Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
I like Buttigieg the most, but I don't think he has enough time to be built up for this election. I'd be excited to see him as a VP ticket, or for next election.
I think that Kamala is our best choice, but I worry that our country isn't ready to vote in a female president. We're still so ridiculously misogynistic that it would be comical if it wasn't such a fucking travesty
Pete needs to go mayor some more. He had a few good ideas during the primary, but as Transportation Secretary I'm astounded at his lack of ambition.
There are a handful of administration officials -- Lina Khan first among them -- who've learned to use their power assertively to make changes to broken systems. And Pete... he seems like he just pops up when another piece of infrastructure breaks to let us know that he's on it. Maybe he's doing something more, but if so he's doing it very, very quietly.
Bro... Lina got put in place to show that feds are "trying"
The judiciary is clearly not impressed.
Wall Street Pete is there to cover up railroad accidents and Boeing bullshit. I don't think he even has good intentions, just management consulting zombie being put in place to do corruption for the elites.
If I can be frank, I'm reading from your tone that you're not here for polite, factual persuasion. But if I'm wrong, or someone else sees this, I gotta drop a fact check on the 'Lina can't win cases' myth:
https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/out-with-a-bang-as-ftc-beats-the
It's kind of a deep dive, but it's worth it.
This issue won't be solved via executive agency.
It requires an act of congress since the current regulatory regime is broken.
She just got put in place for act like feds are doing something. It is a circle jerk.
I get that y'all spinning anything you can latch on as a W for the Democrats such as people are making more money under biden ... lol
If you think that limp dick FTC has the power or the legal underpinning to regulate mega corps in 2024... Have fun!
You know, for a guy with the username "Sunzu", I feel like you're demonstrating a remarkable lack of vision of power dynamics.
First, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not invested in holding up that party.
Again, I'm talking more to any audience than you in particular: when someone says that any attempt to use power creatively is a waste of time, I think that is either ignorant or in bad faith. The SIZE of any given effect or the use of resources in one place or another can be certainly debated, but the logic of the revitalized antitrust movement is very, very sound. Power has been left unused, and now people like Khan and Jonathan Kantor are learning how to use it again, and showing others.
The logic you're outlining runs in contradiction to what we might call "The Bork consensus". A lot of the issues we face WERE developed through regulatory capture rather than legislation, led by Robert Bork under Reagan. If you don't want to use that power for anything, feel free, but I'm going to evangelize using every tool available. And these are pretty big ones.
This was sort of my impression to. Like I loosely liked him, but couldn't really tell you what he's directly responsible for. Which isn't a bad thing on its own and doesn't mean he wasnt doing a good job, just that I don't know much about him.
I would disagree. The only reason the last woman to run for president failed was because she was Hillary Clinton. If she'd have been virtually anyone else, she'd probably have won.
I think you underestimate how sexiest the United States is.
Yeah, even women hates other women.
The reason she lost is she let someone media hack convince her to wear that smile.
Why does he need to be built up?