The feeling’s mutual.
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2025
275 points (98.6% liked)
politics
20419 readers
5592 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Sounds horrible, Y'all need to sit down and play luigi's mansion to help make yourself feel better
I wonder how Luigi came to possess said mansion....
Mansions must be public properties.
Krugman has been odd lately.
After spending decades slavishly carrying water for the moneyed class, he's been on a notable anti-Trump lately.
Which implies two possibilities - either he's finally developed some principles and integrity at this late date, which is unlikely, or the moneyed class support for Trump isn't quite as universal as the broligarch stranglehold on social media has made it appear...
If the rich were all in on Trump, one must suspect that the dems would have a much harder time fundraising whenever elections come around.
The very richest are — but the professional class, which can shell out $3000 every few years, isn't. And the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire is almost exactly a billion dollars. It's still very doable for Democrats to raise the kind of money it takes to be competitive.
Yeah. Unless they were paid to lose?
Krugman leaving the NYTimes may partly explain his newfound candor
My impression is that Krugman has been there since 2015. Did a scan through some of his old columns, like this one:
The point is that we shouldn’t ask whether the G.O.P. will eventually nominate someone in the habit of saying things that are demonstrably untrue, and counting on political loyalists not to notice. The only question is what kind of scam it will be.
After spending decades slavishly carrying water for the moneyed class
That hasn’t been my experience reading his columns, you got some examples of this?
So his Substack is basically “Paul Krugman Unleashed” which it turns out is pretty glorious. Example: his “Health Insurance is a Racket” post starts off with a bit of Saint Luigi art.
For the most notable examples of which I'm aware, go back to the period surrounding the subprime mortgage debacle (which he defended), the real estate market collapse (which he insisted wasn't going to happen literally right up to the moment that it did) and the subsequent Wall Street bailouts (which he supported).
I ran the numbers for you boss. tl;dr 50% R, 25% D, 25% swing.
748 billionaires in the US and per gpt:
Determining the exact political affiliations of U.S. billionaires is challenging, as many do not publicly disclose their preferences. However, analyses of political contributions provide some insight into their leanings.
In the 2024 election cycle, 150 billionaire families contributed approximately $1.9 billion to federal campaigns. Of this amount, $1.36 billion (72%) supported Republican candidates, while $413 million (22%) backed Democrats. The remaining funds were directed toward other causes or independent candidates.
Notable examples include Elon Musk, who donated $133 million, with the majority supporting former President Donald Trump's campaign. Conversely, some billionaires have supported Democratic candidates; for instance, during the 2020 election, a survey indicated that more billionaires leaned toward Joe Biden over Donald Trump.
It's important to note that political contributions can vary significantly among billionaires, influenced by personal beliefs, business interests, and policy preferences. Additionally, some billionaires contribute to both parties, aiming to maintain influence regardless of which party holds power.
He’s an old man, he should be careful.
Edit: hmm, I wonder how much could be him being egged on to go as overboard as possible, so when he finally keels over, being old as shit and with such a terrible lifestyle, that his successor can roll back just a quarter of the shit he’s done and look good to the centrist apolitical fucks
That would be nice if they actually rolled back something
Between encouraging the consumption of raw milk, the anti-vaccine policies, defunding of FEMA, leaving the WHO, and censorship of public health information he's going to wipe out a significant portion of the population.
As President, he should lead by example.
federal health agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes for Health, have been ordered to pause all external communications, including health advisories and scientific reports.
NIH, in particular, appears to have been effectively put in lockdown, with even routine meetings canceled and employees forbidden to travel.
I know the WHO cancelled travel and meetings are to be virtual to save money as funding is uncertain.
Once everyone is replaced by robots, what do you do with this useless population anyway ? /sarcasm.
I thought the British already tested Capitalism's reaction to surplus population in Ireland?
He already had got the votes he needs, if his dipshits now die off in droves, that's just fine with him.
when did we have public health to start with?
But wait, there’s more: federal health agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes for Health, have been ordered to pause all external communications, including health advisories and scientific reports
never used science to begin but instead cash to buy the government agencies even before Trump