577
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] RangerJosie@sffa.community 79 points 3 months ago

If she's serious she'll be a historically great president. But if it's PR. Not so much.

We'll see when the DNC starts. They can script all they want. But that will tell us the story. Who they invite. What they talk about. It's all theater of course. But it'll act as a barometer of where the politics are.

The DNC is first and foremost a corp. And I don't trust corps. Don't trust them any further than I trust Blackrock or Vanguard.

They can't collect donations if everyone is broke. They need people to have disposable income. And shit has got so bad now. They have to be feeling it.

[-] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 23 points 3 months ago

They can collect donations just fine. It was big, huge donors saying "I won't give the democrats one red nickel if Biden doesn't step down" that helped get Biden to concede his candidacy.

[-] Sneptaur@pawb.social 8 points 3 months ago

It was a combination of things. It was also the lack of voter enthusiasm risking down ballot races.

[-] HuntressHimbo@lemm.ee 10 points 3 months ago

The announced speakers including both Clintons doesn't have me hopeful

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

That'd be expected even if it were Bernie Sanders.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] experbia@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

I gotta say, if it's all a PR act, it's dumb as fuck. it might work for this election but it will then disillusion millions of young voters permanently if she can't follow though on these promises, leading to a huge loss (or worse, migration) of young Democrat voters.

[-] LordKitsuna@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

She literally can't, even if she was actually 105% committed to it people seem to forget that overall the president actually has very little power. Without the cooperation of the house and Congress nothing in that vein will ever get done and no matter who gets elected our house in Congress have been split divided and useless for quite a while now

[-] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Why would someone downvote you. This is 100% true. Congress makes the laws. The president can set the agenda but things can only happen if there are enough people in Congress who will actually vote for it. Since we know 0 Republicans will ever help with anything, that means the Democrats need enough of a majority to overcome the GOP, and enough of a majority that one or two rogue Democrats looking to advance their own profile can’t hold it hostage. We had that for a brief time in the Obama admin and they passed the ACA. During the Biden admin Manchin alone could make a name for himself by blocking anything and everything.

It’s a crappy system where you have to control both houses with some breathing room, and the presidency, to get something done if one party decides to stonewall everything. But that’s the reality. Our system of government has serious problems.

However, assuming that the Democratic presidents are privately glad they can’t do most things they say they want to do, when they are never given the opportunity, and then using that assumption as the basis for cynicism, seems unreasonable. What do you gain by assuming this? Why not work as hard as we can to give them a real actual opportunity, and then see what happens.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RangerJosie@sffa.community 7 points 3 months ago

Wouldn't be the first time.

I firmly believe the DNC would rather lose and fundraise off the fear of what the Repubs do.

[-] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 63 points 3 months ago

Lmao the Democratic and Republican party are both bought and paid for by corporate money. I wholeheartedly and unabashedly support Harris/Walz but you can fuck right off with this stupid shit that Harris somehow is immune to the reality of our political financing structure (namely, megadonors, corporates, and PACs)

[-] Xanis@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I'm holding a hope that Walz hasn't succumbed to the greed yet. Though I expect Harris has to some degree. Like it or not, there is enough money in politics that most of us could probably be bought eventually, to lesser and greater extents.

The real question is "when?''.

[-] Sneptaur@pawb.social 6 points 3 months ago

“You can fuck right off with x” is a turn of phrase I can’t wait to see fade out of common use

[-] Blueshift@lemmy.world 34 points 3 months ago

I’m sorry, but I’ma keep calling it twitter. You can fuck right off with x

[-] Sneptaur@pawb.social 3 points 3 months ago
[-] ChronosTriggerWarning@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago

Right! Follow the example of our resident funny bones, Lexi Sneptaur! She's responsible for hilarious classics such as "try being funny!"😂 and "'You can fuck right off with x”' is a turn of phrase I can’t wait to see fade out of common use"🤣

Aren't they just a cut up?! With such fine examples of comedy to emulate, you too can now be as funny as Lexi Sneptaur! The only question is, do you use your newly discovered powers for good, or evil..?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 39 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

"This is communist; this is Marxist; this is fascist.”

— Donald Trump, quoted by the New York Times, describing Kamala Harris’ economic agenda

So she's far-left, extreme-left, and extreme-right all at the same time?

[-] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 21 points 3 months ago

Trump doesn't really know or care about what words mean. He cares about how words feel.

