Creatrix

@SteveBrecher There's a strong correlation, but it's not guaranteed of course. Does that even matter though? For me the issue is rent-seeking and political incentives, because unlimited financial leverage changes who politicians are incentivized to listen to and what they prioritize.

@creatrix_ttv Does the candidate with the most financial resources always or almost always win?

Citizens United v. FEC & Speechnow v. FEC are a huge part of the problem when it comes to politics in the US, but no one is ready for that conversation. Money is NOT speech, it's a resource. I think libertarians have historically been wrong on this issue, and this is one of the few times I have disagreed with Ron Paul. The birth of the Super PAC was one of the worst things to happen to modern political incentives. It’s a mechanism of political capture that encourages rent-seeking and turns elections into proxy wars between donor networks. This only fuels socialist thinking because when people see that political weight increasingly depends on whoever has the most financial resources, they start to believe the system is rigged against them. And on this issue, they’re not wrong. When wealthy donors can contribute unlimited sums of money to a politican in a state they don't even LIVE in, who is the politician REALLY representing? Not their constituents. This is political coercion. This is cronyism. And until conservatives and libertarians get their heads out of their asses on this particular issue, we will keep watching politics in this country become more and more corrupt.

There's no greater joy than being a father and husband (especially to this absolute dime). This house is so full of love than I ever thought was possible... and I've never experienced anything like it.

John Doyle says "everything is downstream from immigration." No. Everything is downstream from economic and monetary policy, and those bills he accuses Thomas Massie of voting against on immigration were larger packages with broad fiscal consequences, including deficit expansion. Immigration might change the speed or shape of certain pressures, but without fixing the underlying economic issues in this country, you're not actually addressing the root problem. If the currency continually loses purchasing power, if deficit spending keeps expanding, if housing and asset prices are inflated by monetary policy, if political incentives continue to reward debt over productivity, those pressures will not just disappear because you stop letting in immigrants.

So I know this is the standard libertarian argument, but I reject the premise that "money is speech." It's not speech, it's a resource. Why should 3 or 4 people be able to sway an election in a state they don't even live in just because they have more financial resources? Are we even a "Republic" at that point? Politicians respond to incentives, they are human just like everyone else! I think a reasonable solution would be at least limiting contributions to Super PACs to something like $5,000 or $10,000 so no one can essentially buy disproportionate political influence, plus creating more donor transparency. Right now there's no cap to how much can be donated to Super PACs and this just creates a system where political influence can scale infinitely with capital, which effectively means 2 or 3 people can donate millions of dollars and have more practical influence over political outcomes than millions of voters combined.

@creatrix_ttv You're wrong. You want to limit free expression.

@cybelethebest @Primal_Birth All I want in life is for my 18 month old to eat fish but everytime I put it in front of him he gags 😭

@Primal_Birth Can’t get mine to eat salmon much 😫, but he likes sardines!

Smoked salmon on toddler charcuterie today. Feeling ✨️fancy✨️

@jessi_for_texas Wooo good to know I'm not alone lol

I think a couple improvements would be increasing transparency and creating financial limits, though I still go back and forth on exactly where those lines should be. For example, in the 2024 election cycle, one in every five dollars flowing through a Super PAC came from an organization that hides its donors. Like wut. lol

Totally. I go back and forth on this as well. But why does the state get to create a legal structure where financial leverage effectively scales political influence without limit? The issue for me isn't people voluntarily organizing or advocating, obvi people absolutely should be able to do that. But when money is treated as "speech" this completely changes the incentive structure of representation. If political survival depends on access to large funding networks, then political influence naturally starts flowing toward the people and institutions capable of providing that funding. Politicians are humans like the rest of us lol they respond to incentives. I'm not entirely sure how to fix this problem, but it's something I think needs more conservative/libertarian interest for sure.

It is my most "left wing" (I guess?) position. But I really think that there's a libertarian argument to be made here and I wish people would flesh it out a bit more. If you believe concentrated state power is dangerous because incentives matter and power attracts self interest, why would concentrated financial power over political outcomes be immune from the same concern?

@creatrix_ttv I've gone back and forth on the issue over the years. You make a strong, cogent argument here, though.

Democrat and Republican is a false dichotomy. Assuming either label consistently represents a fixed set of principles or beliefs at this point is foolish. They’re largely just the only viable vehicles people can use to gain influence and win elections. Do your research and vote for whichever candidates are best on net. (ideally that's whoever is best on economic freedom and monetary policy.. but ya know I'm a bit biased.)

@SomeRocketGuy01 What we see on X is just a very loud slice of the population, but not even close to the majority.

That's part of it, but not entirely. X is niche and often reflects the people on it more than reality itself. Only around 12% of Americans use X regularly. Most Republicans and Democrats I know in real life aren't even on it. And a lot of what we see on here is not even coming from Americans lol

I've only been saying this for years. If you don't talk to people regularly outside of X or your own political bubble, You end up with a distorted picture of what the average person actually thinks. People increasingly mistake highly online consensus for actual consensus.

@tomhinsy I mean a year or so ago, no one knew who Massie was. Now my boomer mom is talking about him lol

@creatrix_ttv I'll huff this hopium.

Me watching the live @RepThomasMassie election results rn:

Says a lot that the biggest scandal they have against Massie is that he got laid lol. Do people actually find this stuff incriminating?

What a chad.

I’ll let you guys keep arguing about dress code policies for the rest of the day, but while I have your attention, I am spending today participating in a 5K fundraiser benefiting the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. The event raised nearly $100,000 so far today for CF research, treatment, and support for families dealing with this lifelong and debilitating disease. If you’d like to learn more about cystic fibrosis or make a donation, check out the website linked in the comments below.