this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2024
147 points (75.6% liked)

politics

19145 readers
3759 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
 

The president often had a weak, raspy voice during his first debate against Trump, in what Democrats had hoped would be a turning point in the race.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 52 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children)

It was dumb just going along with Biden as the nominee, hubris and status quo thinking. Now the Democratic party needs to come up with something to energize the electorate. Scaring people with democracy being on the line, while completely true, isn't gonna do it. Hoping the attacks on reproductive rights will carry them over the finish line is a bad idea. Trying to bring Harris out now into the limelight isn't gonna work. People are tired and struggling. The youth feel betrayed and themselves are struggling. There is no energy coming from up on top. Dems have always sucked at messaging.

[–] elbarto777 37 points 5 months ago

Bernie Sanders would have eaten Trump alive in every debate, including this last one.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

Dem leaders prefer Trump to a real structural progressive economic reform.

The billionaires buy both parties now. Capitalism sucks chunks.

The billionaires of today love the status quo.

[–] b34k 6 points 5 months ago (4 children)

Is a full on fascist dictatorship the “status quo” now? Surprised billionaires would be behind this.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Fascism is great for any buisness that is already established. These people are already buying off the government, they're not the little guys who could be taken over by a fascist government, they're the ones pulling the strings.

[–] btaf45 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Fascism is great for any buisness that is already established.

Fascism is actually terrible for capitalism in general though. Not that billionaires are smart enough to understand that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

So is oligarchy, the invisible hand, if it ever did exist, clearly no longer does if the market movements are determined by insider information and government bribes, I mean lobbying. Innovation is constantly stifled when that innovation costs rich people potential profit. Stock brokers shut down their consumer apps when those consumers invest in ways they threaten large hedge funds. Capitalists are about as good at following their dogma as Evangelical Christians.

[–] btaf45 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Stock brokers shut down their consumer apps when those consumers invest in ways they threaten large hedge funds

Only an ~~idiot~~ unwise person would use their phones to make stock trades.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You realize most consumer level brokers have apps right? The vast majority of Americans have retirement and other investments with brokers that have apps. You don't seriously expect me to believe that inherently makes it dumb.

[–] btaf45 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I'm not calling you dumb and I'm sorry I sounded that way. I would never access any financial accounts on a phone or have any financial phone apps because of the gigantic risk. And I would never make any trade that requires another human to confirm my trade. And I would certainly never let any 'broker' access to my investments.

[–] Furbag 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The thing is, nobody ever said billionaires were smart. A lot of people conflate being wealthy with being intelligent, and that's simply not the case.

The fatal mistake the billionaire donor class is making here is that they think Trump can be controlled if he does win. They aren't worried about fascism because money is the real king of America and always has been.

And that line of thinking is solid until a fascist dictator who doesn't want to give up their power or have it limited by anybody else decides that the wealthy are no longer their allies and has the secret police "deal with them".

[–] CharlesDarwin 6 points 5 months ago

The elites thought Hitler was going to be their puppet, too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Most of them are probably like „Republicans want less taxes for the rich and less taxes is more money for me“

[–] Seleni 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Many billionaires are not only morons, they’re racist morons. They also love the trappings of fascism—as long as they get to be the ones on top.

Have you seen that article about that one techbro rich boy and how he wants to structure San Francisco? How the techbros would wear grey shirts, and their Republican friends would red shirts, and everyone else would be forced to wear blue shirts, and those with grey and red shirts would get preferential treatment, because they would buy out the cops?

It’s a chilling article; I recommend reading it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

You shouldn't be. The rich supporting fascists (and vice versa) is nothing new.

:::spoiler Excerpts from Blackshirts and Reds, by Michael Parenti

To impose a full measure of austerity upon workers and peasants, the ruling economic interests would have to abolish the democratic rights that helped the masses defend their modest living standards. The solution was to smash their unions, political organizations, and civil liberties. Industrialists and big landowners wanted someone at the helm who could break the power of organized workers and farm laborers and impose a stern order on the masses. For this task Benito Mussolini, armed with his gangs of Blackshirts, seemed the likely candidate.

In 1922, the Federazione Industriale, composed of the leaders of industry, along with representatives from the banking and agribusiness associations, met with Mussolini to plan the "March on Rome," contributing 20 million lire to the undertaking. With the additional backing of Italy's top military officers and police chiefs, the fascist "revolution"—really a coup d'état—took place. . .

In Germany, a similar pattern of complicity between fascists and capitalists emerged. German workers and farm laborers had won the right to unionize, the eight-hour day, and unemployment insurance. But to revive profit levels, heavy industry and big finance wanted wage cuts for their workers and massive state subsidies and tax cuts for themselves.

