536
submitted 1 day ago by ToastedPlanet to c/politics@lemmy.world
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] JokklMaster@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago
[-] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 18 points 1 day ago
[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

I wouldn't be surprised if Tankies unironically liked Democrats better when they were the KKK.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 8 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

With how eagerly centrists have been throwing vulnerable minorities under the bus, it's clear that they bitterly regret the civil rights act and the voting rights act because they cost the party the support of the bigots they love dearly.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] HawlSera@lemm.ee 9 points 1 day ago

GIven that I've had Tankies try to tell me the fight for LGBT rights isn't worth it because it's a "distraction" and "actually racist to force other cultures to conform to Western Values"

Yeah...

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 22 hours ago

Given that centrists are parroting "Boys in girl's sports" bigotry in their own ads, it's not like y'all weren't itching to abandon trans people.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 1 day ago

Thanks to idiot non voters there will not be a chance to dump these policies since there wont be another election

[-] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Man, you really need to touch grass. 4 years will pass, another election will be held, and you will be just wasting time dwelling into that thought.

Better prepare for the future

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Honestly regardless of whether or not orange Lucifer tries to cling to power post-2028, it benefits everyone involved to just assume that he won't and prepare accordingly.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] takeda@lemmy.world 50 points 1 day ago

This is BS. People saying Kamala was too liberal, or too centrist, she was riding too much on Biden achievements or not enough etc etc.

The real reason for this is that majority of people no longer get their news from MSM, they get their news from social media which are hevily slanted for trump. Not only GOP understands how influential those are, but they are helped with foreign entities who are free to use these media as well.

This also isn't just happening to US but also to Europe.

The fucking solution is to get your family off of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok etc. it is a cancer and essentially hacks their brain.

You might think that social media is great, because everyone can have a voice. This might be true for sites like Lemmy, but in other places what you post is irrelevant, because their algorithm controls what others see. It is very clever, because they can hide behind freedom of speech to not restrict the sites, while essentially still having full control of what it is shown and zero consequences.

With AI they don't even need people anymore they can generate content themselves and say it is a real user.

Why do you think companies involved in social media are also heavily invested with generative AI?

[-] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 5 points 21 hours ago

There's been a right wing media since the 1970's, Xitter has always been an also ran social media site and while Facebook is the largest social media site it's long past it's heyday and is filled primarily with bots and boomers.

You're getting everything backwards. The only reason why Democrats won in the past 50 years is because they have been riding on the their past actual progressive achievements like Social Security, Medicare, Good Stamps, The Civil Rights Act, etc.

Now that they're done nothing but take turns with the GOP destroying those government safety nets there's no goddamn reason for voters to vote for Democrats.

Oh and the whole reason why the right has a strangle hold on media is because of Democratic deregulation of media and telecommunications.

[-] Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The fucking solution is to get your family off of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok etc. it is a cancer and essentially hacks their brain.

What you're implying here is that people aren't smart enough to navigate social media intelligently, without being duped by propaganda and group think, yet you are.

Protecting dumb people by hiding them from social media, is a bad fix for a symptom of other major problems. Fixing symptoms like this is never a good solution.

What we need is education massively overhauled, to the point it would be unrecognizable to what we have today. People should have the critical thinking skills and educational background to laugh there ass off and shrug off ~~right wing~~ propaganda, and never let it take hold.

This is a much bigger problem, and we're losing significantly, but it's what should be discussed instead of just hiding social media from people.

[-] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 3 points 21 hours ago

Being influenced / tricked / conned has surprisingly little to do with being 'smart' or 'educated'. Smart people can still be tricked.

A way to manipulate people is to give them plausible (mis)information. What counts as 'plausible' depends on a person's education and interests; but there is always an area of vulnerability at the edges of a person's understanding. That's why there are so many different layers to misinformation campaigns. They are targeting different groups of people. And it is highly dangerous to start believing you can see through them all - because in reality, you only see through the ones that don't target you.

One of the propaganda powers of algorithmically controlled social media is that it is if a user gives up enough of their person info, it makes it possible to automatically target that person with misinformation that is specially suited to their interests, circles of trust, and level of understanding.

... anyway, my point is that although education is always good; it doesn't defeat propaganda outright.

[-] takeda@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

The social media sites are known to collect vast information about us. The explanation is that it is meant for targeted ads, but the same information can be also used to know which buttons to press.

You scroll between funny videos and once in a while you get something that maybe will anger you, or maybe scare and in any way impact what you will do.

Just taking a recent example. To pro Palestinian people they received messages that Harris is bad for Palestine and we can show her and protest by not voting.

Meanwhile the same social media was telling pro Israeli people that they should not vote for Harris, because she is pro Palestine.

This is how they are getting desired outcome. And unlike MSM they can fine tune the message to specific category of people.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Freefall@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago

The message to Democrats is clear: (insert your agenda here)

Boring

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 22 hours ago

The message is that they did absolutely nothing wrong and are in fact incapable of doing anything wrong. They cannot fail, only be failed by the stupid voters.

[-] LittleBorat3@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

Based on the assumption that it was some economic issue, that lost them the votes, this article is pretty good.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Montagge@lemmy.zip 53 points 1 day ago

Wait, so apparently Americans don't want neoliberal economic policies so they didn't vote for Kamala, but instead voted for Trump and his neoliberal economic policies?

