Despite the best economy in the world AND Netanyahu backing Trump.
The stupidity is off the charts.
this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
251 points (92.5% liked)
politics
19144 readers
3944 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The problem is the term.
Politicians and pundits talk about the economy referring to the stock market.
Citizens talk about the economy referring to the supermarket.
The US government can only directly affect the former, and most of our nation just can’t comprehend that.
Nixon attempted to freeze grocery prices for 90 days with an Executive Order. It resulted in emptying grocery stores and record inflation when the order expired. It was called the “Nixon Shock.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
If you want the government to control the price of food, then you should probably move to a communist nation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/business/worldbusiness/07iht-controls.4.11735373.html
load more comments
(3 replies)
The cognitive dissonance required for the economy being both the "best " and yet also people can't afford bread is a privilege that people living pay check to paycheck simply can't afford. Child poverty hit its all time low under Biden. Then it doubled under Biden . More American's are living paycheck to paycheck than ever before: now a majority. Look at the memes and conversation happening in the memes here on lemmy. The struggle to afford basic goods and services is a constant theme.
When you gaslight people, telling them to ignore their lived experience and to "trust" an analysis of economy that clearly only serves billionaires: What do you expect that does to their trust in your rhetoric?
Just so everyone knows. Child poverty went down because Dems had enough power to expand the child tax credit as part of Bidens American rescue plan. The expanded credit then expired and Republicans have blocked passage of the renewed expansion. This is another thing where Republicans will do anything to harm Democrats including voting against extremely popular programs. I agree that it sucks the poverty went back up, but Dems reduced it and Republicans increased it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(23 replies)
Have people been keeping up on the news? Like privately Biden has been feuding with Netanyahu for months. It’s not like Biden is on board with what Netanyahu is doing. He’s been trying to change the course, but publicly attacking Netanyahu would have drawn a ton of fire from the right, which he was trying to avoid during the election season. It shocks me that people really think Biden is cheering this on.
Election season is over, why is he not going public?
So let me get this straight: I'm supposed to vote for someone who thinks it is too politically inconvenient to be publically against an ongoing genocide? Who is sending arms and aid to a nation committing genocide??
There were snipers on the roof of my college because of the pro Palestinian protesters. Pro Palestinian protesters get lumped in with antisemites due to just having human empathy. The voters needed something more than what we saw in the news: furrowed brows, hand wringing, and money sent for bombs. Palestinians die wretched deaths even if you feel real bad about it.
I can imagine the energy that we all could have felt if Harris/Biden had actually did the right thing.
I voted for Harris by the way. Not because I expected she'd end the genocide, but because Trump isn't a statesman and can't be trusted if we get dragged into war.
load more comments
(7 replies)
Why do people have this idea that the economy will do better under Trump? Where did this come from?
Peoples lived experiences under Trump turned out to be better than their current ones under Biden, pretty simple. It's all vibes.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." -George Carlin
load more comments
(2 replies)
Generations of propaganda that "Republican = good economy" is my guess.
I think whats missing from many analyses is the general unhappiness people have with the current system. People are suffering now under establishment politics and they don’t believe that more of the same will improve their lives (citing, justly, at least the past 16 years as an example). They are hungry for something radically different. Trump appeals to that sense of radical change on the right. The democrats have blocked their own left wing alternatives and stuck with running establishment candidates.
I don’t believe the economy will do better under trump. I don’t believe people will do better under trump. He is a fascist and his populism is all based on dangerous ideas and lies. However, I am also terminally online and politically engaged. I can easily imagine how someone less engaged can be duped by his lies. It is therefore essential that the democrats provide an alternative left-wing populist candidate that also promised genuine changes to the economic system. So that these voters have someone to turn to who isn’t trump or the inevitable future trump clones. But they’ll never allow that to happen. It threatens their donor class too much.
From propaganda and ignorance.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I'm skeptical she would have done anything differently than Biden in terms of Gaza. There was plenty of polling out saying that voters, especially potential Democratic voters, overwhelmingly would favor her more if she differentiated herself on Gaza. Once she got the nomination locked, there was nothing really stopping her from making some changes. Yeah, Biden would not have liked it, but what was he going to do, endorse Trump? Plus, he didn't actually spend that much time campaigning. And as unpopular as Biden was, his endorsement really didn't mean much.
My point is that Kamala had everything to gain and nothing to lose by changing her Gaza stance. She chose not to because she didn't want to offend some very wealthy conservative donors. In the end, it didn't matter. She still massively outspent Trump, just like Hillary did. What Democrats can't realize is that fundraising dollars are less important than actual appeals to voters. Yes, fundraising is critical. But passed a certain point, ads lose their effectiveness. Once you've already spent a billion dollars, everyone has already made up their mind. At that point, it's more about getting out your base. And the problem for Democrats is that the same policies that will make them very popular to wealthy donors also make them unpopular to the voters they actually need to win over to win at the national level.
Democrats should just focus on appealing to actual voters and forget the donor class entirely. They have proven that they can raise more than enough money in small-dollar donations to produce all the messaging they need.