During the 1920s, the Nazi Sturmabteilung or SA, the brown-shirted storm troopers, subsidized by business, were used mostly as an antilabor paramilitary force whose function was to terrorize workers and farm laborers. By 1930, most of the tycoons had concluded that the Weimar Republic no longer served their needs and was too accommodating to the working class. They greatly increased their subsidies to Hitler, propelling the Nazi party onto the national stage. Business tycoons supplied the Nazis with generous funds for fleets of motor cars and loudspeakers to saturate the cities and villages of Germany, along with funds for Nazi party organizations, youth groups, and paramilitary forces. In the July1932 campaign, Hitler had sufficient funds to fly to fifty cities in the last two weeks alone.

In that same campaign the Nazis received 37.3 percent of the vote, the highest they ever won in a democratic national election. They never had a majority of the people on their side. To the extent that they had any kind of reliable base, it generally was among the more affluent members of society. In addition, elements of the petty bourgeoisie and many lumpenproletariats served as strong-arm party thugs, organized into the SA storm troopers. But the great majority of the organized working class supported the Communists or Social Democrats to the very end. . .

Here were two peoples, the Italians and Germans, with different histories, cultures, and languages, and supposedly different temperaments, who ended up with the same repressive solutions because of the compelling similarities of economic power and class conflict that prevailed in their respective countries. In such diverse countries as Lithuania, Croatia, Rumania, Hungary, and Spain, a similar fascist pattern emerged to do its utmost to save big capital from the impositions of democracy. . .

Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their big business patrons by privatizing many perfectly solvent state-owned steel mills, power plants, banks, and steamship companies. Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to refloat or subsidize heavy industry. Agribusiness farming was expanded and heavily subsidized. Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations while assuming most of the risks and losses on investments. As is often the case with reactionary regimes, public capital was raided by private capital.

At the same time, taxes were increased for the general populace but lowered or eliminated for the rich and big business. Inheritance taxes on the wealthy were greatly reduced or abolished altogether.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

The ~~billionaires~~ rich buy both parties now.

🌎👨‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

[–] btaf45 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Dem leaders prefer Trump to a real structural progressive economic reform.

Literally no Dem in the entire country prefers Traitorapist Trump to even a house plant. Trump and "real structural progressive economic reform" are completely disconnected things. It's not even remotely an either/or choice.

[–] NatakuNox 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

He could energize the electorate by ending the genicide in Palestine, nationalizing the rail industry or Boeing, expanding the Supreme Court and investigating their corruption, or displaying unlimited support for clean energy and dismantling the fossil fuel industry. But I doubt any of that will happen.

[–] AgentDalePoopster 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It won't happen because Biden doesn't want to do any of those things. The DNC would rather risk the nation crumbling into fascism than take any of those steps to stop it.

[–] btaf45 1 points 5 months ago

The DNC would rather

The newly elected delegates this year literally is the DNC. The smaller group of caretakers do not have the legal power to purge the large number of elected delegates. And these delegates are bound by the party charter to vote Biden on the first ballot. Unless Biden releases his delegates, which he could do and might do if convinced he is not the best choice to defeat Trump. So I am hoping that behind the scenes Dems are working furiously to convince Biden to release his delegates so that Gavin Newsome can be the nominee instead.

[–] BarbecueCowboy 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I think we've been operating on the false assumption that the Democratic partys primary goal is to win. I would wager that as far as campaign contributions go, it's likely better for them financially if they barely lose. I feel like the past few presidential races have been the American populace trying to force them to win anyways when they obviously didn't want to.

A lot of their decisions make a lot more sense in that context.

[–] TokenBoomer 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It’s easier to fundraise as an opposition party.

[–] btaf45 1 points 5 months ago

It’s easier to fundraise as an opposition party.

Any funds raised can only be used to win elections, not to buy themselves candy and ice cream. But if they don't win they don't get any personal gifts from lobbyists or cushy jobs after leaving office.

[–] btaf45 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

it’s likely better for them financially if they barely lose

LMFAO that makes absolutely no sense. The only use of the money they raise is to win elections. It's not like if they lose they can use the leftover money to buy a new car. If there even is any leftover money, which there almost always is not.

[–] BarbecueCowboy 1 points 5 months ago

I admire your optimism, but even if you aren't willing to bend the rules and stick to the letter of the ethics rules, you can still use campaign funds for a fairly broad amount of items. And, if you are willing to bend the rules... when's the last time you heard of someone getting in trouble for misuse of campaign funds? If you remember one at all, i'd wager it was George Santos, and it took a huge amount of misuse there for people to start paying attention.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Show real people who have been helped by Biden's policies in the commercials.

People don't trust institutions anymore. They don't trust authority anymore. But put a real person in front of them and there's a chance a plurality won't call them paid actors and will understand that things are getting better.