this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2024
356 points (98.9% liked)

politics

19090 readers
3957 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Link to poll

It seems like "radical left policies" are supported by a significant majority of Americans.

top 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

When even a majority of Republican voters agree with Bernie...

It's pretty fucking weird when Dem politicians don't.

Conducted by Data for Progress, the poll shows that Harris and Republican nominee Donald Trump are locked in a dead heat in the six battleground states with three months to go before the November 5 election. A slim majority of voters across the states examined feel that neither Democrats nor Republicans "have clear solutions for the biggest issues facing the country," suggesting there's a significant opportunity for either candidate to win over voters with a concrete policy agenda thatcenters the material needs of the working class.

The survey makes clear that progressive policy objectives have widespread appeal across the political spectrum. For example, the poll shows that 71% of voters in the battleground states—including 89% of Democrats, 67% of Independents and third-party voters, and 55% of Republicans—want the wealthy to pay more in taxes, a sentiment that aligns with progressive goals and contrasts with those of Trump and the GOP.

The poll also indicates broad support for raising taxes on big, profitable corporations; expanding Social Security by "making the wealthy pay the same rate as the working class"; hiking the long-stagnant federal minimum wage; and expanding Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing benefits.

[–] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

55% of Republicans—want the wealthy to pay more in taxes...

These aren't Republicans then. They're just confused morons.

[–] InternetCitizen2@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

True, but they are still Republican; even if they support some of our position. They are not approaching it from making society better.

[–] tisktisk@piefed.social 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is there potential for Bernie to get a cabinet spot?

How Naive am I for asking and wanting this to be a thing?

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Consider instead, Fain as secretary of labor

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Oh... I should have worn my white pants.

[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Damn. Imagine pro-union not just being in support of them but helping to create new ones and expand those that exist.

That's how you rebuild the middle class!

[–] Not_mikey@slrpnk.net 15 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Overall pretty promising results, but the one that baffles me is the majority opposition to cutting military spending. Maybe I'm in a bubble but who the fuck looks at current spending levels and thinks that's a good thing, especially now that we aren't even at war. I guess the new cold war is ramping up with China but last I checked were still spending orders of magnitude more then them.

I always thought support for military spending was shallow and manufactured by the military industrial complex, but these polls seem to show a lot of people actually strongly support military spending. Looks like age is the biggest contributing factor, with under 45 supporting cuts while over 45 strongly opposing cuts. Maybe it's a cold war thing, of nostalgia and pride for the Reagan / top gun era american empire.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Perhaps it's manufactured well. I wonder how large of an employer is it. I can find data that shows it's in the millions of jobs but I don't know how many.

[–] angstylittlecatboy@reddthat.com 5 points 3 months ago

I think the Ukraine situation does more to increase the favorability of military spending than anything with China.

But mostly I think America being late to intervene in WWII still hangs over the American public's heads (to me it would seem this is the point when anti-interventionism stopped being the norm.)

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

The problem is that we don't really need to add money to make the country more secure. What we need to do is change the way the supplies are handled and it's save billions. When I was in, (02-08) I was talking to the SSG of the cooks and he complained that a microwave cost the unit $1,100. If instead he was able to just use cash from an account, he could have gotten the same one for $300. But instead he had to use the system in place. Everything cost WAY more than it should. This doesn't include mass supplies like clothing, guns and ammo, but regular items. If we could change that, we would be able to cut a little bit of funding and still save billions for development of new tech.

[–] IonAddis@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I wonder if Ukraine is having an effect on attitudes.

Anyway, I can't speak for others, but one thing I've come to realize through life experiences is that the best way to resolve differences is to behave civilly and talk. BUT. I've also seen that there are people who do not ascribe to or live by my preferences and ideals for this. There are people who don't value rationality, there are people who can't be shamed or pressured by society into behaving nicely and getting along with others. Those people respect the stick, and only the stick. I don't want to use the stick. But these people do not live by my ideals (which are to talk things out and behave civilly), no matter how I say pretty please to them, and it's foolish to project my values onto them when I see with my own eyes that they behave and react in patterns different to my own. They respect things that scare them or directly threaten them only, and continue to misbehave if all they're going to get for it is a finger-wagging and a scolding.

So it seems very wise to "speak softly and carry a big stick". The military is our stick. There are people out there who will behave in the most horrific uncivil ways right up until the moment they realize you have a big stick, then they'll suddenly rein themselves in, and you can then be civil and talk things out. But that opportunity to talk doesn't appear unless you actually have the stick when you're dealing with folks of that sort of mentality.

It's very important to look at your opponents with clear eyes and see what they ARE doing, not what you wish they would do, and not what you would do if you were in their shoes. As the saying goes, "When someone shows you who they are, believe them."

[–] aodhsishaj@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Reports state sky is blue. Most of country agrees.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I think what isn't as obvious is that independents who are typically catered to by Democrats by "being more moderate" do in fact support "radical left policies." This invalidates the argument behind the constant push for Democrats to abandon "radical left policies" in order to win over independents. It's just a narrative that serves Democrats' wealthy donors and perhaps makes it harder to win elections.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That argument always seemed flimsy at best. The real reason establishment dems don’t support pro-labor policies is just like you mentioned - because their donors pay them not to do so. This definitely hurts their electoral prospects, as this is just one of a great many polls showing the majority of Americans support progressive policies.

In a lot of ways, it’s a disservice to the underlying ideas to call them leftist or progressive. Yhey’re just genuinely populist, and appeal to a lot of MAGA folks too. Those poor saps just get hoodwinked constantly by fake populists like Trump.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Right but the argument is presented in the media as a legitimate one. There's a complete theater performance with concerned media personalities who write op-eds that present the argument, others that agree, politicians that nod, until the whole thing feels real.

[–] crusa187@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, truly kabuki theatre. It starts to make much more sense once you realize the vast majority of that bribe money goes straight back to the media corporations for advertising buys.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

Shit. I haven't had made that last connection.

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It's really sad that you're so accurate with "most."

If ABC said the sky was blue Magoos would parrot whatever color Fox "news" says it actually is.

"The Demonrats in Congress want you to believe the sky is blue, but True Patriots™©® know there are 5 lights!"