You can trace a lot of the polarization in modern times back to increasing money in politics, the wave of which really started around the 60's and culminated in Citizens United.

The deregulation of media in the 1990's which allowed media companies to merge has been a huge contributor to polarization, and the fact that they had that much influence to lax regulations is again money speaking in politics. We've been seeing for a decade or more small local stations getting bought up by media companies with specific political agendas and effectively feeding scripts to local anchors to read. This makes it look like it's not a large company making the decisions on stories, but a local station with the communities interest in mind. This is just one of the more interesting things I found out has been happening and that has generated polarization on controversial topics like climate change.

Anyway lots of things you might not think even know are happening is a result of relaxed regulations due to the increased influence of private money on politics.

that's bs. sure, voters are idiots, but it's not like they have a real choice. until very recently, both major parties were basically just corporate puppets, crafting policies almost exclusively for their donors. the republicans still are, and the powerful democrat establishment too.

people don't expect 'magic', they rightfully demand their concerns to be addressed - at least to SOME reasonable degree.
take things like universal healthcare, regulating the finance sector, environmental protection, criminal justice reform, and reducing the influence of money in politics for example - those are all popular amongst voters in BOTH parties, and by no means unreasonable demands, let alone witchcraft.

how great would it be if republicans also had a wing, or at least a candidate, that genuinely fought against money in politics? it's clear as day that this is the ONE issue that prevents meaningful change on so many issues...

Fully agreed. Sinclair in particular deserves to be hit with the full might of antitrust laws.

Btw, out of curiosity: you say the trend of "money buying the american democracy" started around the 60s - which political figures are responsible for it? Did it happen under Kennedy/Johnson, or did it just start with Nixon?

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Feb 18 2019 10:36am

Id have ti go back and look but it was a supreme court case that opened the door for further "money as sperch" interpretations.

I see. But wasn the Supreme Court super liberal for most of the 60s?

I want that to be me in near future

Might have been, but anybody can make mistakes. The future is hard to figure out.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Feb 23 2019 09:29am

is this still happening?

Currently in limbo. Both chambers of Congress have to vote against it, the House has already passed the corresponding resolution. At the moment, we're waiting for the vote in the Senate, where all democrats are expected to vote against it and the dems need 4 republicans to break ranks. There are already 4 GOP senators who have publicly announced that they will vote for the resolution/against the national emergency, and some more are expected.

However, it is widely expected that Trump will then veto the congressional resolution against his national emergency declaration. To override the presidential veto, a 2/3rd majority in both chambers of Congress would be required, and it currently looks exceedingly unlikely that such a supermajority against Trump can be brought together in either chamber, let alone both.

So the likely course is that this thing stays in limbo for quite some more time, but that Trump ultimately gets it through in the end.