YHK - yet another hacker news clone

The Republican Party, broadly. It's much easier to dismantle government when you've convinced voters that it is untrustworthy and incapable of success.

    1. Destroy the government.

    2. ???

    3. Profit.

> Okay whose design

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast

"The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.”

Newt Gingrich set the standard for modern Republican obstructionism, but the idea goes further back. For example, Reagan’s “I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.” Ghastly statement in retrospect given what’s happened in the past 40 years. Imagine taking over an org and saying that you don’t think it’s capable of producing any positive outcomes for its shareholders (or stakeholders, more generally).

Here’s an opinion poll from 2025:

https://issueone.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Issue-One-Yo...

Take with a grain of salt, of course; N is about 1000 and they were contracted by what I assume was a PAC trying to pass an anti-corruption state issue in Montana.

But that seems to be a significant, bipartisan moiety that disagree with parts of SCOTUS’ opinion.

"People", in the broad sense implied by a national poll, don't make that distinction (though if you asked them directly, they would have an opinion). They care about outcomes, not rationale. That actually makes perfect sense - that should be a typical person's point of view.

Of course this is orthogonal to the tribalism overlay that distorts everybody's perceptions, but I'm speaking about the foundation underneath that.

> Do people have a problem with the validity of the legal reasoning, or with the court's wisdom in their final decision?

Not familiar with the case, but Citizen United was a 5-4 decision, so the dissenting opinions are probably the first place you should look at if you're looking for issues with the legal reasoning and/or the court's wisdom.

Obviously there is a problem. It has upgraded corporations to speak as people and allowed them to spend as much as money as they want for elections and it has distorted the already distorted electioneering process to a farce.

Who are people ? the AstroTurfed versions that claimed to be people that got the thing through the courts or real people? Are real people familiar with cause and affect given the media presentations.. I don't know.. You have to ask them.

Was the given judicial ruling based on some sort of logical reasoning? No.. not just in my opinion; there are many that see it that way and they can tell you the exact legal reasonings. In my opinion though, the courts bases were preloaded for the game to deliver and they would have required extended hacking to get it loaded.

The decision was legally sound. Most every supreme court decision is, even those that have been overruled. People forget that for a case to reach the supremes there has to be sound legal argument on multiple sides. Their decisions are therefore rather arbitrary but that is OK. The legislature can bypass any scotus decision through new laws or even a constitutional amendment. Our present difficulty is that the legislative branch has all but abandoned that role.