The sad thing is that their audience is conditioned to fear and hate all of these things.
brown people might get some of that
In a way, it's more so that "[thing] for all" also includes people of colour and these people will shit themselves if it means the people they hate will smell it.
Right this is their handlers telling them what to hate.
naaaah it's the...
...that people are not so keen on and in recent interviews they are clueless on how to achieve this or just straight up benefiting aggressors and terrorists
this is how you lose elections for democrats
The 32 hour work week sounds too good to be true nowadays.
Our productivity has grown exponentially, there's no reason 32 isn't feasible is a greed
thereās no reason
Imagine if people were relaxed and had time for political discussions.
Heck no! I'm going to draw shit, like Bob Ross
And make Solarpunk a reality too.
Yes but, they put those thinga up to ridicule. They dont even bother trying to give reason why they think theyre bad.
They just put them up and go:
"Healthcare for everyone??! Thats crazy, only crazy people think that".
"Housing for everyone?!? Thats communist, and we all know thats dumb and bad".
And thats it. Their viewers go "hawhaw, dumb communists, yea thats right theyre crazy!!"
If you're going for Foxnews-speak ya gotta mix in a healthy serving of zero-sum into the rhetoric:
For Foxnews crowd its frequently a fear appeal that someone is taking from them.
The implication is that wealthy people will ultimately have to pay for it all and will lose their wealth and thereafter just be normal.
Weirdly, lots of poor people jump on this band wagon because they "identify as" wealthy people. My parents belong in this category. They used to be called "temporarily embarrassed millionaires", but a millionaire isn't really that wealthy any more.
Regardless, you have this bizarre situation of poor people voting to improve the situations of wealthy people, because that's who they aspire to be.
Yes, it's bonkers.
Those sick fucking libs want to stop our genocide?!
angry screeching
I wonder if that guy looked at the screen, read each item, and thought āoh damn, I picked the wrong sideā.
I'm pretty sure he's part of the "I have mine" crowd.
The main way in which even highly educated domain experts can be made willing minions of the elites in Capitalism is to give them just a little bit more than the rest of the riff-raff - plenty of people around willing to fuck everybody else just for a few more crumbs from the fatcats' table (the police in general are probably the greatest example of this) and a higher level of formal education whilst usually making somebody a bit more aware of the implications of things in general and their own actions, doesn't in any way form or shape make a person less selfish, with higher empathy or more moral.
He gets all of them already.
His beef is with anyone he thinks is below him in station enjoying any of the same
Honestly, this doesn't match the usual shit I see from Fox News (mind you, it's been a while since I've seen fox news, thank god). Normally I'm used to seeing something like a guy with a strict beard and a cowboy had talking about how liberalism is destroying America. The way they're putting it here is very flattering in comparison to what I'm used to.
A part of me wonders if someone there likes those ideas and purposefully didn't invest all too much effort into making them look bad.
Maybe just get it done for Blue and Purple states. Red states can just shake their fists in anger and wear red hoods.
That's been the joke with Democrats for a while now.
Republicans will propose a policy - abortion prohibition, loyalty tests for public employees, eliminating income taxes, etc, etc - and fully deliver it at the municipal and state levels (with predictable results).
Democrats will form a working group to discuss a plan to staff a committee to issue a report that says "Sorry, it's too hard, and businesses frowned at us when we tried".
From California's plan for Zero Emissions Cars to Vermont's Universal Health Care to New York Securing Wages Earned Against Theft Act to give unpaid employees liens on company property. California Governor Gavin Newsom has vetoed everything from an AI regulation bill to a ban on PFAS chemicals in hygenie products to a bill banning Caste based discrimination (a popular form of discrimination among wealthy Hindus).
Blue states largely suck at actually delivering on their platforms. The corporate Dems are much more focused on "competing" with Republicans on making their states "business friendly".
I agree with the sentiment, but this kind of discrimination against red states is no better than the shit Dumpy is pulling with the blue states today. The benefits have to be for all if we want to keep the moral high ground.
...wear red hoods.
And all they'll need is some red dye.
And that's how pervasive the fascist propaganda is. These things that are logical to us are anathema to them at the conceptual level.
It's the college-for-all. They don't want to read. They don't want to learn. Get rid of that, and our stupid, bigoted, asshole rightwing shitheads will happily agree to the rest. "Oh, and no brown people so fuck Palestine."
Tbh this could give us room to negotiate... Assuming anyone is still thinking this will work in a fair an honest way.
medicare for all- good (private healthcare can still exist but a government option should be available), college for all- sounds good but has problems, housing for all- how? i think you should have to work and pay to own your own house. 32 hour work week- good, (could be even shorter), tax the rich- good, green new deal- no idea what that entails, free palestine- bad.
