Not exactly helping the proles.
Not exactly helping the proles.
You're viewing a single thread.
279 comments
-
For anyone that wants to really know exactly what the conservatives plan to do against the American people, read their ”Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership."
At least read the Forward, but here's the whole PDF:
https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
The rhetoric just in the Forward is frightening, disgusting, and dangerous.
We MUST vote for the Democrats if we're going to maintain any semblance of real freedom for everyone and not just conservative white people.
-
(Side note, I found it hilarious that the "Forward" felt like it was 1000 pages down. And reading that much BS made me feel gross.)
Ok so, the Project 2025 thing is terrifying. Their Forward is terrifying. They have no plan for making this country better for anyone except themselves. They state very clearly they want to delete anything they don't like.
They want to ban books and open discussions.
They want to deny racism exists or ever existed.
They want to deny that biology exists outside of their narrow minded beliefs.
They want to force a single religion on everyone.
They cite problems and point the finger at everyone except themselves.
As if it wasn't abundantly clear at this point based on their ACTIONS what Republican rule will be... And yet we still have millions of people fully invested in that cult of hate and fear.
-
I'm not American, but reading the Foreword was just plain scary to me since it comes from a major party. There's nothing about economics and all about moral outrage. You guys need to diversify your parties somehow.
-
Yeah, by voting 3rd party. But the vast majority are too stupid to realize that they need to be apart of the change they seek instead of voting for the "lesser evil".
-
-
Bruh. I'm so fuckin sick of this 2 party bullshit.
"We Must vote for the Democratic party"
How about no. Fuck the Democratic & Republican party.
-
I’m sick of the two party system also but also recognize that’s the system in place. Requires voting reform for that to ever change, which I support. I’m still going vote for democrats in the meantime because anything else, to include third party or abstaining, is ultimately supporting the republicans whether one wants to admit it or not.
-
If enough people, 5% of the population, voted 3rd party in one election, it gives the 3rd party the ability to get on the ballot in every state. This goes a long way.
Neither side wants ranked choice voting. Neither side is going to give up power.
We have to vote something different to change the 2 party system. Not going to change itself.
-
Exactly!
-
I'm sick of voting which seems to go nowhere.
How about we all just do something instead.
-
-
-
So what's your plan to stop the US from turning into Gilead? Wear lots of black clothes and whine about it?
-
I can't speak for the previous commenter, but I know that not voting for either party is my plan. Everyone that votes out of fear of "the bad one getting elected" is part of the problem. How about something you can vote for instead of something you're voting against?
-
Thanks for enabling fascists because you can't be bothered to do the bare minimum.
-
Democrats almost got rid of abortion entirely.
both parties can fuck off.
-
The fuck are you talking about?
-
-
No, the people enabling fascists are the ones voting for them. I don't take that notion of enabling fascists to heart at all in this context, not sorry either. For the record, when the Democrat party undermines citizens almost as badly as Republicans, it occurs to me that they're not my party anymore. Thinking railworker strike, trade deals, erosion of support for US jobs, and lacking the spine to push through socialized medicine. I'm also thinking about how Bernie should have won the nomination instead of Hillary but the undemocratic superdelegates supported her against the will of the popular vote anyway, with the literal explanation of the superdelegates being that they are there to stop undesired grassroots efforts from being successful.........and here you're pretending they're somehow not fascist themselves?
Dream on, we need the two parties thrown out, and to quit bickering amongst citizens and unite against the true enemy - billionaires who want us to vote the way we have been.
-
Dream on, we need the two parties thrown out
I'm sure you'll get right on that, right?
-
Every time I vote, and have done so for the past 6 years. Sucks that all the other sheep don't wake up.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Thaaaank you. Looking at you getting downvoted cause idiots don't understand we can do something better than this two party bullshit.
-
But you're supposed to pick a side and be willing to literally lay down your life for them and their cause! Ra ra, go team go. Otherwise you're just part of the problem according to either side.
I agree with you and I'll go a step further and say fuck all politicians in general. Today, they're all owned in some way by the money that puts them in power. They'll all tell you what you want to hear. They're all experts in half truths. Never trust a politician.
-
Politicians are owned by their constituents, who they overwhelmingly vote in alignment with.
The whole "politicians are owned" thing just doesn't show up in any data whatsoever.
-
Take one look at who the biggest lobbyists in the US are. Then compare that to the most glaring issues we have in the US. I'll wait.
-
Here's a link of the top US lobbies, and I'll go ahead and spoil that it isn't what you'd think - for instance, no energy lobby makes the list.
Also, you'd think actual votes would be more along lobbyist lines than constituent lines but they are not.
https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders
NAR for instance would absolutely love zoning changes that create more homes to sell. That's a lobby we should listen to.
But again, we don't, because getting re-elected is always of paramount importance.
-
You're joking right? https://www.statista.com/statistics/257364/top-lobbying-industries-in-the-us/
And for you last point about NAR, I have doubts. I could see home builders and home buyers benefitting from zoning changes. It would drive down costs of a new home, open up more choices for home buyers, and put construction companies to work. Realtors are middle men who work off commissions. The more they can sell a house for the more commission they make. Realtors have a vested interest keeping the market balanced in their favor.
-
Realtors with more property to sell make more than realtors with less property to sell. Do you know actual realtors? The vast majority are not selling a few multi-million houses and calling it a year.
