I don’t know what’s going to happen, but focusing on what you’re saying this early is only going to cause you panic when we need to be gathering our strength. We’ve seen from the MAGA movement that our democracy is fragile. The safeguards and protections that make everything "so difficult"^tm to change these past decades aren’t necessarily that difficult after all.

I can see a few well established Dem’s like Bernie and AOC jumping aboard a progressive party movement disguised as a blue wave much like was overtaken on the right. We see that there is room to capture voters that didn’t turn out and from both parties, a small band CAN take over a movement if their dedicated enough.

It’s just unfortunate that it was someone on the right who first abandoned party-lined politics and showed you can tame a party while speaking to the base (again, it was only like 20% of the population). It really makes me think that Bernie should’ve handled the fiasco in Nevada and South Carolina differently during the 2016 primaries. No blame to him, and I’m not sure what lesson there is to be learned besides authoritarianism and narcissistic tendencies are a way to brute force yourself into politics. But, I would’ve loved to see Bernie politely take the gloves off and took it to the people to back him up as well like Trump did with his group (just not, you know, all murdery and dark).

I don’t know, I try to be a little more optimistic. over 250million eligible voters, only 70million voted for Trump. That’s less than a 1/3 and could be lower if you included the entire population. People will spend extra time to pursue things that will benefit them directly, there just needs to be better communication about the good things that will benefit them for their time, not the things to be fearful of because people will tune that out (as shown by the voter turnout).

I really don’t think that’s true anymore. Maybe looking at decades of political party data but I think the games kinda changed with MAGA taking repubs extreme and Dem’s going center-right. There are a lot of republicans who could find a home in the democratic party since we know 2028 will see a cult leader retiring and you know the Dem’s are gonna run an old white guy out of fear. I’m hoping another party can cause a splash that election cycle but I see it going blue and hopefully the infrastructure for this third-party progressive moment can become solid in local with sites on national.

I’m no longer holding out for election change. Oregon just voted against RCV, the push-back from changing the voting system is just too much for our set-in-stone political machine we have running now. I’m definitely gonna look into the data about why that went down though, a lot of opposition from Dems and Repubs in Alaska and Maine so would be interesting to see what coalesced.

geez you weren’t kidding

Several other Democrats who voted to censure Tlaib were among the top recipients of AIPAC funds in November, including Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz ($141,058) (link)

and that was in January. If it’s any consolation, the evil is slowly draining her life away it seems.

2016 : 2023:

I just don’t get why they never learn. I thought you were saying this is spoofed and the real cover was in that article…but nope that’s the really real image. The right LOVES images like this, it does nothing to inform the base besides giving a “cool counter that he’s beating”. Show pictures of him going down on the mic on stage, show pictures of how old and fragile he is, anything but the stupid mugshot/he’s a bad guy motif that’s done nothing for the past year.

I have loved ones that I very much care for that I have to do these mental dances with. Certain groups or cultures of people may have a bias towards only looking at scientific evidence that promotes their hypothesis, well established institutions can sometimes be “stuck in a rut” but I would include people like graham hancock in that group. Science is a beautiful thing though, new data and experiments doesn’t care what your belief structure is. Your germ theory is a beautiful example where thought was put into a hypothesis and was slowly formed over time with new evidence. Religious and spiritual aspects do not require this with belief. What was the last study done by a religious scholar that a deity exists? What was the last religious text that was changed due to discoveries or experiments that were done?

It’s important to realize that scientific study is a rigorous system and not everyone follows it to the best of their ability. Slamming a label on like “whether you accept and believe scientific discoveries remains a subjective choice” is not a valid statement.

The basic difference between objective and subjective information is that objective information is based on facts, while subjective information, or a subjective perspective, is based on opinion, emotion, or feelings.

The very fact that you’re using subjective choice to look at scientific data means you’re not actually following the scientific method (explains how something goes from hypothesis-theory-law). It’s ok to have a hypothesis that’s different from mainstream, it’s not ok to declare being subjugated because you aren’t following the method to show your data and claiming it must be a law.

If you’re going to dance around the science/spiritual circles you need to have proper respect for both parties when communicating directly (if you want everyone to understand what you’re talking about). One example is “Energy”, means two very different things when talking to an electrical engineer or a new age “star child”. The distinction needs to be made for sound scientific communication that doesn’t impede someones belief.

I highly suggest checking out “The Hidden Story That Defines Our Modern Era” from Like Stories of Old. This is a prime example of how you can bind modern communication and stepping into the religious/belief structures of our history while maintaining respect for everyone.

