They are part of the problem, but not the answer. An answer would be how we can ensure that everyone supporting their enterprises shares in their wild wealth and success. There could be many answers to that. And Democrats need to pick one and drive it.
It should be said that Musk is manufacturing cars in the US, which is more than a lot of manufactured goods companies can say.
The Democrats’ plans for the working class are tweaks. A little tax credit here, a little minimum wage bump there.
But the working class in America have been experiencing long term systemic structural changes that permanently disadvantage them, globalization being one of them.
Between shipping manufacturing jobs elsewhere, and allowing in immigrants who do menial work, people at the low end of the economy are pretty pinched for work. People will say “Americans don’t want to pick fruit” and there’s some truth to that. But there definitely are Americans who want to mow lawns for a living and they’re constantly undercut on price by guys from Mexico who sleep 10 to a room so they can send a few dollars back to family in the old country. I love and admire those guys, don’t get me wrong, but there’s no question that people at the low end of the economy feel pinched from both ends, and one side of that pinch is the commodification of unskilled labor due in part to an unbounded supply of immigrants.
Trump voters see his policy on tariffs and they don’t think “hm economists say this could lead to a drop in GDP.” They see a structural policy shift aimed at bringing manufacturing back to the US. However ill-conceived it might be doesn’t matter. It’s big, it’s bold. It is a fundamental reordering. Economists flap their hands and Trump voters say “good - run scared, you Wall Street pimps.”
If I sound like I’m defending Trump voters, I’m not. But I absolutely believe that the Democrats have to offer more than tweaks and handouts to address the working class.
America spends huge amounts of money to project power abroad. We’re the richest nation by far. Why isn’t that benefitting the working class? These are real questions. Trump has all the wrong answers, but Democrats don’t have any answers. And frankly they are a bunch of moneyed elites, and I don’t throw that term around much. Look at the personal net worth and residential addresses of top Democrats and you’ll see rich people. They have a lot to lose in Bernie’s revolution and they don’t believe in it.
Sometimes being a single issue voter happens because people just care that much about that one issue. But there’s a natural tendency for anyone’s decision to come down to one thing. Complex issues are complex, most people don’t know what’s right. But then they do have ONE thing that they consider black-and-white, so that influences their choice. It gives them something they feel they can say to others “I just can’t bring myself to vote for someone who XYZ…”
Because let’s face it: no one wants to hear your entire list of political calculations. People’s choices are absolutely influenced by thoughts of how they’ll justify themselves to the people they know. And having one big pithy thing to say is more convenient than a subtle position based on a score of factors.
Humans are social, emotional, idiosyncratic shortcut machines, not logic engines.
Another commenter made the point that the washer placement is influenced by where the plumbing is, and plumbing generally fans out from one location where the main enters the house, and the direction of the sewer is also a factor for the drain. This is a bigger deal than running a duct for the dryer vent, which is a one off thing not dependent on a central system. So again, it gets back to the builders one way or another.
It was frequently humid when I lived along the Persian Gulf. It’s not like the entire region is sand dunes in the middle of nowhere.
Are the room and door arranged so that the washer is the first thing you come to when you walk in? I’d bet this is also a factor, in addition to the left-to-right thing.
It’s decided by builders, though, when they install the hookups and vent, so this question is really about what they are thinking, not any of us.
I don’t accept the argument that as long as 51% of people vote for something, it should be good to go. We have a constitution, you realize, and you need more than that to change it. Is the constitution suppressing democracy? You’re talking about a kindergartener’s view of “majority rule,” not American democracy. And thank goodness, because I heartily believe that 51% of people would vote for some ghoulish shit, like boiling immigrant children in oil. And there you’d be, shrugging and saying “ahem - 51%, people.”
Go off and think it through a little better. I’ll be here when you get back.
In what way would barring felons lead to barring gays? People use the words “slippery slope” to make their point, even though it’s literally the name of a logical fallacy. You have to show HOW one will lead to the next, not just say “a little might lead more!” That, exactly, is the fallacy. Textbook.
I actually feel a lot like I did in 2004. I felt sure that Bush’s lousy wars would be his undoing. Then people signed up for more of him and I realized “Oh, he isn’t the problem. It’s the electorate.”
You can say with hindsight that we shouldn’t be surprised, blah blah, but the truth is that a couple of days ago, most of us were saying “there’s no way people would actually RE elect this criminal, crazed, orange clown!”
And here we are. He could take a bullet tomorrow and we’d still share a country with all these deplorable people. Hilary took shit for using that word but she’s a smart lady and didn’t stutter.
Thinking back to the one debate he had with Harris, Trump blathered nonstop about immigration. He talks about it like a wave of moorish invaders sweeping across the land, pillaging. This is obviously a powerful Image if you can get people to believe it. And in some areas people have been feeling like American culture is giving way to Mexican culture as the population in their home towns shifts, so Trump’s rhetoric taps into something that was already there. And if we’re honest, border policy is a weird zone where many of the laws don’t make intuitive sense. America talks out of both sides of its mouth on the issue, historically. A lot of people are here illegally whom we depend on utterly to staff our economy. So their presence is in some way sanctioned, tolerated, but not fully legitimized in law. When someone comes along and articulates one clear direction on immigration, it sounds like someone is speaking clearly for the first time. Even if that direction is stupid, hateful, xenophobic, and economically unviable.
One difference though is social media. Reddit was able to gestate and grow without that massive clusterfuck sucking up all the internet’s oxygen. Nowadays with all the social media sites proper plus Facebook groups AND let’s not forget Reddit itself, there’s just massively more competition for attention online. The old 1.0 web forums are still around, many of them, but they’re small and relatively static. That could also be Lemmy’s fate.
Digg had a large viewer base and there was a lot of skullduggery going on amongst people who figured out how to game its algorithm, get on the front page, and direct traffic to some URL. But without actual data I would venture to guess that Digg and Reddit had roughly equivalent bases of actually genuinely active community posters and commenters and a lot of people were on both. Once Digg got taken over by the spam posters, it died off and Reddit remained. Reddit definitely inherited its mantle and probably many community members, but not the massive viewer audience.
I was on Reddit when it was small. So you never know.
Perhaps the lies of a serious politician are more significant than the ramblings of an insane clown.
I mean it’s literally right there in the Constitution without room for interpretation. If the Supes pretend to just throw that out then we’ll have an actual civil war on our hands.
Here’s a pet peeve: people who “both sides” the entire American political spectrum because they are SO uninformed that everything looks the same to them.
Here’s another: people who “both sides” the entire American political spectrum because taking a position is more difficult than saying “bah I’m above the whole shit show.”
I remember a guy much further down that “catalyst” line of thinking telling me that things have to get worse before they can get better: a phrase that’s easy to bust out as a grand conclusion to huge sweeping societal problems, but is based on absolutely nothing.
With turnout being the decider in our elections, I think it’s of critical importance if a candidate scares the shit out of the other side. Hilary Clinton for whatever reason definitely pushed conservative buttons and got them to the polls. The Trump phenomenon was happening at the same time, but we can’t discount the anti-Hilary energy.
While the right certainly doesn’t like Kamala, their hatred is nothing close to what the left feels for Trump. Between that and Roe, if we can’t activate voters and take this election, then we really have lost the country, and Trump’s second term will only dig that hole deeper.
No pressure, America!
On top of his excellent coverage of fossil fuels, I just love the way this guy does videos.
It’s probably worth asking “what are the next steps for citizens of Portugal to stop the destruction of Palestine?”
Or Honduras or Australia or South Korea or Madagascar.
Because it’s now the same answer. You can do whatever you as a private citizen can do. Our friend’s dad travelled to Palestine and rode in on a boat loaded with construction supplies, sort of “throwing his body” in the path of the IDF to directly physically help Palestinians (he’s Jewish, btw).
Of course this was before this full scale war. I wouldn’t recommend this action now. Send money to aid groups. Whatever you could do from the suburbs of Cartegena, that’s what you can do as an American.
You can’t do anything about the policy from the top now. That’s a sealed envelope.