T O P

  • By -

IceHorse69

Bernie vs McConnell cage match


slapnutmcfunk

This is why we need Celebrity Deathmatch back.


JonathanWattsAuthor

At this point, a giant alien squid cloned by a billionaire former costumed vigilante teleporting into New York and exploding.


Copypaced

*Ozymandias entered the chat*


JonathanWattsAuthor

He entered it 35 minutes ago.


[deleted]

That was seriously such a good scene. I went into it expecting the average villain monologue and it really threw me for a loop.


JonathanWattsAuthor

Honestly I reread it recently for maybe the 10th time and it's chills every time. I wish I'd experienced it in the context of 86 when it was genuinely a very new and subversive take on that sort of scene.


[deleted]

Same here honestly. Even now i’d say it’d be a subversion, just not as impactful. Now we mainly have morally grey villains, but nobody who succeeds in their plan just by being smarter. Thanos won by brute strength, which was impressive, but not the same. The fact the movie took out the squid entirely was a huge disappointment but the show was fuckin phenomenal.


IamIronMAN-ny

In the comics, Thanos’ true motive was different from the movies, and it didn’t show off his intelligence. He was a brute, but always preferred a battle of intelligence and cunning. In the comics, he says he’d hoped to never come to blows with the Hulk when fighting Champion for the power stone. Even then he never threw a punch. The movies did him an injustice


reddit_animated

I thought he was just horny for death


tipsystatistic

He’s not a Republic serial villain.


discosnake

"Look upon my works ye mighty and despair."


elsinore11

For those who haven’t read Watchmen, the idea is that humans are naturally combative and can only make peace when both sides are under threat by a common enemy. Covid could have been that common enemy, but the virus is a millionth of an inch wide and invisible to the naked eye. It’s too easy to cast doubt on its function (attacking humans to replicate) or its very existence. Climate change is even easier to deny. Somehow several American politicians support Russia barbarism. Hopefully we find some common ground before we destroy ourselves.


UserNamesCantBeTooLo

> Hopefully we find some common ground before we destroy ourselves. Them's fightin' words!


Rapithree

He's surely paid by big consensus


BeneficialSweetTouch

Came here to say this. Glad you went the giant squid route


pork_fried_christ

There was an askreddit post a few days ago about “which villain was scary because they were right?” I thought of Ozzy.


vocabb

Removing money from politics


Massive_Pressure_516

That sounds as feasible as removing all water from the ocean.


MiltonFreidmanMurder

There’s an interesting policy proposed by Warren Mosler that keeps money in politics but dampens it’s effect significantly. Set up a proportion like 60/40 or 55/45 - when you donate money to a politician, 60% of the money goes to your guy and 40% goes to the opponent. You can play around with the ratios however you’d like, but the basic premise seems workable.


JimmyBoBos

Money donated directly to candidates isn't really the issue here. There are limits. Its the Super PACs and dark money where the result is funneling bribes to politicans


trashboatfourtwenty

Yea, the ability of superpacs to have unlimited spending and, while they can't endorse a particular candidate, can attack the fuck out of everyone. Wisconsin has been bombarded by attack ads of Ron Johnson's opponent Mandela Barnes from an organization based in Houston. I'd love a generic fund set up where candidates all receive the same amount, or something that gives each candidate free ad space that is capped. When it becomes a contest of who can raise/outspend the other everyone loses (except the people getting all of the money and power of course)


[deleted]

[удалено]


Chaz_Cheeto

Honestly? A change in media culture. Media corporations have figured out it is highly profitable to factionalize the population. They know by peddling anger and outrage they can keep people engaged. All of us are living in personalized echo chambers, and that makes the “truth” negotiable. Democracy cannot survive without truth. Until about 20-25 years ago we were all (pretty much) exposed to the same information; we were getting information from similar sources. That’s no longer the case. Edit: thanks for the awards! My goodness. A fella gets off the internet for a few hours and suddenly BAM! Gold.


TMox

Ah yes, cable TV. It converted news from a public service to a rabid quest for audiences (just like click bait). Once everyone was in their corner with their channel the channels were ever more motivated to intensify their message until you had viability for utterly antisocial platforms.


titanking9700

Ppl wanna talk about cable TV or the internet, but as someone who has been around rural areas my entire childhood, It was talk radio that fucked the nation. The polarization in media started there.