Free Palestein bad? It's bad that people should have freedom and not live under a genocidal apartheid state? You got any other horrific opinions you want to share with the group? Where do you stand on bone cancer for children? Big fan I'm guessing.
Just block and move on. Either they're a troll or they're an irredeemably awful person and not worth anyone's time.
im all for free palestine in terms of ending the occupation, (though i think it will lead to worse outcomes and more violence, i think they should still be given that right) but in terms of the war against hamas im 100% for it and i think israel should neutralize hamas. but when most people talk about "free palestine" they mean stopping the gaza war, but i have no problem with killing terrorists.
The term "terrorist" is subjective though.
The violence committed in the war against Hamas seems much worse than that caused by Hamas.
when you fight a war who is the terrorist isnt determined by the number of people killed on each side, it's determined by the intentions of the people doing the killing. for instance, when the US went after ISIS it's estimated that between 10,000 to 27,000 ISIS were killed and only 30 US people were killed.
it's determined by the intentions of the people doing the killing
Intentions are made pretty clear when schools and hospitals are systematically destroyed.
That's not really true though is it.
You have to consider not only the intentions but also the capability of the threat you're trying to mitigate. Then you have to balance those things against the cost of whatever action you intend to take.
Sure the fanciful desire of hamas might be global domination but we both know that they just don't have any capability in that regard.
It's absurd to suggest that it's appropriate to grind an entire nation to dust because they might be harboring someone with desires of global domination.
i mean, you could say the exact same for the civilian deaths and damage to infrastructure when the US was fighting ISIS. at the end of the day they did a terrorist attack and said they were going to do it again, are harboring weapons, and are right at israel's border. they clearly have capability and intent because they fire rockets at israel all the time. what is israel supposed to do, let them fire rockets at them and not fire back? not destroy the munitions they keep in hospitals? all the deaths and the destruction of the infrastructure can be blamed on hamas, not israel. and i'm not claiming hamas does have the capability of global domination, if they did they would've done it. i'm saying they have that intent, just like ISIS did. are we supposed to not destroy them until they gain more power and do have the ability to be a threat to the world?
Well the intentions of the Israelis are the extermination of entire people so yeah pretty sure we know who the real terrorists are.
actually you have it the opposite. the israeli goal is to eliminate hamas (the terrorists) and live in peace and hamas's goal is the extinction of jews and then most likely global domination of islam as a whole.
You should at least try to be believable when you troll.
if israel wanted to kill arabs why is 20% of their population arab? why target palestinians specifically and not arabs in general when they are the same race? what differentiates palestinians from other arabs to where israelis only want to kill palestinians but are fine in living in peace with their 20% arab population in israel?
Itās simple, the Palestinians live in territory that Israel wants to take over, and theyāre flattening it all and killing civilians. They are murdering women and children. They are bombing hospitals and schools, they are sniping kids for fun. We have video. We have statements of intent to exterminate them all, whether they are Hamas or not. Itās way beyond the pale and itās not even close.
Itās simple, the Palestinians live in territory that Israel wants to take over
i mean, israel says there's a security threat. if mexico was firing rockets into the US the US would have military presence in there too. i don't know much about settlements or whatever, but it seems like you're not looking at both sides of the situation
and theyāre flattening it all and killing civilians. They are murdering women and children. They are bombing hospitals and schools, they are sniping kids for fun. We have video.
not according to the civilian to combatant death ratio. every war has war crimes though. can you name me 1 war that didn't have war crimes committed in it?
We have statements of intent to exterminate them all, whether they are Hamas or not.
there are extremists but that is not the israeli governments position nor is it anywhere near the majority of israeli's position. it's a tiny minority, almost so minute that it's not even worth mentioning, like worrying about racism by the kkk in 2026.
there are extremists but that is not the israeli governments position
Ben Gvir would beg to differ, among others.
And the Palestinians don't have a right to kill the Israeli terrorists who are murdering children in the streets of the West Bank?
everyone has a right to defend themselves but the civilian to combatant death ratio is anywhere from 1:1 at the lowest to 1:8 at the highest, probably realistically 1:3 or 1:4 (normal for war). israeli does not just murder children in the streets, they are fighting a war that has civilian casualties and the numbers show that.
