this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2024
230 points (93.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35754 readers
738 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Asking as someone from the other side of the planet.

From the things I saw about the US election, the Dems were the side with plans for the economy - minimum wage adjustments, unions, taxing the rich, etc. The Republicans didn't seem to have any concrete plans. At least, this is what I saw.

I don't doubt Bernie Sanders though - he seems like a straight truth teller. But what am I missing?

(page 2) 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 days ago (3 children)

From the things I saw about the US election, the Dems were the side with plans for the economy - minimum wage adjustments, unions, taxing the rich, etc

The dems are in power now, they didn't do those things, so nobody believed they'd actually do it if they were elected again.

Additionally, parading around endorsements from Dick and Liz Cheney, and promising to build a border wall, tax breaks for small businesses, and other republican policies from 2016 didn't help the perception that the dems weren't going to help people.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 9 points 4 days ago

look at how Biden talked about the economy.

After stabilizing from COVID, it took him 2 or 3 years to figure out and even acknowledge that inflation is killing people’s financial outlook.

The first mention of that at all was at the NATO thing right before he dropped out.

Sure, he was handed an absolute shit show by Trump; but the messaging was incredibly tone deaf about it.

Same tone deaf manner as the “we’re going to be okay” comment earlier. We don’t all have millions and 246k pension, free health care and 24/7 protection. We’re not okay now, and it’s not going to be fine.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 3 points 3 days ago

Ah, but didn't Biden throw the train union under the bus? I think he did. And neither Biden nor Obama pushed to raise the minimum wage to a living wage, and also to key it to the cost of living.

Even though Biden's regulators did take some positive action, a lot of that was this calendar year. Why did he wait so long? A cynic would say he didn't believe in what he was doing, but even a non-cynic would say that it was a bad way to campaign, because you can't erase 3 years of incompetence with 1 year of regulation.

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 6 points 4 days ago

That's probably the perception. Democrats have been in power for 4 years, things didn't get better for a lot of people and then they say to vote for them for more of the same. Surprisingly that doesn't help with voter enthusiasm. They'll have more chance next time with messaging things won't get worse with them after Trump mishandled stuff.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 12 points 4 days ago

The short of it is that "things are going fine" messaging doesn't work when things decidedly aren't going fine. When asked about the economy she said she wouldn't do much different from Biden. And yet she wouldn't even confirm or deny when asked whether she would keep Lina Khan. The DNC's messaging screamed "we're dishonest corporate stooges who won't give straight answers ", because they are and also incompetent. In the dismal state of the American economy today do you think that would get votes?

[–] Peppr@sh.itjust.works 13 points 4 days ago

As most of politics, it's sadly less about actual plans than it is about messaging through catchy soundbites - something the Rs definitely do better. (none that they'd act on any of it) Ds have spent a whole lot of time appealing to constituencies that aren't the working class, with messaging that doesn't work for them.

But it's not just that: Ds have materially failed the working class. They can screech all the want about "the economy" having gotten better under Biden, they're talking about the stock market, which is entirely immaterial to people who can't even save. What is material to them is "non-core" inflation (aka food and gas - it really takes an economist to come up with such a stupid label), which has gone up real bad. And many still remember Obama as having betrayed them by bailing out the banks on their backs, and working hard to save all that rot as status quo.

Yes, D policy would very obviously be better (long term), but a whole lot of working class voters don't trust that to be the case.

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

There are two components to this question. Did many in the working class feel that Democrats had abandoned them? And is Trump's economic policy actually better for the working class than Harris's? I think the answers are "yes" and "probably no". However, voters don't listen to economists. If they're not happy with the status quo, they vote for disrupting the status quo even if experts tell them that that's a bad idea.

I suppose Sanders thinks that the working class would have supported a Democratic candidate who proposed a leftward (as opposed to Trump's rightward) disruption. My guess is that that isn't true and socialism is still a dirty word in America, but who knows?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Identity politics, gun control, immigration, lagging economic recovery for labor, inflation and a distinct lack of ability to formulate a simple message. Sank Dems with the working class.

Policies are nice but most Americans don’t have a clue and don’t research anything.

Kamala spouted a bunch of policies and no message of hope. Trump had a bunch of headline grabbing antics and one liners. Guess which one wins with most Americans.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Identity politics? That's a republican issue. They bring it up. The most democrats do is block, but all the punches are thrown by the right in campaigns. I didn't even hear a gun control proposal this round.

[–] Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Did you happen to visit Kamala’s website during the election. She listed who she represented…. Black males, Latino Males, no mention of working class white peoples.

That is identity politics. If you wonder why white women voted for Trump, they did it for their sons who aren’t mentioned at all.

Both Kamala and Biden championed another assault weapons ban.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

How is this true?

No, it's not true. The liberals never had the working class' backs.

Liberalism fetishizes capitalism, remember?

I don’t doubt Bernie Sanders though - he seems like a straight truth teller.

He's not consciously lying - Bernie, like all liberals, actually believes you can (somehow) represent both the interests of the working class while also representing the interests of the capitalist class that is parasitizing off their labor. As any leftist will tell you, this is pure delusion.

[–] Rogue@feddit.uk 4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

I'm very intrigued by your definition of Liberalism. It doesn't correlate with liberalism across the world.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It doesn’t correlate with liberalism across the world.

Really? Find me an anti-capitalist liberal. that should be very easy if this...

It doesn’t correlate with liberalism across the world.

...was the truth.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm an anti-capitalist liberal.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No, Clyde. You're not.

You are just politically incoherent, like people who call themselves "fiscally conservative and economically progressive" (or whatever claptrap so-called "centrists" tell themselves).

Liberalism fetishizes capitalism. If you're anti-capitalist, you have abandoned liberalism.

This is not complicated.

Next you'll be telling me you're an anarcho-fascist.

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This makes you less of a capitalist bootlicker... how, exactly?

[–] GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't have to prove myself to you because there's nothing to prove.

It's a pissing contest, and I refuse to get piss on me.

But if that's your thing, I won't kink shame.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Again. This makes you less of a capitalist bootlicker… how, exactly?

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee -4 points 3 days ago

Of course you didn't provide your own. That's typical, sadly enough. We all know there are varying definitions, and if you're going to undercut someone else's, which may be a reasonable thing to do, why not bring yours to the table? ... But only if you care to continue the conversation.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›