Unfortunately, many people are the same way.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago
[-] hate2bme@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

You got that right. Talk is cheap. Presidential candidates are basically used car salesman.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] mlg@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Yeah just like how Biden's gonna seal the deal witch Israel tomorrow.

I'm kind of annoyed more people aren't offed by the fact that the DNC didn't run a primary because we had at least 3-4 better candidates lined up, and Kamala wouldn't have even reached close just like last time.

I think I'm just gonna start labeling this articles "hopium"

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 8 points 3 months ago

3-4 better candidates

Who are these people and why do you say better? Kamala Harris polled better than literally any other person including Bernie Sanders, Gavin Newsome, etc etc all the people who are usually presented as other options.

[-] mlg@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Kamala Harris polled better than literally any other person including Bernie Sanders, Gavin Newsome, etc etc all the people who are usually presented as other options.

What poll bruh, there was no primary. That's literally why they ran a "roll call" to gg easy their chosen candidate.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 3 points 3 months ago

These polls. Run it back to January and tell me which poll has someone other than Biden or Harris leading. There is one! I'll wait for you to find it and tell me who it was that won it.

There were some others, that weren't focused on the "democratic primary" category. I'll also wait for you to find one, and tell me which one has someone other than Biden / Harris winning, and who it was.

[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I personally have no issue with Harris as the nominee, the process that got her there, and she has my vote. But I'm not sure polls that are that hypothetical are worth very much when it wasn't a fully serious primary but more a rubber stamp on the incumbent.

If Biden would have decided not to run last year and let there be a full primary those polls don't really convince me that Harris would have been the nominee. (For one thing there would have been actually campaigns by her and by alternatives.)

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 2 points 3 months ago

What happened to the other person?

I've noticed that this happens a lot. It's "what poll?" "this poll" and then all of a sudden some other person jumps in with a new line of questioning. Sort of a multi-person version of Never Play Defense.

The second part of the question which I sent to the other person dealt very directly with the point that you're making. There was a pretty extensive process of polling during the time when it was trying to find people to thrust into place as a substitute for Biden before he withdrew. They did a bunch of matchups of various random name-familiar Democrats.

I absolutely refuse to accept the logic that it would have been better to have a month of infighting about who the candidate should be, as opposed to unifying behind a single strong candidate who was leading in the polls. Who would you rather have had?

[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

What happened to the other person?

I've noticed that this happens a lot. It's "what poll?" "this poll" and then all of a sudden some other person jumps in with a new line of questioning.

I have no clue. That's kind of a fundamental part of this format of social media. Multiple people can converse with different viewpoints.

I absolutely refuse to accept the logic that it would have been better to have a month of infighting about who the candidate should be, as opposed to unifying behind a single strong candidate who was leading in the polls. Who would you rather have had?

I don't think it would've been good either. Like I said:

I personally have no issue with Harris as the nominee, the process that got her there, and she has my vote.

I would've preferred this whole mess have been avoided so there could have been actual primary during the normal primary timeframe. Maybe Harris would've came out on top, maybe not. Without any campaigning I'm not going to take any of the "literally anyone besides who is actually running" polls from the primary season seriously.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

They keep telling us this is the democracy they need to save. A presidential candidate that's never won a single primary, electoral vote, and came in last in her own state is suddenly the nominee?

[-] save_the_humans@leminal.space 5 points 3 months ago

I don't love how it played out either but it was the delegates we voted for that elected kamala as our nominee. It was our representative democracy at play in a less than ideal situation when biden dropped out at an awkward time. And kind of the point of a vice president.

Its this or the guy that said he'd be dictator on day one and that no one would ever have to vote again if he is elected. You decide what you want to vote for.

[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

The parties are private entities and can set whatever rules they like for selecting a nominee. That said, this was technically still the same representative democratic process. Voters selected the delegates (which are bound on the first round voting only), but Biden dropped out and released his delegates to vote whichever way they wanted.

Certainly I would've preferred for Biden to drop out last year and have had a full primary. But you can't make someone accept the nomination when they don't want it, and there are rules and a process for the already selected delegates to vote for someone else.

[-] verdantbanana@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

yay now our below living wages will go a micro bit further

let us celebrate the Democrats who do everything they can to fight against the Republicans

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 22 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

If you got the 2% micro growth, you're actually not in the starvation wages bracket. If you're in the 13% growth bracket and you're upset that it's not more (which, I get), you gotta talk to the people who set up the 7% inflation in 2021 and 2022 that ate up all your wage gains from Biden's policies the last few years - not blame the people who got you 32% higher wages that then got eaten up by the Covid inflation.