Combat deaths according to whom? The genocidal maniacs who shoot babies for fun? You trust their numbers?
no the israeli number is 1:1 and the independent sources say anywhere from 5:1 and 8:1, 8:1 being the highest estimate that i've seen. i take a middle ground between the israel number and the independent sources because it's impossible to know the exact number during an on-going war and you have two sides giving two different numbers. clearly there are two very different methodologies to get two totally different numbers and during an on-going conflict it's impossible to know who is right. but you're coming at this from a premise that israel is genocidal maniacs which is showing a bias, when the reported numbers are what determines whether they are genocidal maniacs or not. but personally, i would say even with the worse case number from people who have a bias against israel it is not genocidal.
housing for all- how?
not sure if your questions rhetorical or not but it's not like this is a new invention, why not look to where it works elsewhere in the world and do that ?
The first place that Max Schranz moved into after leaving his family home is the kind that many young professionals dream of inhabiting at the peak of their career. At only 26, he lives in a bright fifth-floor apartment with high ceilings overlooking a European capital city, 10 minutes from the central station and within walking distance of cinemas, theatres and bars.
No lottery win or parental trust fund was needed to make that dream a reality: Schranz, who is a masterās student, pays ā¬596 (Ā£512) a month for his 54 sq metre two-bedroom apartment ā a fraction of typical rents for similarly sized and similarly located apartments in other major European cities. Whatās more, he didnāt have to put down a deposit and his rental contract is unlimitedd.
i thought when they said housing for all they were referring to government mandated housing. im all for making houses more affordable, but that isn't really the same as houses for all. even if it's more affordable there's still going to be people that can't get a house of their own
Housing and food for all is a bare minimum.
If you want to know why I would refer you to that 'there's no hunger in America' conversation we were having that you ran away from. The one where you seem to envision kwashiorkor as the only form of malnutrition?
Now look up deaths from exposure and please try to understand why housing for all is also necessary.
i didn't say there's no hunger in america. i said there's no starvation. you keep misrepresenting my position. i can respond to you from earlier but i blocked the sub we were in because i don't like meme subs, i prefer subs that have more text and it was spamming my feed.
Now look up deaths from exposure and please try to understand why housing for all is also necessary.
i don't think anyone thinks housing is bad or that people should die from exposure. the question is how do you plan to fix homelessness and things like that when more people die of exposure in europe than america which is generally touted as the area with the solution to the problems. i'd be okay with a government housing program that provides shelters and living for people at a bare minimum and then allow people that make more money to buy more extravagant living spaces, but we kinda already do that. it could be expanded and made easier to apply and get accepted to but that's a separate issue.
i said there's no starvation.
Your right that there's no virtually no kwashiorkor but there's plenty of starvation and even more hunger.
i blocked the sub we were in because i don't like meme subs
Then why the hell are you in this sub!? Did you not read the community info?
it could be expanded and made easier to apply and get accepted to but that's a separate issue.
That is quite literally what is meant by 'housing for all'. So long as anyone who needs housing is rejected and ends up sleeping on the street instead that system is failing and needs to be improved.
A community to satirize conservtive and right-wing "ideals".
This community (now) exists as a pressure valve, a place to process through humor the often frustrating world of conservative politics. Above all, this is NOT the place for serious conservative support/viewpoints/arguments. There are other places on Lemmy for that if you desire it.
Always follow .world instance rules
Parody With Purpose: This is a space for humorous takes on conservative politics. We welcome satire, but draw the line at content that promotes racism, sexism, homophobia, or other forms of bigotry.
Memes Over Manifestos: This community focuses on humor and parody, not serious political debate. There are plenty of spaces for earnest conservative discussion, this isnāt one of them.
Highlight Contradictions: Sometimes the best content points out inconsistencies and hypocrisies in conservative talking points. Creative commentary is encouraged.
Public Figures Fair Game: Politicians and pundits can be satirized, but no targeting of private individuals, doxxing, or harassment.
Children of public figures under the age of 14 are also off-limits, a 16 year old has enough free agency to break with or adopt their parents views. An 8 year old kid doesn't.
No News Zone: Memes only, news or other serious content should be sent to the nearest relevant comm. Meme's of current events, however, are encouraged.
Clear Satire: Make your satirical intent reasonably clear. Weāre here to mock bad ideas, not accidentally spread them. If you're unsure how it will be taken, feel free to DM the mod team ahead of time or explicitly tag it as satire in the body.
A note on ChadMcTruth: Chad's content is 100% satire, but his work can sometimes be hard to tell, but if he posted it be assured, its satire.
For more general political memes please see !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
Community Respect: Disagree with fellow members all you want, but personal attacks arenāt welcome. Save the criticism for the ideas, not each other.
Moderation Discretion: Mods will use reasonable judgment in applying these rules. Weāll be fair, but firm. These kinds of comms have a tendency to get off the rails, so we might seem overzealous in moderation sometimes.
For the moment, i'm allowing properly tagged NSFW content as long as its funny and relevant. Don't make me regret it.
And above all, HAVE FUN!