Look at what they lobby for: https://www.nar.realtor/advocacy/federal-advocacy/all-federal-issues
A recent NAR study estimates that the U.S. has developed an "underbuilding gap" of at least 5.5 million housing units over the last 20 years. This translates into more than $4 trillion in underinvestment in housing. Even relatively modest steps taken now to reduce this gap will unleash tremendous economic activity and create millions of new jobs.
Multi-family housing proposals are a core plank of their program, for instance - and yet politicians don't listen to them because their constituents don't want them to
I'm not sure what you think you're arguing when you call me out my link then share data that agrees with my link.
Your preconceived notions are incorrect, and lying about data doesn't make it correct
-
Yes I do. None of them are selling affordable single family homes.
As a matter of fact multi-family housing is leading a housing construction "boom" as of articles published 6 days ago.
Here's a quote from MReport:
Further, almost two-thirds of the apartments build during the pandemic are clustered in just 20 high-growth metropolitan areas, which make up about 41% of the total renter population in the U.S. Therefore, for many other places, the new supply barely made a dent in the existing supply. What's more, around 89% of the apartments completed in the last three years are high-end and, thus, target upper-middle- and high-income buyers and renters.
So they are building "multi-family homes", but targeting, wait for it, people with lot's of money.
So you quit lying.
Come to think of it, you're singling out the and focusing on the real estate angle pretty hard. Why is that?
-
It doesn't matter who they're targeting, because they're increasing supply
You're so desperate to have all lobbyists be inherently bad that you're not thinking things through.
Real estate is easy because local ordinances prevent building, and congresspeople are held accountable locally. We can discuss any lobbying if you'd like and are willing to learn.
I'm a climate lobbyist, for example.
-
Continuing with the real-estate discussion (I know, now I'm focusing on it ;-) ), I whole heartedly disagree. When ignoring the needs of the lower 75% of the country's wage earners, and focusing your efforts on the upper 25%, something is glaringly, obviously wrong, and saying things like,
It doesn’t matter who they’re targeting, because they’re increasing supply.
shows a level of privilege that most people in the US cannot fathom or afford, myself included. That statement says...a lot, but I don't want to devolve into ad hominin bs because now you've piqued my interest.
Honestly, and I genuinely mean this, yes, I would love to know what a climate lobbyist does.
I know tone doesn't translate via text very well, but I can assure you I'm not desperate to have all lobbyists be inherently bad. Am I angry? Yes, but never desperate, and I'm not angry without reason. I've seen it directly, more than once in my lifetime, politicians and policy be influenced by the efforts of lobbyists and their money. Not just something I read in the news, heard on the radio, or saw on a website. I've seen funding pulled from one project to another because of lobbyists. Not because the project the funding was being pulled from wasn't worthy, but our lobbyists weren't as good (or willing to donate as much) as their lobbyists.
It's a system that allows to much room for abuse, is abused every single day. Even if for something as noble as a climate lobbyist, the quote "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I would think still rings true (religious connotations notwithstanding).
Now don't ask me how to fix it all because I have no clue. Maybe it's the best we have. I dunno. 😂 I just choose, like I said earlier never to trust a politician. They're all owned in some way by the money that puts them in power.
Edit: I do want to say, I am enjoying this discussion. Thank you for making a long day at the office a little bit more interesting.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm curious as to how being a politician is even a job? Do they get salary? If so, from what? How do they pay their mortgages?
-
Politicians are almost all paid (some things like city council aren't necessarily paid). Many politicians have "day jobs" they only leave once they reach a level of office where they can live off the pay.
Speaking very broadly, the cutoff is generally "state rep or higher" or "in a big city" where you can lean on politician as your main source of income.
-
I like how "day job" is in quotes. That makes it seem even sketchier than I originally thought lol
what kind of "day jobs" are we talking about here? Are they in an office?
And yeah, how do they have time to be a politician if they have that day job going?
-
I've worked with local politicians in office settings, as salespeople (trained a city councilwoman as a saleswoman once), etc. They also sometimes own businesses (a bit of selection bias there because that "plays" really well to the electorate).
Most political jobs that aren't state/federal arent very demanding of time. School board, local government, etc, is generally unpaid/low pay and very much part time. If you can carve a couple nights a week, you can work in local gov.
-
They also sometimes own businesses
Ah yeah. The kind of people who already had money to start a business in the first place.
If you can carve a couple nights a week, you can work in local gov.
That seems like not nearly enough time to be putting into something that is meant to change how things work. Government is incredibly slow though, I'm aware...
None of this is making them sound.. well better.
-
Most people start a business via a small business loan, which is surprisingly easy (in my view) to qualify for. You also only need like $50 in my state to register as a business owner.
Lots of relatively poor people own their own business. I ran my own consultancy for a while and I was definitely not rich.
Couple nights a week is plenty when you're on city council for a town of 10,000 people. There aren't that many hearings
-
Most people start a business via a small business loan, which is surprisingly easy (in my view) to qualify for. You also only need like $50 in my state to register as a business owner.
Now this is really wild to me. If I walked into a place and tried to get a business loan, I guarantee they'd say no to me REAL quick.
I don't think only rich people own businesses but I think people who are able to be in a place financially where they can get a loan to start a business, are probably better off financially than say, some no body like myself.
There aren’t that many hearings
Jesus... is that based on locality or? That almost sounds like no one is really doing anything. What do they actually do?
Also I want to add, I have thought about getting into politics and the reason I don't is the reasoning behind these questions. I can't imagine having a job and doing this but really only doing it like politics are my hobby and hearings are my little meet ups.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
279 comments