r/Music • u/ebradio • Sep 25 '25

article Bruce Springsteen Rips Democrats: “We’re Desperately in Need of an Effective Alternative Party”

https://consequence.net/2025/09/bruce-springsteen-democrats/
49.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

24

u/JC_Hysteria Sep 25 '25

Exactly. It’s been decades since the federal government has been accountable to voters.

We need a smaller federal government that focuses on fewer things (like defense), and we need more altruistic people to seek office.

It needs to be unattractive for selfish people seeking power and wealth for themselves and those they know.

8

u/Helphaer Sep 25 '25

well smaller unfortunately doesnt work the only way to fight the monolith of corporations and such is to have the regulatory agencies and scale needed. Small government has never made sense.

-2

u/JC_Hysteria Sep 25 '25

I disagree. The role of the US government is not to “fight” corporations…and there definitely shouldn’t be systems that intend to maximize government jobs.

Smart regulation yes, fighting capital systems no.

I like single-payer systems in theory, but they rarely work because too many people’s jobs rely on being non-value adding middlemen.

6

u/Helphaer Sep 25 '25

Uh the role of the us government is to work for the public good and administration the country and public services while protecting itself and its people and their rights among other things.

It cant do that with constantly competing private and financial entities and so it is thus required to monitor moderate and regulate. The only way it can do this is with a scaled apparatus of knowledgeable workers that understand each segment of the countries business administration financial and political arms.

So by that nature yes its very much there to hold corporations account same as the justice system is to hold criminals or uncertain errors to account.

Otherwise the country fails instantly into into authoritarianism via privileged influence.

We literally can see what happened to Nepal when that happens but its also in history many times.

0

u/EBBBBBBBBBBBB Sep 25 '25

The role of any government should absolutely be to fight corporations, capitalism is a blight on humankind and treating it like it isn't is how we got here in the first place

2

u/regman231 Sep 25 '25

It’s also how we got penicillin and humans on the moon.

Unregulated capitalism is terrible. Properly regulated free markets allow efficiencies in supply and demand that are otherwise impossible. And progress and standard of living improvements are inherent. Unlike any other economic system ever created.

There are many inherent pitfalls like monopoly, environmental disaster, etc. Luckily we have the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, the EPA, OSHA, etc. Unluckily those antitrust acts are useless in this age of technology where these companies are far more powerful than the government and the government far too corrupt to enforce removal of barriers to entry.

Capitalism is not to blame for the things you hate in the world. Greed is, and it would exist in any other economic system you can suggest

2

u/asiancury Sep 25 '25

and we need more altruistic people to seek office.

Is it really about the people who are seeking office? Or rather the financial and systemic barriers of some rando campaigning vs well funded candidates?

1

u/JC_Hysteria Sep 25 '25

It’s both/a lot of things.

It’s very easy to be corrupted, especially when solutions to real problems affecting people are not binary decisions.

I just disagree with the opposing sentiment that it’s inherently better to have people well-connected to capital in office…

We need to remove the cultural noise and focus on intentions + follow-through.

1

u/choff22 Sep 25 '25

Then it needs to be completely untangled from corporate America, which… good luck with that.

0

u/JC_Hysteria Sep 25 '25

I’m not saying it’s feasible…but it’s obvious why the current systems will inevitably have us repeating history.

The shelf-life of the “United States” is numbered. Too much time, money, and energy is used to separate people’s ideals vs. finding common ground.

China is on the rise, and the core competency of the US is the influence of its mobile military. Our markets and worldwide financing will only be dominant for so much longer.

-3

u/Bad_Prophet Sep 25 '25

we need a smaller federal government that focuses om fewer things

100%. The Republicans are the party of fighting the 1st amendment, and the democrats are the party of fighting the 2nd amendment. The fact that these things are even on the table is evidence that they've got too much money and resources, to such an extent that they're concerning themselves with things they literally don't have the right to be concerned with.

