this post was submitted on 07 Feb 2025
551 points (100.0% liked)

World News

48099 readers
2039 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The United States has announced the approval of the sale of more than $7.4bn in bombs, missiles and related equipment to Israel, which has used American-made weapons to devastating effect during the war in Gaza.

The state department has signed off on the sale of $6.75bn in bombs, guidance kits and fuses, in addition to $660m in Hellfire missiles, according to the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA).

The proposed sale of the bombs “improves Israel’s capability to meet current and future threats, strengthen its homeland defense, and serves as a deterrent to regional threats”, the DSCA said in a statement.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 83 points 4 months ago (8 children)

While I don’t disagree, I feel like we need to talk more about how disconnected the Democratic Party is from what their base actually wants. Them being diet republicans ain’t cutting it

[–] [email protected] 41 points 4 months ago (2 children)

True. But at the same time you're not going to get any of that by not voting and letting Republicans get elected. I mean get you butts out there and primary these centrist lead weights.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

primary these centrist lead weights.

This. Right. Here.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

No they'd rather sit on the couch and complain that the dinosaurs are dinosauring and won't switch to communist revolution like they believe everyone wants, even though they've never left the couch.

If they actually went out and tried to become local politicians to effect change they would probably see that their ideals are far less popular in real life among normal people outside of the terminally online crowd.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Ah yes, the "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" argument for electoralism. It doesn't matter who we vote for when they get laundered through the lobbying machine on the highest setting after or even before they get into office. Tell me, who is at the top of this list? https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary?code=Q05&cycle=All&ind=Q05&recipdetail=M

I'm saying this as someone who has voted democrats straight down the ballot in every election I could. It doesn't work when money is more powerful than any vote.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If the DNC allowed that y'all wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. I mean hello? 2020 was four years ago.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

2008 was the last legitimate democratic primary

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Doesnt this boil down to the usual "the left falls in love, while the right falls in line"? hard to fall in love with your alliy's ongoing war crimes and lefties are renowed for not falling in line even against their best interests. Makes it hard to win as an incumbent, though, how did Obama win reelection, he wouldn't have been mistaken for a saint the second time round.

PS: got it, it's because Romney still couldn't make the right fall in line hard enough comparing with the love for Obama.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Have you actually looked at their platform? Or are you just repeating "Republican lite" because that's what all your social circle says?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This kind of feels like a loaded question, but yeah, I’d prefer it be more progressive. I’d like for Nancy and the other old guard to accept that they’ve got to move out of the way for the next generation to take the helm. Instead she blocked the new blood from higher committee positions. The attacks on her insider trading stick for a reason. I wish the same ones didn’t bounce off republicans but they’re clearly scott free of any accountability from their voting base, unlike the left which is constantly infighting.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Nancy Pelosi actually doesn't do any trading, the man she married while still in college owns an investment firm and in the USA married couples have joint assets.

One of the biggest allegations of Insider Trading was when VISA credit company offered them stock options just before a big legislation regulating VISA went through, but Nancy actually voted against the company's interests anyways.

In many years, Paul's portfolio operates at a loss and the two of them don't even make the list of top traders in congress.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Gee, would have been nice to have democracy a few more years to maybe try and fix it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Fix what exactly? It isn't that the democrats are a new party that suddenly popped into existence for the last election. They've been doing this shit forever.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

... mmhmmm. I guess no democracy is better then. I'm convinced.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

No, it isn't. But acting as if democrats were / are willing to change and listen to the people is extremely naive. That's the reason Bernie Sanders was never allowed to be a candidate despite being one of the most popular dems out there. There needs to be a third way / party that does better and claws out the democrats from ever being able to win.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They do hold primaries, ya know.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (3 children)

They let non-party-favored candidates run in the primaries just like how this kid is allowed to mow the law

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Maybe start at the local level and build a community of like minded people to form a cohort to enact change instead of trying to start at the top and then throwing a tantrum when you don't get your way after putting in none of the work or effort to better the party from the ground up like all the other established politicians have.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In 2020 Biden got 19 Million votes and Bernie got 9 Million