I’ve been seeing gross stuff all around about voting records. For context that matters, I live in NC. It’s fucking non-stop from all sides. I’m trying to find the ad I saw with a relative while over at his place that played on Tubi that he was watching. I just heard it in the background while I was cooking and was flabbergasted. This ad was very clearly anti-Trump but then commented on your vote is registered and can be seen (completely false) with a threatening overtone. It went by so fast, both of us asked wtf just came on and I assured him his vote is private but they can check “IF” you voted (he’s an independent and primed to believe the worse of all scenarios thanks to social media and news, but is mindful when he thinks for himself).

I doubt it was anything like the actual DNC making the ad, was more than likely a superpac. Trying to find an obscure ad that plays on streaming in a localized area isn’t as easy as it used to be. Doesn’t help that youtube and ddg just gives me a bunch of useless shit that aren’t even ads or commercials (who’da thunk it would be hard to SEARCH for a commercial to watch). Regardless, every single ad used in this context needs fined into oblivion and the people involved need jail time so others don’t continue it on for every election to come.

Also, the downvotes for you are undeserved. There’s some fucking sycophant political worshipers that either got shipped into here or have drank the kool-aid this election cycle. They literally cannot hear anything negative without becoming triggered. It’s really setting up the next administration to not have to do anything but wait another 3 years and proclaim democracy is in trouble again.

))<···>((

it’s a shitty design? From a company worth over 3 trillion, that gives them extra shitty points.

This gives me real Egg vibes.

Hey, just one human to another. That “Voting isn’t a love letter, it’s a chess move” just does absolufuckinglutely nothing and comes across as insulting/pompous on your part. You’re insulting someone’s vote as a “love letter” (great way to get someone to read and contemplate when you’re taking the meaning of the vote out of context). And your “chess move” isn’t as intelligent as you think, you’re in check and you only have one move.

Just one more fucking week to go and I can’t wait. It’s gonna be so great to see next week how Lemmy is just flooded with 3rd party initiatives, voting changes organization, donations to local and national 3rd party candidates, a heavy focus on anti-gerrymandering and securing voting rights. We’re not gonna continue to discuss how there’s no options and we can’t support other candidacies for at least 3 years…right? Everyone saying now is not the right time is gonna be super active next week with pushing to support the future parties… right?!

lol Alabama representative trying to throw off the scent.

Again, just baseless conjuncture that sounds “almost right”. You have the general principles, you even reference Econ 101, but analysis and expert opinion goes further (why there’s so many armchair champions out there, unfortunately). Please cite some actual sources that have analyzed the systems and what your perspective has been formed by. This just seems like base-level pandering that gets no where like a “group chat” on one of the mainstream news outlets.

Things do not happen in a sterile chamber. You can’t create union movements when they’re getting destroyed by officials

For approximately 150 years, union organizing efforts and strikes have been periodically opposed by police, security forces, National Guard units, special police forces such as the Coal and Iron Police, and/or use of the United States Army. Significant incidents have included the Haymarket Riot and the Ludlow massacre. The Homestead struggle of 1892, the Pullman walkout of 1894, and the Colorado Labor Wars of 1903 are examples of unions destroyed or significantly damaged by the deployment of military force. In all three examples, a strike became the triggering event. (link)

Your AI argument is fear mongering, as I stated above, with sources, a net increase in jobs is projected. This is the telephone/computer technology fear now for the 2020’s. You’ve yet to provide an actual argument for why technology shouldn’t proceed. Should oil and gas not go through the same transition? God forbid we have less administration and more skilled workers, as my sources concluded would be the outcome.

Yes, supply-demand is a fundamental pricing mechanism, as econ 101 will teach. Unfortunately the subsequent classes that economists take after also include the million different factors with changes that mechanisms output. For further understandings, I would suggest Unlearning Economics (here is one of his videos going over a Sabine Hossenfelder’s video on capitalism). He comes with credentials,

My background is as an economist who specialises in behavioural economics. I did my PhD in economics at the University of Manchester and from 2019-23 was a Fellow at the Psychological and Behavioural Science Department at the London School of Economics. I remain affiliated as a Visiting Fellow.

I have quantitative skills including mathematics, statistics, and coding which are illustrated by my PhD and current research. I am also a published author, with my book The Econocracy selling 15,000+ copies and having over 200 citations on Google Scholar. I also have excellent communication skills and have presented both my research and book at numerous conferences and universities.

You know, something always feels a little off with an underpantsweevil comment. I could never put my finger on it though, always seems so close to being factual but for some reason skewed. I think it’s the declarative statements which turn out to be more of an opinion or editorial piece that’s only backed up by other vague references much like a matt walsh or tim (can’t remember his last name) might make.

Wages have been rising…as demand eclipses supply.