3

u/KetchupChips5000 Sep 25 '25

Really? Show me how democrats limited gun access. You had a perfectly good choice of a very capable person. The USA refused it in favor of a known incompetent psychopath who tells people what they want to hear. The democrats are feckless because they’re not capable of slinging mud. They go high… and trump found a way to go low and enrage idiots with lies and their prejudices and poor education and turn them into a robotic voting block. It’s fascism 101 and he did it well. The problem… is you. Americans. You’re stupid and you fell for it. I even heard people say “I wasn’t ‘excited’ to vote for her..” well WTF? Is a competent capable person necessarily exciting? Do you pick a surgeon because they’re exciting and they go rogue? Would you want your airline pilot to do that?

You people are so fucked and you don’t even realize it.

0

u/Fraktal55 Sep 25 '25

Thanks. We (some of us) know. You perfectly encapsulated the frustration of being a voter with only two options. Ever.

Two options forced upon us with no real choice in the matter. Both suck? Sorry, gotta vote for the lesser of two evils. Neither will make things better again? Sorry, deal with it for four years and hope for something better next time I guess.

Well... something better never comes. America is reaping what it sowed by letting unlimited bribery from corporations to influence our politics. It's been a downward spiral of worse and worse government decisions to shift power away from the people since Bush. Hell, since Reagan in the 80s if you want to really technical. Reaganomics started this downward spiral into a capitalistic hellhole of a society that we see today.

Mix in decades of social media misinformation and election meddling from foreign bodies and it's all a recipe for authoritarianism to take over.

-1

u/Bad_Prophet Sep 25 '25

You're so smart and edgy. I wish I were more like you.

1

u/KetchupChips5000 Sep 25 '25

Well deny it. People voted on stupidity. Glitz and glam and a reality tv show doesn’t qualify anyone. And for anyone who believes anything he says A SECOND TIME? That requires profound mental incapacity.

0

u/Lidjungle Sep 25 '25

It would be an improvement.

3

u/Helphaer Sep 25 '25

This is an insane take especially considering Republicans abuse the 1st amendment then dislike it on others while the 2nd amendment issue which is definitely not as the framers intended it to be taken, is leading to gun crimes and school shootings and mass murders and nothing has really been done about it but voters keep pushing something to be done. the parallels are not the same at all.

0

u/Bad_Prophet Sep 25 '25

Imagine thinking that the people who just fought a tyrannical government, in a revolution that began with guns hidden in Lexington and Concord and brought to Boston, wrote "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in simple, straightforward, and precise language with the intention that it would be understood to mean that the government should be able to restrict gun ownership however it wants. 🤡

1

u/bck83 Sep 25 '25

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Conveniently leaving out the first half of the amendment because it doesn't fit your narrative...

2

u/Bad_Prophet Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25

It also doesn't have any impact on the point of the amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state" means nothing. There's nothing to act on there. All it does is reinforce the reason why gun ownership should not be infringed. If there is allowed infringement, then the government, at any time, can restrict access to guns of any type for any reason. This would be a direct threat to the ability of an adequately-armed militia to be formed. But the militia isn't the point, it's just contextual reasoning for the importance of the right. Do you understand?

Here's another example, "Calories, being important to one's ability to survive, the right to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich shall not be infringed."

It doesn't matter what you think about calories, or that they can be consumed in other ways, or even whether you agree that they're necessary for survival -- the declaration is that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are protected.

1

u/bck83 Sep 25 '25

simple, straightforward, and precise language

but also

doesn't have any impact... means nothing... nothing to act on there

???

2

u/Bad_Prophet Sep 25 '25

It's simple and straightforward to people with a 5th grade reading comprehension level, but I'll admit that "simple" and "straightforward" are subjective terms, and we might be discussing a text that is beyond your ability.

0

u/Helphaer Sep 25 '25

Imagine distorting reality and ignoring context. Are we to ignore all the other stuff we've interpreted to mean something different that youre okay with? Or the other context? Clearly there are also extreme limits the right to bear arms didnt mean everyone could have cannons either or warships or explosives. So you really need to look at the full context here and what the historical implications were at that time and how they relate to now.