Kamala wouldn't have changed Biden's positions because the only logical time to change your policies to appeal to voters is when you actually need to appeal to voters. I could see Kamala telling voters she'll confront Israel, then turning her back on that plan after the election to appease donors, but there's no reason she would change her policies after the point such a policy shift could actually help her. Donor dollars can come in at any time, but voters are only important during the campaign season.
What Democrats can’t realize is that fundraising dollars are less important than actual appeals to voters.
trump: "I'm going to fix everything for you and lower all you costs without any knock on consequences to you of the working class."
DNC: "It is not nearly that simply, but I'm going to do what I can to improve your lives"
A GOP lie is cheaper than a DNC truth.
Then you run on:
"I'm going to establish national single-payer healthcare!"
"I'm going to break up the big grocery stores that are responsible for all the inflation!"
"I'm going to reign in and break up big tech!"
"My opponent wants to exterminate the Palestinians, and I will save them!"
"My opponent is a trans porn addict and is obsessed with them because of this. That's why he's always talking about trans people! It's weird as fuck!"
As a politician, exaggeration and making promises you know are a stretch are fine. You are a politician, not a journalist. It's OK to claim things that are aspirational.
This is what's killing modern democrats. Trump is not afraid to state his ideal vision for the world and promise to fight for it, knowing full well he won't even achieve half of it. Meanwhile, Democrats come up with these convoluted, slimy, meek programs that are dense tomes of policy papers only a few beltway consultants know or understand.
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(30 replies)
I see a lot of comments that basically summarize the constituent feedback as "well I guess they're just stupid then, can't wait til the leopards eat your face."
First, keep alienating these voters, sure. See how far that gets you in the next election. We need to be listening to and understanding these voters now more than ever if we are ever going to get out of this. Whether you like it or not, their vote carries as much weight as yours (maybe more depending on what state you're in).
Second, responding to economy concerns with "well actshually, the economy is amazing. What you mean is inflation" is about the worst response you can give. It's incredibly dismissive. When someone is scared that they can't afford a house, can't see retirement, can't buy groceries, they don't care about GDP or stock market numbers. Whatever Biden tried to do to alleviate their concerns wasn't enough. Inflation stopped but wages didn't catch up enough. Trump promised to fix it. He is a charlatan but desperate people will cling to anyone who gives them hope. What they experience is a system so incredibly slow to respond to their needs that the "Fight for $15“ really should be the Fight for $30 at this point.
The reason Trump and AOC are popular is that they directly speak to these concerns, whether they have a plan to fix it or not. Both speak of systemic change to make it happen. Establishment candidates don't.
What this election has taught me is that until the Dems learn to actually prioritize working class needs over identity politics they will lose. Every time. Look at how even women's reproductive rights was not enough to get them to vote Harris, and yet on states Trump won where there were proposals to protect abortion access, those efforts were successful.
First, keep alienating these voters, sure.
Fuck 'em. What are they gonna do, elect a dictator?
Being the loudest dickheads in the room has been the maga brand since at least 2017 if not slightly earlier. The fuck your feelings party. The party full of the folks no one wants to spend a family get together with or talk to about anything of substance because of their unmitigated ignorant racist and bigoted bullshit.
I'm getting a little sick of being told we need to mollycoddle them while they continue jamming their fingers in everyone's eye at every opportunity.
Edit-
Yes, amen, thank you. Abortion beat Harris by 20 points in my state! Clearly there are a lot of Trump voters who are with us on some things and we need to find to common ground to build a bridge and connect us so we can fix this. That common ground is pretty freaking obvious since 99% of us have one thing in common. But Nancy Pelosi has already said no so you need to fall in line and do what she tells you.
load more comments
(2 replies)
No, I also felt like Harris felt she wasn't allowed to veer too far from Biden since she was his VP, but had plans to change course more once she took over.
I had the same suspicion, but I feel that's just as unreasonable as Trump voters saying, "I didn't think he would actually XYZ."
"We can't push policies that cause deflation! That will cause people to put off buying things and cause a economic recession, which will cause more deflation leading to a neverending ending spiral! Lets just hold inflation to 2% per year and hope people's jobs eventually given them raises."
We have been putting off buying things for years! Houses, cars, cloths, food - if the price goes down, no one will go 'oh, I'm going to wait a bit longer and see if it goes down more'. No, we will buy like crazy! Every administration that ruled over this inflation spike - be them left wing or right wing - has seen their electoral chances tumble. But god forbid we see even a hint of deflation.
Deflation just doesn't happen in a bubble though.
From my understanding the primary lever that can be pulled for this is the Fed interest rate. With a high interest rates you're trying to decrease the amount of money institutions spend and rather increase the amount that they invest/save. As it becomes easier to make money by buying bonds than by reinvesting into your business. This in effect removes money from the economy.
The problem here is this means businesses also spend less on salaries, thus triggering layoffs. This then also has a downward pressure on inflation as the working class ends of being layed off as unemployment rises. This puts more and more pressure on businesses to cut costs as more and more people have less disposable income to spend.
