this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
105 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25183 readers
2636 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Congress faces a Dec. 20 deadline to avoid a government shutdown, likely passing a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government until March 2025.

This would delay a full spending deal but give Republicans more influence under Trump and a GOP-controlled Senate. However, it creates an early funding deadline in Trump’s term, complicating his agenda on tax cuts and immigration.

Democrats retain power to shape legislation due to the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.

Disaster relief funding and House Speaker Mike Johnson’s re-election further complicate negotiations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

How did Harris try that exactly? By calling them weird? Oh she didn't go as far as standing up for American citizens with crazy out-there ideas? Oh all her ideas were starting from a position of compromise with Republicans to begin with?

What the fuck are you talking about? The most "outrageous" she got was calling them weird. She wasn't demanding billionaires in shackles. Give me a break.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They're not going to demand billionaires in shackles, that's the issue.

Your idea is just as outrageous.

My point is the only proven successes for Dems in the last election is for candidates that separate themselves from monied interests and focus on what's best for the common man. It doesn't matter what national paper covers their campaign.

We need more Guzofskis, not some Trump analog in the DNC https://www.newsweek.com/democrat-triumphs-republican-stronghold-warning-sign-trump-1828406

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

And I think you're really overrating the success of folks like Guzofski, especially considering this article viewed him as a "warning" to Trump a year before Trump was re-elected and Republicans won all three houses of government.

Like, what fucking crack are you even smoking to still be playing such a losing fucking game. Get angry, get wild, make unreasonable demands, make the media cover you. That's what Trump does and it fucking works.

He's out here threatening to annex Canada, and people won't shut the fuck up about it because it's so unhinged. You can't argue, this dumb shit dominates the news cycles.

The reason people stay home is because Democrats aren't fighting tooth and nail for us, instead always starting from positions of compromise and then compromising further. Separating yourself from monied interests isn't enough, you have to put your money where your mouth is and take fucking risks for your citizens. If that means saying something risky just so the media will pay attention, so be it.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The news cycle is a distraction. My argument is all politics are local and that's where the GOP is eating the DNCs lunch. Fed judge appointments, groups like Moms for Liberty, local news channels parroting GOP talking points. National reporting is a distraction as all the papers are owned by billionaires. They'll report on whatever new shiny that passes by. Apparently it's working well because you're proposing to feed directly into it and give them more power.

https://apnews.com/article/moms-for-liberty-donors-revenue-gop-schools-70d733e024d81f7ad054b0f321e67647

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump

https://www.investopedia.com/billionaires-who-bought-publishers-5270187

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wing-propaganda-infiltrates-local-news-220756559.html

https://chomsky.info/consent01/

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

Dude the time to give a shit about media consolidation was 40 fucking years ago, when Manufacturing Consent was god damned published. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is calling and wants to remind you that media consolidation was kickstarted under Bill Clinton. Oh yeah he signed off on the Copyright Term Extension Act to give Disney a break, too. The Clinton's literally pioneered the act of shooing protestors out of the picture frame so everything looked better on TV. The 1995 film Spin covers it in great detail.

That window of opportunity has long past, and the Democrats embraced media consolidation 30 years ago, get over it. We play by the rules of the system we live in, not by the rules we wish them to be. The rules of this ecosystem demand angry, bombastic, over-the-top to catch clicks.

Further, we are literally on a site no one will go to because it's too janky because it's all open source and volunteer, but the corporate funded Bluesky is massively popular, despite owing tons of money to Blockchain Capital. People talk big but are generally too pussy to go with anti-corporate options.

[–] horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Electoral reality doesn't align with your loud shouting unfortunately

“So voters in some places are making real distinctions to say this is not somebody who is aligned with Trump or represents him in the same way, or this is someone who has the state’s interest in mind in a way that other candidates don’t,” he said. “And that really is a different story from one state to the next.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/09/ticket-splitting-2024-election/76098631007/