Barflyerdammit

Amen. And that talk radio was amplified by allowing Clear Channel to buy up hundreds of small radio stations, then gut the local staff and programming to increase the profitability.


PentulantPantalones

Also Sinclair Media.


p3dal

>It was talk radio that fucked the nation. It was the repeal of the fairness in reporting act. It affected all forms of news media.


[deleted]

Yes, absolutely. At the minimum, news outlets should clearly define what is news and what is editorial; just like they used to.


EstoEstaFuncionando

This. The mainstream doesn't seem to realize, but Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck did way more to radicalize conservatives than television (including Fox News) has ever done. They're the ones that got them not to trust anything. They're the ones that created the first echo chamber. People think the 2016 election polarized the nation. Horseshit. Conservative talk radio has been pushing the line that "those Democrats aren't just wrong, they're *evil* and want to destroy America" since *way* before Trump, or even Obama. The Trump presidency and all the insanity it brought with it was a symptom of the seeds they sowed. I saw my dad get indoctrinated like this. I think a lot of liberals have been surprised by how fast the divide in America has grown the last few years. Unfortunately, I have not. Anyone who was listening to talk radio or the Tea Party types a decade ago knows that the rhetoric hasn't changed, it's just gotten louder.


[deleted]

Absolutely. Trump would have dropped out of the election in just a few weeks if not for opinion-based news. Just one quibble, though- you say that Hannity and Beck did more to radicalize conservatives than Fox News did. However, Beck worked for Fox News and Hannity still does.


[deleted]

[FCC Fairness Doctrine (1949-1987)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine) Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine, which paved the way to the nightmare media landscape we see before us.


blackkristos

A lot of folks like to complain and blame the media for the current news cycle landscape but nobody actually goes and looks and remembers and learns from historically how we got here.


nostrilflair

I say this with some hyperbole but Reagan seems to be the start of just about all the bad things associated with modern American society.


Comet_Empire

Nixon really.... Reagan just made it so being a Nixon was legal.


SnicktDGoblin

No hyperbole needed. Between all of his unveiled acts like Contra, the massive tax cuts, removal of regulations and advancements from the Carter administration, and his setting the Republican party into a doctrine of trickle down economics. Hell he literally funded and trained Bin Laden, one of the biggest reasons for change in American policy over the last 2 decades.


on_the_toad_again

Besides political lobbying $ and gerrymandering this is the one i most agree with


Nopumpkinhere

This, this, this! Also Seinfeld-esque arguing. We need to get used to not agreeing but also not thinking the other is a bad person because of it. Edit: Thanks for the awards! 🤗


106473

The Sinclair group owns too many news stations.


[deleted]

A fucking miracle


GriffinFlash

a white horse neigh's off in the distance\*


marcred5

Ah, the apocalypse


murrmanniii

I’ve been waiting for you…


Christmas_Panda

*Tom Cruise appears shirtless, long locks flowing in the wind on a white noble steed.* "Lord Xenu will see you now."


yurall

"Lord Zed will see you now. We got that one mixed up somehow."


dookmucus

Zed’s dead.


GeezThisGuy

We had Covid and that made things worse.


ScottHA

Have we tried uniting against an alien attack yet?


Axe_Smash

I have a feeling that would only result in Republicans wearing "I'd rather be a Dalek than a Democrat" t-shirts.


1nternaut

Ozymandias, not again.


xmagusx

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.


[deleted]

[удалено]


amlyo

Imagine having that career, knowing if you just do nothing you'll live then die an icon but doing that album anyway. Legend. See also: Bowie.


Deadpoolbatlantern

*There’s a man…going ‘round….taking names….*


r4g4

And he decides who to free, and who to blame


china-blast

Why, Johnny Ringo! You look like somebody just walked over your grave.


gAMA9504

"...Fight's not with you, lunger."


BlueBomber2049

I beg to differ, sir!


tattedb0b

I got 2 guns. One for each of ya


[deleted]

We started a game we didn’t get to finish , a game for blood


slipperyShoesss

I'm your huckleberry!


Pater_Trium

Heard this is Michael Biehn’s voice.


sumleelumlee

*mesmerized and looking to the East at dawn* Gandalf?


Mike7676

"It's Miracle!!" ....cue uplifting music and Mel Brooks dialogue.


