574
Americans warned of grocery prices shock
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
574 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19885 readers
2753 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I know she’s been villainized by the right, but I feel like, at this point, she needs to be elevated to key leadership of the party. She’s the only one who seems to be able to speak to specifics. I just listened to Jeffries on Jon Stewart’s podcast and it was all of the same old generalities.
Seriously. They all said they felt better than before but the dude barely said anything worthwhile. So disappointing it's the exact same hand wringing bullshit where they say "we just need to get the message out" instead of actually doing shit differently. Jon really did try to get more out of him but he stayed on message like 80% of the time like a true politician.
I can't speak to every politician, but as a class, they seem to be elites that are disconnected from the average American.
AOC, having been a normal person, is able to bring the message that gets through to people without having it filtered through some sort of communication agency.
Would be a great time for bernie and AOC to make strides to start a new party, or other tactics to force dems to move left.
I hope they pass a bill to set age and term limits, alongside with voting reforms. Our political system was built for a mere 13 colonies that shared a coastline, not a continental civilization without telecommunication.
Term limits bring their own set of issues. I would do some more research on the subject before championing them.
I think we now have real-world examples of what being without limits can bring us. For example, a supreme justice holds their role until death or abdication. The vast bulk of the SC court cannot relate to "young" people. This is problematic, seeing how many of them were born before things like DEI, foreign content like anime, or the Internet were common. Plus, the justices tend to be confirmed by old people, which only reinforces the issue.
If there is an overhaul when it comes to SCs in particular, I think the following would be good:
1: Trash the current SC system.
2: Each state can elect a single Supreme Justice to represent them. This Justice is elected through a popular vote. SCs have a term limit of ten years, and an age range of 30-70. They may be impeached by their state through a popular ballot.
3: The justices have to have lived in their state for at least 10 years, and continue living there for the rest of their term.
4: Digital means for justices to meet should be implemented. (For congress as well), and live feeds of their discussion process for all to see. We should be allowed to see and record how the sausage of our laws is made.
5: The assets, wealth, and social media of a Justice should be an open record. We don't want people like Clarance Thomas to be allowed to grift, especially not when the lives of so many people can be impacted.
By having each state having ownership of a single SC, we will have about 50 justices. This is good for having a wide variety of backgrounds and interests to be represented during judicial discussions, along with insulating against any one faction from pushing forward candidates.
Traditionally, we required our justices to be well versed in law and whatnot...but honestly, after the shitshow that is our current Supreme Court, it is clear that motivation trumps law and precedent. That Is why I suggest that justices be determined through a popular vote. If a justice is going to be motivated, it should be driven by the fact that they were chosen by the people of their state, not an political faction or leader.
I concur, US federal supreme court judges are appointed solely by the President. This makes these positions highly political and less about merit. Furthermore, fed circuit judges are appointed by fed SC judges, so the whole federal judicial system is just political tug-o'-war.
Cherry on top is a lot of civil judges, typically circuit-level as well, run unopposed in local elections. Their tenure tends to keep red-state law red and vice-versa. So much for US America being our self-proclaimed "Marketplace of Ideas".
I agree with revolutionizing our current federal judicial system. It is severely outdated and regularly exploited.
I agree but she spends a lot of time reciting very rehearsed and morally charged statements that are great for sound bites. I don’t even disagree with them, but it’s what a lot of “elites“ do as well, so if she wants to separate from them then she needs to speak in a little more plain language when the cameras are rolling on her if you ask me.
Half the population is below average intelligence. As a politician you have to speak in a way that is both to the point and emotionally charging to get your point across as simply as possible. It's the best way to actually reach the most people. You also have to repeat yourself ad nauseam. It’s just a pitfall of the job. Simultaneously, they have to treat people like idiots and not treat people like idiots.
It also works. Remember all those signs in yards this past election cycle that said “Trump: lower taxes, Harris: higher taxes” and “Trump: good for America, Harris: bad for America”? They were wrong, and simple and they worked.
again, I don’t disagree with her at all. I like and support her. The issue is if she wants to separate herself from elites maybe she could consider a slightly blunter approach. Apparently people are really angry that I have a slightly different opinion on strategy.
She isn’t Trump. She can’t be Trump. I don’t want signs like Trump.
So what's your issue? What does "not speak like an elite" even mean? Politicians speak like politicians and they do so for reasons I've already outlined. She isn't talking down to you, she's empathizing with you. What do you want her to say? You want her to talk like the room is filled with post-doctorates? How does that help a chronically under-educated populace who literally can't afford get a good education, let alone pay attention to anything of substance after sifting through our hellscape of a media?
She isn't Trump, of course. I don't think anyone in Lemmy is asking for her to be. My point was that repeating yourself and speaking simply literally just won an election. "Me, good. Other guy, bad" as a message, works. Bernie has been repeating himself for longer than I've been alive. He's been right about everything he's ever said in the simplest of terms. Why do you think he keeps doing it? Because it's still true, and people still need to hear that message.
Ok I get it you’re all mad and dogpiling. Let’s move on
I haven't downvoted a single one of your comments. I'm asking questions I wanted answers to. Sorry people don't like what you're saying, but I'm trying to have a conversation.
Not singling you out intentionally just don’t feel like writing what I think and getting endlessly downvoted and then inevitably answering the same questions over and over as folks chase upvotes lol
That's the game, she's just doing her best to play it. Listen to her more casual interviews if you want a normal person, she gets seconds of the average person's attention at a time
I understand she is playing the game and I’m not even against it. But if the goal is to separate herself from sounding like elites, it seems to me that’s a reasonable place to start. Get more granular and direct. Apparently that’s a really unpopular take?
To be clear I fully support her and I hope she runs for president soon to be perfectly honest
It's not that it's an unpopular take, it's that you're not going to get that from mainstream media. They only want snippets and blurbs to present to the people, so if you're not able to articulate your point in a short sound bite, you don't get to send your message at all.
You mean the same mainstream media that no one trusts anymore apparently?
We can’t use the old systems anymore dude.
I won't disagree with that, but there are still lots of people who consume mainstream media. A lot of them also think that their choice of media isn't mainstream, only other media.
Speaker of the House might have more power for her.
I would love to see it
She stands by what she says though. It may sound familiar, because it's the same shit all the time. She doesn't take lobby money, she doesn't take pac money and she doesnt take corpo money. Her donations are working class citizens that fuel her campaigns. If you want her to speak simple language, go watch her John Stewart interview. It's as plain and "common folk" speak as you can get.
I never said she didn’t stand by what she says or is otherwise inauthentic. I’m talking about communication style. I think she’s as real as it gets and believes what she says/acts on her values.
As I said another comment this is clearly just an angry dog pile. I’m just going to move on.
Especially after Stewart's recent interview with her.
Given how clearly she's stood up since day 1 here, I wouldn't be surprised if she's the first target for Trump's Window-Pushing Squad
Sooner or later, the idiot is gonna take the biggest chapter from Putin's book.
I fear for her safety, to be honest...
that's exactly why the establishment limits her movements. she's a threat to schumer and pelosi's stranglehold on the money pipelines. what schumer and pelosi either don't realize, or don't care about, is they're who the ultraradical right want dead first. they showed us as much on january 6th, 2021
She will never be allowed anywhere close to real power for the same reason they've kept Bernie from power for decades.
pelosi firmly believes octogenarian throat cancer is the future of the democratic party.
Well it was his turn, so...
The big money and corporate donors to the Democratic Party would never allow someone like AOC or Bernie to lead the party.