this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
557 points (94.6% liked)

politics

19107 readers
2609 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] RangerJosie@sffa.community 74 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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 9 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 11 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

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

[–] Scallionsandeggs@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Kinzinger, too. Plus with Bernie, Jayapal, and others attending a progressive side show I'm getting the sense progressives (or anyone staunchly anti-corporate) aren't going to get much time on the podium.

If they don't have significant local progressives like Chuy Garcia or Delia Ramirez up there, and their "local" speaker is Pritzker, I'm going to have a real hard time buying this campaign promise.

[–] experbia@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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 (2 children)

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.

[–] experbia@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I think it's more about the attempt than the result. historically, we get a lot of promises of strong leadership and then no attempts to even start following through. in my opinion, this is a massive source of voter apathy both in general but especially among young people. "why bother? they're all liars anyway, nobody will really try to help us once they're in" - the kids energized into politics with Kamala's campaign will wither or defect permanently if she makes these promises and they vote for her because of it and she does the usual routine of ignoring them until reelection season swings around again. if they want any hope of banking on the new energized kids in future elections, she has to at least try and she has to be loud about doing it. if she doesn't, this will win us only 4 years.

when companies pay lobbyists to change laws and it doesn't work, they retry and retry and retry until they do it. same with unpopular surveillance and "security" bills. but when talk of important social reform come up, dems go "ehhh, it's unlikely to pass... don't even try, it's not worth it. it will just be a hassle..."

like yes, the prez cannot just make dictates to change laws like people wish. other parts of government have to be engaged to do these things. so... ENGAGE THEM

[–] RangerJosie@sffa.community 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't be the first time.

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

[–] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

And I firmly believe you're full of shit.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 44 points 3 months ago (8 children)

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 10 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?''.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

Duplicating my comment in one TG chat (and roughly translating it to English):

this is like saying that "some girls are beautiful, and some are nice", or saying to someone "your family is good" ;

what the promises of regulating prices and such really tell is that there's no mention of actually splitting and killing those corporations and reducing their power.

In other words, oligopoly is nice, and power from centralization is nice (of course it is, since what a big corp can do, government can use), it's just prices that we want to fix.

State capitalism with a human face is what she's promising here.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 38 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

"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 22 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

Unfortunately, many people are the same way.

[–] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 2 points 3 months ago

It's the dementia. He should seek treatment.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Marxist is not extreme left, just a kind of left. You can be anything from a socdem to a bolshevik while remaining Marxist.

And stalinism one can call rather right and fascist, at the same time with Marxism used as a foundation, and it's not as easy as you'd think to find counterarguments to what they've come up in USSR to tie a totalitarian state to Marxism.

So there's one thing which is all these at the same time - stalinism.

By the way, if we give Trump's word hu-uge benefit of doubt and forget for a minute that we are humans, thus tribal apes, this is not that wrong.

She's talking about regulating prices and other populist and pretty socialist things, but she doesn't talk about killing oligopolies and preferential treatment. Which is kinda close to state capitalism with populist elements. Which would in rough strokes make things closer to stalinism in economic part.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 1 points 3 months ago

Don't Think. Just Trump.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] hate2bme@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

Politician before the election promises stuff.

No, sure this time is different.

[–] moon@lemmy.cafe 5 points 3 months ago

Hope so. This is very low hanging fruit.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

Kamela is good

load more comments
view more: next ›