this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
959 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4732 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cyd@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is a composition effect. Democratic candidates who run for safer, more left-wing constituencies feel free to propose more radical left-wing policies, especially if their main threats are other democrats during primaries. They then go on to win because they're not running in competitive elections. You can use the same reasoning to conclude that Republicans who attack abortion and socialism do better in elections.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 16 points 7 months ago (3 children)

I don't buy it. Red states hate billionaires even more than blue states. Centrist Democrats have nothing to offer to Republican voters to change their minds. Progressives speak directly to the economic issues that plague red states.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I mean, red states elected a billionaire because he was a billionaire.

But Centrist Democrats think that if they just kick progressives harder, they'll gain the favor of the three remaining moderate Republicans.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 11 points 7 months ago

They elected a billionaire because he attacked other billionaires. He voices their rage at the "elitists" in Washington, and he pretends to be one of them.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Red states hate billionaires even more than blue states

(citation needed)

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

They often just call them elitists, bankers, or "Jews".

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That's not supporting evidence.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

Where is the evidence to the contrary? That was the original assertion.

[–] ripcord@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

No, it wasn't.

I asked for evidence for a claim. You didn't give one.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

That only proves that they hate Jews more than blue states.

Republicans equating "elite bankers" with Jews, and then you equating that to billionaires, doesn't actually make them the same thing you know..

[–] 5too@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I think they hate the "generic billionaire", but are they any actual billionaires they hate?

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Bill Gates and George Soros are a pretty obvious examples.

The only notable counter-examples are rich celebrities that give them permission to be shitty, like Trump and Elon.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

And they love oil barons, and bankers are their heroes, and Jeff bezos is soooo cool with his penis rockets.
They really love billionaires more than they hate them. They just don't like the charity ones.