this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2025
159 points (94.9% liked)

The Democratic National Convention™ of Libjerk

200 readers
190 users here now

Dunking on Liberals from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.

Dems keep working with trump to approve his picks, but what they won't accept is that if you sit down at a table with nazis, the only thing that's changed is the number of nazis at the table. @_cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Rules:

We allow posts about liberal behavior even off fedi, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion.

Sister community: !tankiejerk@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Inspired by !tankiejerk@lemmy.world

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

This is about corporate money, not policy. They guy refused corporate funding. So now you're talking about a new generation of politician that can't be bought. Is it any mystery that a person earns millions as a senator or house member?

Senators only make 174k. I say only because they all end up millionaires. How does that add up?

They want to keep getting paid, this guy throws a wrench into that system.

[–] BenLeMan@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago

Refusing corporate money IS a policy.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 10 points 1 month ago

If you refuse corporate money, your policies will stop being corporate policies (otherwise there is no point in not taking the money). This is also why the billionaires and their prostitutes in the political sphere are so scared.

Principally someone who makes 174k can definitely safe up enough money to become a millionaire over a period of for instance 20 years.

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You had me at "throwing wrenches"

[–] Lucky_777@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Well....if you can dodge a wrench!

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago

Now that a nominee isn't a centrist, centrists have dropped the "blue no matter who" facade to demonstrate that "party unity my ass" is what they always were.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'm not a usaian so I might be missing something but isn't the most radical thing this guy has said something like: "I think people who have literally too much money to spend should have too much money to spend (smaller) so we can feed people and give them medical care"?

Does the mayor of new york even have the power to move on that? I would've assumed they like direct bureaucracy providing infrastructure and chair council meetings and shit.

It's pretty cringe to see handwringing over this guy make it all the way over the Pacific. He's a mayoral candidate, for people outside his council area or whatever isn't this a huge nothingburger?

[–] darkdemize@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The establishment is worried that his success will spark a wave of actual progressive candidates instead of do-nothings who talk a weak opposition game and then cave under the slightest pressure.

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 month ago

It was extremely funny to watch the usa Democrats go from "trump is literally a fascist he will destroy America" to "welp, vote in four years folks. Follow evil directions until then".

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Unless there's weapons to sell to a genocidal regime.

Centrists will never back down on that one.

[–] ThorrJo@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 month ago

The NYC mayor is pretty powerful in terms of both budget and political sway: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-23626980

[–] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 month ago

Chuck Schumer scored a massive victory over the republicans by *checks notes* making them rename their bill

[–] y0kai@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Out of curiosity, what is stopping a politician from accepting copious amounts of lobbying "donations" then just saying "thanks for the money, dickheads" and making laws against the corp?

If one can do that, I might get into politics.

[–] TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

they won't get the donations for the next campaign, that's what. all that money will go to their opponent and the companies will probably take out a PAC to run ads against them.

politicians aren't self-sacrificial noble people either. they are in it for the money and power, and for the huge benefits they will get post-political career by coming lobbyists themselves.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 0 points 3 weeks ago

But if they can’t control you in the first place they would go against you to get someone they can.

You’ve got nothing to lose by “backstabbing” capitalists.

[–] RebekahWSD@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I don't think there's anything stopping that, except they probably wouldn't give copious amounts right away. Give you a little, see if you dance for them, and then if your did, more money. Can't give you the gravy train early, you might do what you're planning on doing, even!

[–] hark@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Of course it was. If the party wasn't promoting garbage candidates, they wouldn't need to rely on such a thing to try to take your vote for granted because people would happily vote for candidates they think will actually help them.

[–] El_guapazo@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Always vote blue so, Maintain the status quo!