This shit is stupid and old already. It reeks of people using unhealthy coping mechanism to deal with the idea that the average American shifted even further right.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

Trump verbally promised to change the system. Harris said the system is doing great, you're doing great, anyone who says they aren't doing great doesn't understand the economic genius that is Biden's economy.

The predictable happened. Democrats were warned when Biden tried to take a victory lap on the economy in 2023. They ignored that warning and didn't attempt to pass legislation they knew was required. Even if they failed they could have been seen fighting for the people. We know they knew what the required legislation is because Biden suddenly promised national rent controls right before being forced to step aside. Then Harris silently kept them in her campaign but didn't highlight them again until a week before the election. When she was desperate.

Until Democrats actually show, in their actions, that they're fighting for the working class, the beatings will continue. And no shutting down strikes and one vote on minimum wage isn't going to cut it. They need to be in the news every week on some aspect of the financial pain the working class feels, and repeats are not only okay, but necessary. A term has 208 weeks in it, that's enough to press several issues. They can also do a quarterly podcast, this entire idea of silently governing was proven inferior by FDR. Even Obama had the petition system which generated national conversations. People do not expect that a quiet government is doing something. In fact they are suspicious of it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 54 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The average american doesn't know what neoliberal economic policies are, but the average american can feel the impact of neoliberalism on a daily basis. Convincing people you have a solution to what everyone knows is wrong (even if your solution is even more neoliberalism and blaming minorities, the old reliable) is what get people in booths.

Conversely, saying things are fine the way they are is the easiest way to lose an election.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 35 points 1 day ago

What killed Biden and Harris was the outright denial of what people were feeling.

"The economy is hurting us!"

"What are you talking about, Jack? We have the best economy ever! Look... inflation is only 3% (on top of 3%, on top of 9%), we're doing GREAT! Not a joke! I'm serious!"

[-] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Harris and Biden were correct, though. Less people were suffering than ever, and what little new ails people did face were partly because of the previous admin and largely because of a global pandemic.

And she proposed policies like Taxing people who have more than a Million Dollars in unrealized gains in a year. Giving new and improved child and student tax credits to lower income earners.

Instead, we're going to let Trump's team write the new tax laws immediately after his old ones expire.

[-] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 24 points 1 day ago

Trump’s economic policies aren’t neoliberal so much as mercantilist. He wants tariffs and trade wars. (There’s obviously also a dash of fascist policies where he wants companies to serve him.)

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 11 points 1 day ago

Fascism was the rebranding of mercantilism. State supported industry with a blurry line between state and private actors and owners, all ultimately supported by imperial conquest and colonialism.

[-] Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee 28 points 1 day ago

1/3 of voting age Americans voted for Trump (that 3rd wants fascism)... 1/3 for Kamala, and 1/3 stayed home... A lot of the 1/3 that stayed home did so because they don't want neolib policy, and probably a lot of the 1/3 that voted for her also don't want neolib policy. There's very little to support the idea that anyone "shifted right"... They shifted home when they weren't given an option to vote against genocide and other neolib bullshit

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 76 points 1 day ago

"Nothing will fundamentally change" + "there is not a thing that comes to mind."

Two killer statements.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SolacefromSilence@fedia.io 36 points 1 day ago

Simpson's Skinner meme, "no, it's the voters that are wrong"

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] tburkhol@lemmy.world 49 points 1 day ago

But who will pay for our campaigns if we don't lick the boot of oligarchs?

[-] Eldritch@lemmy.world 32 points 1 day ago

Before the 1980s that used to be the unions paying and funding campaigns. The reason Democrats started chasing and boot-licking oligarchs. Is because the unions stopped funding elections and campaigns at the rate they had been before the 1980s. If you can figure out why that was. There were two solid hints given. Then we could probably understand why they're seeking funding from oligarchs. And how we should probably go about changing that.

People love to complain about Democrats begging for oligarchs money without understanding why. Which helps the oligarchs. And gives them even more control over the DNC than they would have otherwise. I'm not saying we should accept the oligarch funding and ownership. But until we come to terms with why that came to be and address it appropriately. It won't end anytime soon.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago

I think the campaigns at this point can be funded with regular donations. I don't think corporate donations are even needed at this point.

The key thing to realize is that in a presidential race, you reach advertising saturation. Hillary and Kamala both massively outspent Trump in their campaigns, but they still lost. Their financial advantage didn't help because ads reach saturation. At some point, everyone already knows about the candidates, and additional money spent really doesn't help you.

The Democratic party could get by just fine with the amount of donations they can raise from individual donors. They don't do this because the consultants that run the DNC ad buying get paid a percentage of all ad buys. And the DNC itself simply benefits from having larger budgets in general. So the push is always to have as much ad spend as possible, even if having that large ad spend requires cozying up to oligarchs.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

It goes beyond just that. I think a Democratic presidential candidate could do well addressing elitist thinking in general. I think they could do quite well with a pledge not to appoint anyone to their cabinet or to a court that graduated from an Ivy League school. One of the reasons we keep seeing the same shitty approaches is that both parties recruit heavily from the same handful of schools. This they're recruited from the same social circles. I would suggest that candidates just flat out state that they'll be filling all their major spots with people who got their education at state schools.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
536 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1671 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