Source

[-] akwd169@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

So groceries go up 150-200% and wages go up by 15% and somehow that's a win?

ETA not to mention inflation being something like 2.5% per year at least

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

So groceries go up 150-200% and wages go up by 15% and somehow that's a win?

You're misunderstanding the chart -- that's all inflation-adjusted wages. Cumulative inflation (which, again, was follow-on impacts from Covid, mostly unavoidable although I'm sure Trump didn't help) was around 20% in total. So low-wage income went up 33%, high-wage income went up 24%, and so on, and then about 20 percentage points worth of that got eaten back up by inflation.

Basically the working class exceeded inflation by quite a lot, and everyone at least kept pace with it (2 percentage points above inflation means basically no detectable change).

What groceries are you paying 200% more for? Even for the very highest items like eggs, it's been like 40% increase cumulatively.

ETA not to mention inflation being something like 2.5% per year at least

The whole problem currently is that it was way the fuck more than 2.5%, and prices from the spike in 2021-2022 haven't gone back down or anything. Here's the chart. The wages chart I showed was inflation-adjusted.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

This is only true of you believe inflation figures are an accurate reflection of the cost of living. Most people saw an increase in their rent and groceries of 50-100% since 2019.

Are the people who earned $7 in 2019 making a $10-14 minimum today? Are the people who were on 30k now making 45-60k? If you genuinely believe that, you'll believe anything...

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Most people saw an increase in their rent and groceries of 50-100% since 2019.

What is your source for this?

If you genuinely believe whatever anyone on Lemmy tells you, just because they are telling it to you, you'll believe anything

(FTFY, hope that helps)

(Also, what happened to the other person who was saying 200%? Is this like a tag team where everyone takes their turn to send one and exactly one message to me, so that the abandonment of the 200% figure can be replaced with other equally incorrect figures in a way that I then have to disprove afresh as if the whole first conversation hadn’t happened?)

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Most people saw an increase in their rent and groceries of 50-100% since 2019

I've reported this as misinformation after the discussion in !news@lemmy.world

Are the people who earned $7 in 2019 making a $10-14 minimum today?

People who earned $7 in 2019 are currently, on average, making $9.24 - an increase that comfortably exceeded inflation. If you want to say we need to do way more because that amount of income is still a fucking crime, then that sounds good. If you want to say we need to get rid of the team that achieved that $2.24 increase, instead of seeing what they will do with another 4 years and even if the alternative is to bring it back down to $7, then I have some questions

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 3 points 3 months ago

groceries go up 150-200%

I've reported this as misinformation, after the discussion in !news@lemmy.world

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

And they're pulling those numbers out of their ass as if raising a minimum wage to something that is still an unlivable wage is progress.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

What is that, if not progress?

If the thesis is “let’s keep going we need way more”, the great. If the thesis is “let’s shit on the team that achieved 30% higher wages and imply they’re the same as the team that actively wants to undo all of that and leave us with just the 20% inflation and no higher wages” then I will respectfully disagree.

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

That team didn't do shit for higher wages, until there is a federal livable minimum wage, they haven't done shit.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 4 points 3 months ago

What do you believe happened to working class wages between 2020 and now?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 months ago

The role of the Democrats has never been to fight Republicans. It is to prevent leftist movements and organizations from ever gaining any political influence or power in the country.

[-] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You gotta talk to the post-1968 activist left about how well it worked out for them pursuing that vision. That’s how we got Reagan; that’s how the “single income family with one guy with a high school diploma supporting a house and good middle-class life that’s unrecognizable to most people today” went all the fuck away.

Again, if you want to go further than the fuckin Democrats that sounds great. If letting the Republicans defeat the Democrats is a key element of that strategy, you’re gonna have to break down the details to me because to me it doesn’t make a single bit of fucking sense.

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago

We got Reagan because capitalists wanted Reagan. The ones that supported people like Milton Friedman were the ones that wanted wanted Reagan in office.

[-] riodoro1@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Politician before the election promises stuff.

No, sure this time is different.

[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

Kamela is good

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for New Republic:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://newrepublic.com/article/184937/harris-price-gouging-corporations
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
577 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19118 readers
2456 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS