undergroundoverground @ undergroundoverground @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

517

Joined

1 yr. ago

Tbf, those same billionaires are pretty powerful but yeah, you're right and it's tragic.

You're right to reject the logic behind that because it's nonsense. Its not making sense to them because they still presume some kind of good faith when it come to these sorts of things.

The reason we haven't built more nuclear power stations is because oil, gas and coal companies will make less money, if we build more nuclear power stations.

They have the means, the motive and they have a well recorded history of being that cartoonishly villainous. Nothing else makes sense.

"VPNs are haram but tor browser truly is the work of Allah himself"

Some guy, maybe.

Its also exactly the kind of thing you'd expect to read about in the onion.

This is beyond mear irony.

Because they didn't have to imagine it, as its a pretty standard affair.

I wish you the very best of luck. The main issues you'll have will be, in order: funding, funding and funding.

Anyone being serious about this will have to spend most of their time thinking about that. Its why they always, eventually, end up being g captured by the powers that be. But they can do a lot of good before then, in the right circumstances.

One solution is through part of the party being a sort of union of trade unions. Unions have money, similar values and members who would potentially join. Membership subs would be another. They can do an awful lot of good but unions can also come with their own long list of problems you'll have to keep your eye on.

Whatever name you choose, check out the formation of political labour movements, as a kind of road map to building what you want. An example would be the labour party in the UK or NZ. It'll have to be done your way and for an American electorate of course but im sure you won't need any inspiration from me or any other country for that part.

Then this would be the first time in modern American history that this has happened. If so, then thats a huge thing and most likely, it'll be the social media owners now being more disproportionally ppowerful. That would be more in line with everything that's happened before.

Youre also relying on accurate self reporting from musk, the republicans and trump there.

I'm basing what I've said on whats happened before. Election spending won't be reliably verifiable this quickly.

On the contrary, they're more important now than they've ever been. There also hasn't been an election where the highest spender didn't win. Its THE determining factor.

The same people who fund presidential campaigns for Republicans also spend lots of money on influencing democratic nominee choices. The whole things been captured.

Its like you all can't see the woods for the trees, in the politest way possible. You see the state of trump and all the things that make him an aweful candidate and you say "how could the dems not beat that" instead of "what on earth could exert so much influence that even being that terrible couldn't stop him?"

There's no amount of "the dems not having a strong enough message" that overcomes the divide in the candidates, without huge influence. Their campaign wasn't great but no where close enough to lose to someone like trump, in a fair fight. It would've had to have been utterly shocking from start to finish and, as bad as it was, it wasn't that bad.

In capitalist America, Ambulance chases you.

I don't think you're allowed to burn boy scouts.

"Yeah, well, not enough of you people chose to die horrible, painful deaths at the hands of the brutal blood soaked dictator our country put into power. Therefore, it's your fault too."

Lemon flavoured tree cancer

Imo, you've got all the prices. However, I would put them in a different order.

Short answer: Republican or Democrat, the candidate that spends the most wins. Therefore, fund raising is winning.

There's a small group of king-makers in the US and the candidate who offers them the most becomes president. Recently, the people who decide who gets to be president has started to include social media companies and amazon, who hosts half the Internet. Trump also cozied up to the American owner of the company the owns tiktok. Thats how he won. Trumps also great for social media engagement and news channel views.

Even candidates who happen to be better than the republican candidate, no democratic hopeful worth being of "the left" will ever be given enough money to become the president of America. Even if they started from a position that would appeal to them, they would have to compromise on everything that made them that in order to be allowed anywhere near the Whitehouse by the American ultra wealthy.

What you're seeing isn't the failure of the Democrats to correctly triangulate but the strength of the American ultra wealthy consent manufacturing machine.

You seem like someone who would ask "why should I vote for better oppression?" without a hint of irony.

Still, it's good to see that you'll be alright, either way. That's good to know, at least. I'm glad you won't be effected by any of this.

As what often happens when people who aren't white and male try to join these sorts of country clubs, they have to be even more extreme in order to prove they're "one of the good ones."

Edit: spelling

Next they'll be wanting jobs, to own property and to wear trousers too!

In the history of politics

They do realise that there were political ads during the suffragette movement, right?

You would have to define how you're using "have to" here. I mean, I wouldn't try to come and attack you for neither agreeing not disagreeing with a subject you still managed to have such strong a need to inject in.

Partly because you might be bigger than me but mostly because I generally only see doing that as soemthing I strongly frown upon, in even the most severe of cases. I'm not particularly keen on forcing people to do anything, in fact.

Really, though only you can answer that question.

I'm glad we agree that our lives are probably better now than they for the people who literally had to live in caves, thousands of years ago, though. Thank you for including that important point.

Work has never been so unstressful, if you look back at the history of mankind.

I agree that it was even worse before. Although, I'm a little puzzled as to what point is being made. Are you agreeing with me or not? I can't tell.

Industrialization killed workers with 60 hour shifts in unsafe environments. Middle ages made you work 18 hours a day once you were 7 and made you starve if the harvest was bad. In the stone age your family died from hunger after you got killed on the hunt.

Life expectancy was never as high as today.

Looking back at what I wrote, what point is all this agreeing with or refuting?

To me, it seems like you're arguing that the passage of time is a good thing. I don't remember saying that the passage of time wasn't good.

I know what you mean, when I put to nazis and bigots, through various civil discourses, the most agreeable and cordial justifications for their systematic capture and extermination or deportation, to my great surprise, they never acquiesce to any form of intellectual exchange, regarding the legitimate concerns I raise.

Its the most bizzare thing because, just previously, they'd been more than happy to declare thus and so the most polite and reasonable argumentations supporting the very same thing for other people. More so, they many were lamenting how unfair it was for them to be denied the opportunity to pontificate on such matters, just a short time previously.

I'm sure you can only imagine my surprise when they did this, after their claims of wanting nothing more than "civil discourse."