarmer ◴[] No.43670510{5}[source]
That’s a great way to put it.
76. monetus ◴[] No.43671499{5}[source]
Hard agree; I think they have neither. They are sycophants. I was assuming good faith for some reason just to make a point.
77. monetus ◴[] No.43671567{4}[source]
Bureaucrats*
78. salawat ◴[] No.43672492{5}[source]
And whose fault is that? The DNC's. You had a man explicitly calling out so much of what ails this country, and instead of elevating him, they shunned him because think of the billionaire donors.

FAFO of the highest order.

79. yowzadave ◴[] No.43696780{7}[source]
It's a much lower bar to sow discord and chaos vs. being able to maintain a stable, functioning, low-corruption society. Just because a country is capable of one does not mean that they are capable of the other; also, the characteristics that lead a country to be effective in the former may prevent them from being successful at the latter.