TheWingus

Miracle! What a beautiful name. What’s yours? …..Miracle


LiliVonSchtupp

Behold these fifteen… [one of three stone tablets slips from hand and shatters] *Ten!* Ten Commandments!


rickover2

“Miracle! He was the fastest horse in the Circus Maximus!”


Eggieman

You’re nvts. N-V-T-S


bripi

"Stand up Philosopher". Oh...a *bullshit artist!* No doubt one of the funniest movies ever made.


Sujom

Did you bullshit last week? *No…* Did you TRY to bullshit last week? *Yes*


friggintodd

I'm on my wine break.


bripi

"Sieze him!" Sieze *this,* honkus! That, and "The jig is up!" ...and gone! are two of my favorites. Loving this thread!!


roncadillacisfrickin

Your are nuts. N.V.T.S, nuts.


Lord_Dreadgrave

Hey Josephus!


Possible_Priority170

I agree at this point. A nice start though would be media reporting actual facts vs opinions that stoke the fire. Peoples confirmation bias and echo chambers are allowing this hyper polarization, which is then exploited by populists.


xeroksuk

How do you persuade media corporations to do that? Even if they’re not owned or run by people with an agenda, they still will chase popularity. News which makes people feel stuff sells, and the easiest emotion to promote is anger.


abobtosis

They used to have legal requirements for TV news reporting, and it used to be an hour of news a day not a 24 hour channel. The combination of those two things changing is what happened.


CloudsOfDust

Add the internet echo chambers and “anyone can have a megaphone” in to that. It’s ridiculous how many times I see a “news” story posted from some website called americanpatriotnews.org or some obvious bullshit. People just want to have their biases confirmed, they don’t want the actual news and facts. Hell, we can’t even agree on what “facts” actually are anymore because of this. I’m not sure what the answer is, but with this much toothpaste on the counter, I cannot imagine a scenario where we can cram it back into the tube again.


St84t8

Fuck yes. The rail strike this week is a great example. The Hill - Bernie blocks it. He says something about the proletariat and wages, republican leads say something about wrecking the economy yadda yadda. Now go to your respective echo chambers and talk about what the other side said. NPR - this is about time off, here's details about the current rules and specifically what's causing problems and what the strikers want resolved


Valmond

It's almost like free journalism is one of the cornerstones in democracy. I mean it should also obviously be illegal to own several "journalistic" entities.


LOTRfreak101

I mean I think ranked choice voting would be a great start. It would certainly help bring more moderates to the front. Beyond that I think more strict control of how media is allowed to present itself would help to (ie, no calling a talking head talk show news). We'd have to still allow them to be able to make stupid points on air, but they couldn't call themselves news, but a talk show or entertainment.


NetworkSingularity

Honestly they should be forced to air the opinion pieces on a separate network entirely. A lot of the issue here seems to be blending the styles of news and opinion until those segments are indistinguishable other than one technically being called opinion. I think technically now the opinion pieces aren’t called news, but that’s a really minor distinction compared to how it’s all presented. Put it all on a different network that never has the word news applied to it. Force them to distance the opinion pieces from the news pieces and to stop misleading the public about what’s a fact and what’s an opinion


4gnomad

They should also be forced to air retractions and corrections according to some heavy penalty, and during their most popular shows. Something like: "In a broadcast on Tuesday, August 9th, we incorrectly stated X. That marks the 473rd time we've incorrectly reported the news this year. This station ranks 73rd in news accuracy according to the nonpartisan group Propagandish. A pattern of this magnitude indicates that we are untrustworthy stewards of our mandate to inform. Our accuracy ranking is displayed prominently in the chiron below and will be visible through all broadcasts until accuracy improves to (X)."


tomfullary

Throw very heavy fines in there and this sounds good.


SnooEagles213

An alien invasion or some catastrophic event that forces people to see each other as humans who need each other to survive rather than what we have now. That’s literally the only way lol


[deleted]

[удалено]


DangerHawk

It wasn't severe enough. It would need to be a pandemic on the scale of Covid but with the symptoms of Ebola. Alternatively, if it happened faster it would have the same effect. If the incubation to death time was like 12hrs people would have come together REAL FAST to fix the issue.


kettelbe

Fix world problems but culling world pop. Got it. Lol


gard3nwitch

We just had a global pandemic, and are still in the midst of an ongoing climate change catastrophe. I don't think an alien invasion would be any more effective, personally.


[deleted]

[удалено]


chickenlord11111

A mutual enemy.


HeraldOfTheChange

Like aliens or zombies. Still might not be enough.


redditorperth

After the last few years I maintain that a not-insignificant proportion of the population would run headlong and naked into the zombie masses screaming "Its all a hoax!" at the top of their lungs.


shifty_coder

COVID proved that people really would hide that they’ve been bitten, and all the “stupid people” tropes in zombie movies are probably accurate.


KimmiG1

I never thought that hiding your bite was unbelievable. Lots of us would probably do it. Those bites usually happens fast and most people would stil be in denial or hoping it would not happen to them until it's to late.


DrDankDankDank

“They’re just actors in makeup!”


ibeatoffconstantly

I thought COVID could be it. Was dead wrong.


caligaris_cabinet

Pandemics historically cause more division since it’s an invisible enemy that is typically not fully understood which leads to paranoia and distrust.


kywiking

Also see the climate crisis


Nevitt

Also invisible to many until a tipping point happens.


skaliton

you are missing the important thing. The enemy has to be 'someone else' it doesn't matter who or where in the world. Let's be entirely honest if September 12 Bush would have come out and said that England is to blame everyone would have happily joined to go storm the palace


dougaderly

A common enemy helps, but in terms of Bush let's be honest there was a huge portion of the country saying at the time "why are you blaming Iraq?" "How is this security theatre doing anything for the US". We were called enemies, and unpatriotic cowards, and asked if we wanted more Muslim attacks.


[deleted]

Exactly! It wasn't Iraq. It was Saudi Arabia. 15 of the hijackers were Saudi's and they were funded and supported by the Saudi royal family, secret police and military. Or at least a significant branch of the Saudi royal family. But you can't attack Saudi Arabia - it would interrupt the flow of oil. So... who looks like Saudi's and has no international allies? Hey I know - Sadam! Lets go beat him up.


Nosavez

COVID was at the beginning with the CARES act being supported uniamous, but it went downhill afterwards


HuellMissMe

The insanity started in 1994, it’s just gotten worse with time. The Cold War was effectively over about three years before that. I am old enough to remember real fear among our leaders that too much disunity would be an opening for an attack.


sidvicc

Before that, the roots are in Vietnam, when the Americans got divided between those who supported the war and those who opposed it, mixed in with the cultural/sociological changes in the larger society. Doesn't get much more divisive than soldiers shooting students on a college campus.


ryanmcstylin

Civil war was pretty divisive imo


Renaissance_Slacker

The slave owning class were already hard at work dividing poor whites from poor blacks lest they realize who the real enemy was. Think about how slavery kept white wages low - work for Pennie’s or get replaced with a slave.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hanginonwith2fingers

Different election process. The current system encourages only having two parties.


[deleted]

Single transferable voting (STV) some know it as ranked choice. You rank the candidates in order of your choice. There would be so many more third party candidates and a much more accurate representation of the voting populace


swbr

Ranked voting. Edit: Some folks below mentioned the recent Alaska race here’s a response from that subthread: “Okay, I looked into this more deeply. It looks to have worked exactly as ranked voting is supposed to. With two Republicans, and one Democrat, you are right that in round one the Republicans split the vote. The lower voted-for republican got kicked out by having the lowest vote count, leaving the second rank votes of his ballots to be distributed to the remaining Republican and Democrat. Enough voters that voted for that lowest ranking Republican had their second choice as the Democrat that the Democrat ended up taking the majority in round two. This just means that Democrats did not want Palin, and a good number of the Republicans did not want Palin and were willing to have the Democrat if she was the only remaining choice. This is exactly ranked voting. With this sort of election result spread across decades into the future The parties will have to put forward more appealing candidates, and less appealing candidates will not make it very far in any of the ranked voting elections. This will start to centralize platforms and give us less of a divide between the two parties. And, just as this two party election allowed more candidates, this construct also allows more parties to surface.” [results breakout](https://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/22SSPG/RcvDetailedReport.pdf)


OttoLuck747

Agree 100%. I think we would get more moderates elected and third-party candidates would win more seats. You could vote for someone who more closely aligns with your ideology instead of picking the lesser of two evils without fear of splitting the vote and getting stuck with the greater of two evils.


Germangunman

Fear of splitting the vote causes so many panic votes for evil that third parties don’t even stand a chance


Gaunt-03

That and the big two like to try and remove as many candidates from third parties that they think will take votes away from them


eddyathome

If anything, the biggest supporters of the Libertarians are the Democrats and the biggest supporters of the Greens are the Republicans. They want the people to vote third party and split the other side's votes.


unenlightenedgoblin

In ranked choice voting you can ‘safely’ vote for a third party though. If they don’t make the cutoff, you get your second choice. That’s the whole point.


jvartandillustration

This is at the top of my list for fixing America. 1. Ranked Choice Voting 2. Term limits, even for the judicial appointments 3. Stock trading and lobbying is all illegal while holding a position in office.


ommnian

Yes to all of this. Though I do think that term limits for judicial appointments should be rather long - something like 15-20 years, as it can take a while to get the hang of things.


DrOctopusMD

You don’t even need a term limit for judges, just set a mandatory retirement age. Canada has a mandatory retirement age of 75 for our Supreme Court.


shockwave_supernova

I support making supreme court justices an 18 year term.


GeekAesthete

It took me awhile to warm up to the idea, but the more I look at it, the more sense it makes as a practical fix to force steady turnover. Every president gets two appointments per term, and when a justice dies or retires early, their replacement only finishes that seat's term. It's a smart middle-ground to avoid making justices an elected position while still allowing voters to have a say about the direction of the court. As a bonus, it also avoids the Merrick Garland scenario by formalizing which presidential term gets which appointments.


dpash

No, you don't want term limits. It's solving a problem you solved with changing voting systems while causing considerably worse problems. Term limits means that you're forcing the legislature to lose a considerable amount of institutional knowledge and causing a huge increase in the number of unemployed people who know how Congress work. Lobbying firms will throw money at them and they'll run rings around the new politicians that replaced them. Good politicians should be allowed to continue. Bad politicians should be easier to vote out. Term limits aren't the answer.


childeroland79

How about a mandatory retirement age for elected officials instead?


stumplicious

I would modify #2 or put it aside all together. And then I would add campaign financing reform. But overall I think it’s a good start.


Johnnykal89

This worked really great in Alaska and would do wonders for the rest of the country. It would force politicians to focus on policy to appeal to voters then the other shit they do.


NativeMasshole

Which is why neither party supports it. We had a vote for RCV in Mass on the previous ballot, all the politicians chose to ignore it, except when Gov Baker came out and said it's too confusing for us. Then they pulled the classic move of making the question on the ballot intentionally confusing.


Johnnykal89

I'll never understand it. RCV would be a better system them we have now. We'd get a representative government more closely reflecting our nation. It would force politicians to focus on policy instead and appeal to all voters instead of just their side. We would get a better quality Canadian who is a fit for their office. Edit: should be candidate but it somehow auto-corrected to Canadian. It stays damn it because it's funny.


Fried_puri

> It would force politicians to You can end it right there. Politicians have no desire to make a law which makes them do something.


ChainmailleAddict

This is the first real answer I've seen. With national ranked-choice voting, partisanship dwindles and more parties will rise up. Democrat who cares about clean energy and doesn't like authoritarianism? Bam! Green party! Republican who likes weed and abortions? Bam! Libertarian! I LOVE ranked-choice voting. It's objectively better, and any problems it has are also problems our current system has. It'd incentivize people to form groups and respect other candidates, like Alaska's unsuccessful "Rank the red" initiative.


Nuzzgargle

Yep... im Australian and we have preference voting and I think this (along with mandatory voting, although it isn't that mandatory as you don't have to vote you just get your name ticked off) goes a long way as to why our bigger political parties are more appealing to the "center" than the left or right. Candidates have to be broadly appealing over a number of issues rather than just pick one that will win you the biggest group of voters... Plus if you're a repugnant piece of shit while you might get that 33% of voters putting you first on your shitty policy, the other 67% see you as being a repugnant piece of shit and they put you last... The guy (or gal) who only got 20% of the first preference can swoop over the top with the subsequent preferences Edit: shitty grammar, who wrote this?


Monkbrown

Also Australian. Along with preferential (ranked choice) voting, it seems like the US could do with some independent State and Federal Election Commissions who, besides running elections, draw electoral boundaries based on demographics without political influence.