Are you saying it was all a big scheme and that it was all fake? You think tens of millions of voters choices don't matter?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Biden was getting his sorry ass kicked until South Carolina where he got one critical endorsement to edge out a slight victory. Then the party's buddies in big media ran a "Biden miracle" story and the party got all the other candidates to drop out and put their full support behind Biden just before super Tuesday. They also funded a PAC to keep Warren in the race to split votes with Sanders. Thanks to the moronic primary process, after that point it's like a snowball rolling downhill because by the later states, it will appear as if one candidate is the guaranteed winner so supporters of other candidates won't bother showing up. It's why superdelegates were used in 2016 to make it look like Clinton was too far ahead for Sanders to matter. All that plus it's a party-controlled process where diehard party supporters are more likely to vote in that process than normal voters, so you'll have an automatic bias for the party favorite (some milquetoast center-right stooge).

If you want to ignore all that and focus on raw dumb numbers, then you should consider that the voting population of the US is much greater than ~30 million people. Do you think all those other voters' choices don't matter?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think Bernie would have been a better choice, but it wasn't even a close race with 19 Million to 9 Million. It wasn't even close. No amount of PAC funding can have that huge of an impact or we would have seen that disparity in the Generals as well. It was 67.85% to 32.14% if you don't count the other candidates, a lead of 35.71%. Biden literally doubled the Bernie Sanders vote totals.

That's not corruption. That's how US Citizens voted in the primaries.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Thanks for ignoring the entirety of my response to return to the raw dumb numbers without the context. You remind me of people who post crime statistics of Black Americans to try to prove a racist point. Don't bother replying if you're just going to ignore the counterargument.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

If you think you can argue with numbers that's more on you than me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not through the party-controlled process.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

We are are walking on the same side of the street now. Please, flesh out your position because it's not clear what you intend.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is the trillion-dollar question. How does one combat a system so dominated by money? I certainly don't have the funds to lobby politicians and the politicians certainly won't agree to change the system that showers them with gifts and power. This same system leads to greater and greater wealth inequality. The top 10% wealthiest Americans own two-thirds of the wealth: https://www.statista.com/statistics/203961/wealth-distribution-for-the-us

Even if wealth distribution was more equal and the bottom 90% had more wealth in total, it's a lot easier to get fewer people to agree with collective action and to control the narrative with a coherent policy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think you maybe misunderstand. That user was asking what your plan was. Could you state very clearly that you have no plan at all and that you just wanted to talk about how you don't believe in voting?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You misunderstand the complexity of the problem. There is no simple and clear plan because it's not a simple and clear problem to solve. I'm pointing out that voting doesn't work because it clearly doesn't. It's there to make you think you have a choice and to divert blame to someone/something other than the billionaires who control the system.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I have a simple and clear plan.

Vote blue no matter who.

Every single important policy I have an opinion on, Republicans oppose. Therefor, removing all Republicans will naturally make progress towards all of my beliefs, including taxing the rich.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm already following your plan. It isn't working.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

If you're sitting here telling people it isn't working, then you're not following the plan. You spreading doubt has a tangible effect on people, it is the opposite of what we need.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I'm sure you'll win the lottery someday. Just keep trying!!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

What does he need to "flesh out"? The dems won't let anyone in outside of the "establishment". It needs to be entirely torn down to actually listen to people voting for em

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Please explain how you would do this.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

There are new democrats all the time. The old guard can't live forever.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The old guard has lived for hundreds of years. It's naive to think someone new will come along as if the old guard isn't the ones keeping all the keys to the castle. Especially with the US and the literal politician dynasties like Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes and others.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Bernie Sanders WAS a presidential candidate in multiple primaries. He LOST those primaries by a HUGE MARGIN.

And then HE PROMOTED THE CANDIDATES WHO WON AND WE DIDN'T LISTEN TO HIM.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Shhh. They don't want to hear facts.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

I feel like we need to talk more about how disconnected the Democratic Party is from what their base actually wants

Did you feel this need before the election too? Because a lot of people did and that is who we're talking about here.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

They couldn't win an election as diet republicans.

They're not going to win if they move further left.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Democrats lost because they didn't embrace populist rhetoric.

If they just ran someone like Bernie they could have won. People are tired of the status quo and they thought Trump would be a way out of it. All democrats run on is "we'll keep things the same".

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)