this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
881 points (99.4% liked)

Political Humor

1258 readers
146 users here now

Welcome to Political Humor!

Rules:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] thatradomguy@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

Huh... that almost sounds like a public... good. Tickle me that.

"Building affordable housing" oh the horror! Who would do such a thing?

[–] Renohren 1 points 5 days ago

As a bus driver in Europe whose driven on free and on paid routes: I understand how fare free buses are a great point for politicians to run on but in reality it doesn't change much bus usage and (the biggest problem IMHO) People tend to respect less the bus hardware and the bus drivers themselves (probably for some psychological reason of directly paying for something gives it value). Augment bus frequency, create more bus/cycling lanes would be a better project.

[–] Sumocat@lemmy.world 153 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Access to food, transportation, housing, it’s almost like he thinks the job of government is providing decent infrastructure.

[–] harrys_balzac@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Or "insur[ing] domestic Tranquility,...promot[ing] the general welfare." The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.

[–] Infinite@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Wolf 2 points 6 days ago

OOOOH, he had "Welfare" in his name, must be a woke liberal!

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 87 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

People act like $30/hr is high. Note this would be the mayor of NYC, so it would be raised for NYC only if he got his way. The cheapest place you can get to live on your own there I am finding is 2600 a month. So say you made 30/hr. That's $62,400 working 40 hours a week. Take out Federal/state/city taxes ends up being around $46,112 take home. The place costed $31,200. Making the lowest rent findable in Manhattan 2/3 of $30/hr.

They wouldn't be able to get approved to even live there if they tried. They would have to rent a room from someone else with a 4 bedroom place renting to 4 people for around $1200/ month. And share bathrooms/kitchen/living space with people. And they would still struggle to get by if they paid for health insurance, travel costs to and from work, food, and the whole living crap.

$30 isn't radical for NYC, it's like base needed salary... And hope you have a good stable relationship with someone else making the same, then maybe you can get your own place together, just don't do something stupid like get pregnant because you can't afford to not go to work, and can't afford to put them in daycare so you would both have to uproot and move real quick finding jobs elsewhere.

[–] crumbguzzler5000@feddit.org 25 points 1 week ago

Wait, we are gonna vote for a guy who is going to make renting a room more affordable?! COMMUNISM!! I WONT STAND FOR SUCH LUXURY LIVING CONDITIONS! /s

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] BigMacHole@sopuli.xyz 57 points 1 week ago

Jesus would NEVER Approve of ANY of these! AFFORDABLE housing? Jesus would BURN it to The Ground! PROTECTING your Neighbor? LAUGHABLE! This is the MOST Anti Jesus Platform EVER! Where's the ELIMINATING Healthcare? Where's the ELIMINATING Homes? Where's the HURTING your Neighbors? Where's the JESUS!

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 41 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Here's how I think they see this:

Landlords will go out of business. For-profit grocery stores will go out of business. People I don't know won't suffer (there's even more letters at the end and I don't know what they mean; that scares me). Businesses will have to pay more to operate, therefore prices will rise for me to protect profits. Brown people will still be where I have to see and interact with them.

Conservatives are fearful. They think when someone gets something good, it's by taking from them. Fuck 'em.

[–] tfm@europe.pub 9 points 1 week ago

Brown people will still be where I have to see and interact with them.

They don't even try to hide their racism anymore.

[–] bytesonbike@discuss.online 39 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] ArchmageAzor@lemmy.world 37 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Americans will just go "this guy wants to instate free healthcare, cleanse police corruption, and to stop bombing the middle east!" and expect you to reel back in disgust.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

I mean, most politicians do.

[–] Wilco@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago (7 children)

Because their MAGAt base will in fact reel back in disgust if any of those things are proposed. If "the libs" want it, then MAGA is programmed to hate it.

See how the fox piece looks? It has the politicians face, then they let MAGA know the guy is a "lib", likely with the set up talking points. That is all MAGAts need, a face and to know the person is on the other side ... from there anything else mentioned about the person is automatically bad.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] shplane@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes but many of these would require taxing the rich, which I’m against because I might somehow become rich one day through virtually no effort or understanding of how one becomes rich to begin with

/s

[–] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 week ago

That's it right there. Just mentioning the phrase tax the rich has become enough of a catalyst for the punching down to intensify. Keep the pressure on.

[–] bytesonbike@discuss.online 31 points 1 week ago

You know they're mad

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 29 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

This is the future that those who are controlling the conservative platform are trying to prevent.

Make no mistake this is and always will be a class war about stealing the value of workers for their own personal gain.

[–] WiseScorpio@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Democrat leadership is also not happy with Mamdani. He isn't following the rules, like David Hogg, or AOC.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Demdaru@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (4 children)

City owned grocery shops? I...wut. This breaks my mind. Not in WTF is this way, just how would this work. Curious how it will come out and hoping for the best.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 5 days ago

well at least outside of the US there's tons of government-owned businesses, it doesn't really mean any major changes outside of how the administration works.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 50 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

The city owns and runs the grocery stores. They're not required to make huge profits and can therefore offer reasonable prices. They can buy directly from local suppliers, thus creating or securing local jobs. Basically, if you cut out all the bloodsuckers, things become much better.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] nandeEbisu@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago

It's a pilot program for a few stores.

The city currently has a program where they're paying private grocery stores to try and mitigate food deserts, but there's so few strings attached it's just free money to the shops.

He's proposing ending that, and using the money to directly open grocery stores in food deserts run as city owned coops.

It's not infringing on private business because they're not operating in these areas anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scutiger@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago

What a monster! Making the lives of people better, like a maniac!

[–] vivalapivo 17 points 1 week ago

That's some poor propaganda, comrade fox news. You should've rendered it in Arabic or Chinese to scare them out

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Its crazy that NYC still can't afford free public transportation. City literally has more expensive apartments than yearly cost of operating busses.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Gowron_Howard@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Of corse they are. All of these things will actually help people.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›