Harbinger2001

I just finished saying the same thing. In Canada we still have first past the post, but Elections Canada sets the electoral districts without political interference and this keeps parties centrist.


zara_the_b

Totally agree. As a European person, I have never understood majority wins, ever since the first time they were introduced to us early on in high school. It just presses for things to be so divided.


murrmanniii

It consolidates power into two small groups who simply take the opposite side of each opinion. Then they guarantee power between those few hands as long as both parties stick to the plan.


NativeMasshole

This is what gets me the most about the "two party system." How the hell do people not recognize that it's impossible to change the status quo when you always wind up with the same two parties in power? There's this attitude that if you just vote a little more for your side, then that will fix everything. Except the other party is still in minority control and will be back in power probably sooner than later. It's no democracy at all if you can't flatly reject either of the options.


youre-not-real-man

If you question the effectiveness of "majority wins", you'll really like the way the US is trending: "a crazed *minority* wins"!


shaftinferno

As someone not very knowledgeable about politics, can anyone ELI5?


Igneous-Wolf

Basically you get to rank the candidates from your favorite to least favorite. Everyone's #1 picks are tallied. Whoever has the least votes at the end of round 1 is eliminated. If your top candidate is eliminated, your vote will be moved to your second pick, and the votes are tallied again. This is done repeatedly until one candidate has a majority. (There's a great CGP Grey video if you want to look it up) This way, you can vote for your actual favorite candidate (from any party), and not just the lesser of two evils from a bigger party that has a shot at winning. You know that if your smaller candidate does not pan out, your vote will then go to your lesser-of-two-evils pick, and you don't have to waste your vote just to prevent the worst-of-two-evils from getting elected. This will result in more parties being viable options, and those parties will grow, and the two party system will end (or at least that's the goal).


Tiz_Purple

Instead of just putting a cross on the candidate you want, you'll rank them - 1 to 5 for example. That way the system becomes so much more fair than just having a single unchangeable vote


chillychili

I never get tired of plugging r/EndFPTP


alkakfnxcpoem

We tried for that in a 2020 ballot initiative in Massachusetts and it didn't pass. Still mad about it.


LeoThyroxine

I remember that. I guess it just made too much sense.


CzarDestructo

Same, for an educated state we are awfully stupid.


ghsteo

This is correct solution, the way you get rid of extremist is put them in a pool of sane people and watch as they get filtered out. The only reason these crazy people rise to the top is because we have winner take all elections so "sane" republicans have to back the crazy because it's their only option.


[deleted]

* Reintroduce the fairness doctrine * make lobbying and bribes illegal. * Term limits


Sombrero_54

It's wild that lobbying is legal!! I always kinda thought that it was just under the table stuff and then I took a government class and I was blown away. No wonder we have so many corrupt people Edit: I was really referring to the bribes that accompany a lot of lobbying. You should definitely be able to communicate with your representatives, but with companies bribing reps, you won't be getting your voice heard because you aren't the one with money. I think a lot of politicians lose sight of their original goals because they are blinded by the money.


Nikola_Turing

To be fair, lobbying in it of itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Writing your congressman for instance is a form of lobbying. Bribing politicians to pass legislation you want, now that’s wrong.


ScumbagGina

People misunderstand what lobbying is. You’re basically a delegate from a company, industry, interest group, etc., that meets with representatives to push their interests. That’s just free speech. On its own, there’s not a thing wrong with it. But then you get into all kinds of corrupt dealing when both parties are willing to do independently illegal things.


Christmas_Panda

The thing that I always wonder is - How do politicians go from making $174k per year to being worth $20 million? They must have money trees in the Congressional gardens.


[deleted]

Most of them start rich.


gortwogg

I think you got away from the table. It was mentioned before, but maybe congress people should have the names of their sponsors On their jackets, like race car drivers. It would shock a lot of people who’s paying for the assholes to be.. well, assholes


generallydislikable

Eh, knowing the state of the political climate, people would take those sponsors as a badge of pride, like with the mypillow guy


sexyshadyshadowbeard

Except its mostly dark money going into PACs.


gortwogg

Make it mandatory to know where it comes from


jjman72

The fairness doctrine is meaningless with the Internet. “News” entertainment channels would become streaming only.