This is the downward spiral that's being referred to here.
In effect you can't create defationary policies without causing high unemployment, at least in a capitalist society.
Take a look at the history of the Great Depression and the New Deal that helped the U.S. get out of it. Effectively the government had to create jobs to stimulate the economy as businesses couldn't or wouldn't shoulder that cost but the government could. As disposable income rose, so did spending and in turn inflation turned positive again as unemployment fell.
The main problem is that people don't understand that the Vice President does not set monetary policy. Neither does the President. The Federal Reserve is supposed to be completely immune to political pressure. Fortunately, King Donald will do his best to put an end to that.
I happen to believe that the current policy was correct, and averted even worse problems - but that does not happen in a matter of months. If Trump somehow fails to fudge up the trajectory we are on, he will get to take credit for policies enacted during Biden's presidency (again, not by Biden, but nobody will care).
We really need AOC to step up and run in 2028, then pivot to the Senate for the rest of her political career.
There's nothing left for republicans to say about her that they haven't said about Hillary, Biden, or Kamala.
At least this way we actually energize our base and if we win we actually make progress. Keep up the momentum and we might finally be done with this shit show.
DNC in 2028: We’re finally ready to learn our lesson from 2016+2024 and listen to our base. We hear you loud and clear: “No more female candidates.” We will be reallocating AOC’s delegates to Chuck Schumer.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Harris went from: The genocide in Gaza must be stopped at all costs
To: Israel has a right to dEfEnD iTsElF
Someone with a lot of money or influence got to her. I don't think she was going to changed position back, no.
load more comments
(6 replies)
The responses to Ocasio-Cortez from split-ticket voters included:
- "It's real simple… Trump and you care for the working class"
- "Trump is going to get us the money and lets men have a voice. You're brilliant and have amazing passion!"
- "I feel like Trump and you are both real."
- "I know people that did this and it was bc of Gaza."
- "You are focused on the real issues people care about. Similar to Trump populism in some ways."
- "Because of Gaza"
- "I voted Trump and dems because he reached out to Muslims"
load more comments
(4 replies)
No.
Giving Netanyahu 'what-for', in my understanding, would be ...
... stating that the US would immediately cease all further shipments of any military materiel and financial aid to Israel that can be used offensively (ie, not Patriot Systems or Iron Dome)...
... and that if Netanyahu does not cease his expansion into Lebanon, withdraw from it, withdraw from Gaza, allow food, medical aid and journalists into Gaza...
... and resign from his position as President and his dismiss his entire cabinet, and agree to face at least the numerous domestic charges of corruption against him in court, in Israel...
Those last two parts have a 60 day timeframe.
If those aren't met, cut off everything, freeze Netanyahu and high up Likkud party member's personal finances the way we did with Russia.
... Something like that would be giving Netanyahu what for.
That was obviously never on the table.
Kamala just would have continued running propaganda defense for Israel as Biden had done, watching more and more 'red lines' get blown through and giving some meaningless bs explanation why, if even acknowleding it at all.
Maybe she would be slightly more vocal about allowing aid in. She would not actually do anything to make that happen, but maybe she'd make a tiny bit of a show of it.
She said it herself. No meaningful differences from Biden's approach.
So yeah in that regard, you have ludicrously wishful thinking. You must not know very much about bog standard corporate mouthpiece flavored Democrats.
Would this have been better than Trump?
Yes. Despite his extremely dubious public claims to want to end wars, he will obviously greenlight even more military aid to Israel, probably directly provoke Iran publically, either conduct or help the Israelis conduct a wave of air assaults on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, probably more than that.
Basically he'll demand all the stuff we've given to Ukraine back, give it to Israel, and heavily pressure if not outright demand Ukraine surrender by the end of April.
Why did they think Trump is going to help Palestine? He'll give Israel a black cheque to end Palestine completely.
load more comments
(4 replies)
I don't know why anyone thought Harris would change course on Israel beyond mere wishful thinking. She made it abundantly clear numerous times that she was going to stay the course.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Sadly i had the same wishful thinking. Not that it matters mind you. Because she said she sided with Isreal, and wether she meant it or not at this point is moot.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I've often assumed Harris didn't want to insult her boss by going against him, because I got the impression she was planning to give Netanyahu what for once she took over - especially with him escalating things further and further. Did anyone else get that vibe, or was it just wishful thinking on my part?
Wishful thinking. There’s no guarantee this happens. You would have just removed the most powerful motivator for her to do something about gaza while simultaneously demonstrating to her that she had no reason to do so. All the while AIPAC and the ADL are breathing down her back and offering her bribes not to. It would be like expecting me to build you a house after randomly sending 1 million dollars into my bank account. Why would I? I have the money now and have given you no guarantee that I would do so in the past. You’ll just see me chilling in the Bahamas.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Lovely, well as far as I know, the genocide in palestine will stop under Trump...
...when all the palestinians have been wiped out
view more: next ›