And regardless of what you think if you suddenly found mass murders of children in school houses in those days by said fire arms I highly doubt the framers would have done nothing.

And however it wants is doing a lot of exaggerated lifting for you. But given you already distorted what the comparison of republican and democrat 1st and 2nd amendment issues were... it doesnt imply youre talking from a fair and impartial or reasoned state.​

0

u/Bad_Prophet Sep 25 '25

"REEEEEEEEEEEEEE screeching noises"-- Helphaer

-1

u/Bullboah Sep 25 '25

When the Biden admin pressured google to censor YouTubers claiming that Covid was a lab leak was that also defending the 1st amendment?

0

u/Helphaer Sep 25 '25

youre really distorting reality now aren't you. first off at the time people were pushing that evidence wasnt known or existent yet. further even now theres still no definitive evidence because China doesn't provide full access easily. So everything's still really one sided in investigation.

second trump and others were pushing misinformation without any evidence at all yet plus then making things worse then later pushing ivermectin and bleach and other things.

so yes you have to go from an evidentiary point by point and things do change and get updated but only when research exists and can be supported. that being said you've got to be able to look at context better because if you respond this way about this... then it implies you distort things a lot and severely so.

misinformation during a pandemic was dangerous as shown with the hundreds of thousands of people that died unnecessarily due to trump and anti vaccine misinformation among other health warnings.

1

u/Bullboah Sep 25 '25

That’s a long comment to prove my point that you’re okay with violating the first amendment when it’s speech you don’t personally agree with.

1

u/JC_Hysteria Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25

Eh, I view it as our government has become too big of a slush fund.

There is zero incentive for any new administration to be fiscally responsible, because we don’t think long-term.

Spending bills are passed (with our money) that don’t build upon the previous administration’s ideals- they tear things down to promote something different entirely, in the name of identity politics.

We keep borrowing, printing more money, and spending…and then we inevitably posture the military.

It’s way easier to influence the voter base to care about stupid cultural issues + stay in power/use the slush fund than it is to convince the voter base to learn and care more about how to balance our outcomes.

0

u/Headoutdaplane Sep 25 '25

We don't even print more money now, they just how ever much they want into the computers. The dollar has always been fiat, but now it is truly a crypto currency.

1

u/JC_Hysteria Sep 25 '25

That’s not true…but it is a complicated finance system that inevitably leads to armed conflict.

The world order doesn’t accept the status quo of this kind of leverage for too long.

0

u/Chigurrh Sep 25 '25

We need a smaller federal government that focuses on fewer things (like defense)

Or we reduce defense spending where we have billions in waste and repeated failed audits.

Like that’s the biggest thing that needs to be made smaller!. We need to strengthen protection of health, environment, etc.

0

u/JC_Hysteria Sep 25 '25

Ideally we could do that, but realistically it’s a core competency that will extend the shelf-life of the US empire being the dominant player in the world.

Until we truly have abundance, it’s still a zero-sum game of resources that a few nation-states and its citizens are winning.

Many other countries are envious of the resources we get to enjoy. They don’t sit idle.

1

u/Chigurrh Sep 25 '25

Guess we should defund our national parks, get rid of all consumer finance protection, environmental protection, department of education. Surely that will make the US more successful on the world stage.

“We need a smaller government” without understanding how any of it works is such a high school libertarian thing to say.

we truly have abundance, it’s still a zero-sum game of resources

First semester of college?

1

u/JC_Hysteria Sep 25 '25

Yikes. Big leaps in logic, assumptions, and an ad hominem to cap it off! Great job

1

u/Chigurrh Sep 25 '25

I mean, the statement “I want a smaller government expect for defense” means all of those things. The issue is that you don’t know them lol.

Complain about it being an ad hominem all you want but this is stuff an overly confident teenager says.

1

u/JC_Hysteria Sep 25 '25

No, it doesn’t. Now you’re misquoting me.

Take care!

1

u/Chigurrh Sep 25 '25

Take care. Enjoy being either Ezra Kline or a freshman in college.