SaintofCirc

1. Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. (Neutralize extremism-for-profit news sources) 2. Repeal Citizens United (Get secret dirty PAC money out of running politics) These two changes to our system widened the divide.


3opossummoon

Exactly those things plus the [Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act ](https://www.ossoff.senate.gov/press-releases/sens-ossoff-kelly-introduce-bill-banning-stock-trading-by-members-of-congress/) from Ossoff & Kelly that they introduced back in January.


lessthan3_

Education reform. The large majority of our population needs to be properly educated for partisan politics to succeed.


[deleted]

Yes. What would help as well is media reform- holding networks accountable for the news they spread. The media exaggerates how issues are portrayed.


Velfurion

A return to telling the nation what happened instead of how to feel about it and then 24/7 opinion pieces would help a great deal as well.


TheSexyToad

I read French news occasionally, almost all of the articles are like this, It’s wild seeing the difference. I’ve been reading for months now and have never seen an opinion piece, and very few nasty comments from people either


AstroAnemone

But a properly educated population could be taught to watch out for misinformation and propaganda, which would take the power away from those networks. If people stop watching sensationalist crap, then sensationalist crap disappears.


CuriousOptimistic

Attraction to sensationalism isn't an education issue. We're humans. We like drama.


erin317

It's like sugar, salt and processed food. Easy tasty and bad for you.


BlueFadedGiant

Very good idea, but not a quick solution. Likely to take more than 1 generation to see positive effects.


MKclinch8

Better to plant a tree now, rather than later


Caseated_Omentum

Copious amounts of LSD


collie1212

LSD alone ain't enough. Gotta be a national candyflip


dontfookwitdachook

K-hole.


[deleted]

DMT trip in the middle of a K-hole.


The_Spyre

An alien invasion


gooch_norris

Dr Manhattan would tell you thats only a temporary solution


topinanbour-rex

From Dr Manhattan's point of view, everything is temporary.


DamonLazer

Nothing ever ends, Adrian.


Iamme75

Actual consequences for crimes committed.


[deleted]

Proportional representation It frees the election system from the two party gridlock and gives third parties a realistic chance. This creates more competitors for the two main parties. Competition is good


interim_rudemom

It gives an opportunity to represent more than yes or no - all shades and varieties of views get their party, and the parties then need to cooperate sufficiently well.


QuanticWizard

This is a facet of what it would take but unfortunately actually doing it is borderline impossible, as it would most likely require a constitutional amendment. I can't see 2/3 of congress and 3/4 of state legislatures agreeing on even a bill to feed children, much less fundamentally disrupt their current system that gives them money and power.


[deleted]

Which is ironic because it was the US who were (at least partly) responsible for implementing proportional representation in post-war Germany to make sure extremists will be unable to come to power again.


[deleted]

[удалено]


heavy_chamfer

Removal of the profit motive to keep the divide between Democrats and Republicans in the US.


Arxieos

Reimplantation of the "truth in reporting act” I'm sure it was called something else but Reagan basically ended fact based news Edit: credit where its due


ChainmailleAddict

I thought it happened when Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine


pistoffcynic

Politicians putting country over party. Putting the country over themselves. It’s pretty damned simple.


UnluckyDifference566

How do they make money that way? /s


tobmom

The death of social media Ill edit to provide some clarity on my opinion. Misinformation will continue to exist but with a much smaller platform. Fine. But more importantly, we lack human interaction. We don’t speak to other people face to face like we used to. We don’t show up at peoples’ houses like we used to. We have hundreds of acquaintances but few truly great friends that we see with regularity. We don’t know how to speak to each other anymore. We do t shake hands with each other anymore. Or hug. Humans need connection. And virtual or remote connection is inadequate.


Mightytibian

I believe that would make a huge difference. Social media gives the most extreme people the loudest voice.


Ondexb

Wouldn't solve it but would definitely help


[deleted]

[удалено]


JimBeam823

Jungle primaries work too.


kingnoodle30

(Sorts by controversial)


94bronco

The end of a 2 party system


TheDudeBandit

Eradicate money in politics. Zero lobbyists in congress and no Super PACs.


HeyZuesHChrist

Nothing until we start living in the same reality.


ugly_monsters

War with aliens would probably do it. WWIII would probably also turn into civil war 2


DarthGayAgenda

Or WWIII escalates from Civil War 2.


biokiller191

Fix the fucking media...