This is a weird general statement that reinforces that “supply & demand” is a worth-while endeavor that has worked out for everyone economically and socially. Of course wages have been rising… it would be beyond a depression if the average salary went down for the past couple of years. The important caveats are completely missed though…

While salaries are up, salary growth is down — the increase in average earnings is lower compared to the 7.3% rise between 2021 and 2022. The gender pay gap, while shrinking by 1% over the last 10 years, was only cut by 0.7% between 2022 and 2023. This means the average male makes $63,960, while their female counterparts make an average of $53,404

The average white male earns $64,636, while the average Hispanic or Latino male makes $47,996 annually.

With the annual inflation rate for 2023 at 3.4% for the year — up from 3.1% previously — salaries aren’t keeping up. A Smart Asset report based on MIT’s Living Wage data found that the average salary required to live comfortably in the U.S. is $68,499 after taxes.10 This is nearly $10,000 higher than what the average salary currently is. link

AI… are you talking about like a general AI or chatgpt? What right-wing or doomscrolling blog are you reading about AI from? All these companies trying to cram some type of “AI” into their program is a problem for sure, but it’s just a fad which only the most useful implementations will stick around. If anything, the companies are spending more trying to make it work (which it doesn’t).

Amazon Fresh kills “Just Walk Out” shopping tech—it never really worked - “AI” checkout was actually powered by 1,000 human video reviewers in India.

Here is an article by the Mckinsey Global Institute.

One of the biggest questions of recent months is whether generative AI might wipe out jobs. Our research does not lead us to that conclusion, although we cannot definitively rule out job losses, at least in the short term. Technological advances often cause disruption, but historically, they eventually fuel economic and employment growth.

This research does not predict aggregated future employment levels; instead, we model various drivers of labor demand to look at how the mix of jobs might change—and those results yield some gains and some losses.9 In fact, the occupational categories most exposed to generative AI could continue to add jobs through 2030 (Exhibit 4), although its adoption may slow their rate of growth. And even as automation takes hold, investment and structural drivers will support employment. The biggest impact for knowledge workers that we can state with certainty is that generative AI is likely to significantly change their mix of work activities.

“But market forces are happening even in absence of legislative action. Union activity is reemerging as a socio-economic force. Not everything rests on a federal majority manually raising the wage floor.”

Interesting you’ve again promoted “market forces” (reminds me of trickle-down economics). Union activity has been beaten down by a war being waged for decades, proper legislation and officials protecting the rights of Unions are the only way they will continue to have a chance. The recent changes in the Biden administration shows that unions can stand a chance if the branches of government would actually support it.

Wouldn’t having a federal majority, manually raising the wage floor, protect future workers when the AI revolution comes? If the market determines the wage minimum, won’t your points become moot when there is no more demand? I’m just still flabbergasted that you believe “employers can’t pay the minimum rate, because their employees wouldn’t be able to do basic shit like travel to the jobsite or afford to eat.” I don’t know what social circles you are in, but this isn’t the reality most lower income people are facing.

It might be more akin to a Trump escort service. You can buy him for a few nights and go around seeing the sites (rallies) like some kind of weird instagram influencer where you can get the attention you’re craving (news cycle) and everyone will be calling you again (media) to reinforce how important you are.

Of course that only lasts for like a day since Trump is a gold fish, he’ll be back to insulting the industries and generally dismissing Musk unless he stays right in his peripheral view.

Is there room under that rock for me? I can just squeeze in beside you and won’t bother you one bit.

lol and here I thought that comment was absolutely ludicrous.

“Let’s make this Black spouse somebody who has a really close relationship with another Brady, and that’s how this Brady met them. Give them a foundation so this isn’t a token position.”

You do realize why this is racist right? It’s a natural progression to age and begin dating, I doubt they’re doing similar back stories for every single Brady. To single out that a white/black relationship requires a precursor of events to be acceptable is just hidden/sly cultural bigotry. It might be easier to swallow for the older viewers of the show (who again, are being racist here), but I’ve seen these reboots trying to cater to younger audiences who will give them that social hype.

ok, now I’m torn. I am completely happy with less sex scenes and prefer it because it just isn’t trivial to the plot what-so-ever. But, then you had to bring Florence Pugh into it.

Lemmy’s kinda helped me see a different perspective. It’s just old man talk. Like, the internet is still there. Everything that once was, still is. Just a lot more shit the rest of everyone is usually using. Stop trying to keep up with everyone using all these popular sites for everyday life like they did with TV. Find obscure websites and dedicated forums for your topic. Don’t rely on Google^tm to find the internet for you. Before, you actually had to find a site (magazines, social/network circles) then hope that site had a search function if you’re looking for something particular (this is the old internet everyone craves lol, it wasn’t perfect by any means/rose tinted glasses).

You can use the internet just like you did back in the day and have the same experience. It’s just that the majority of the world uses the connection for a “TV”-like feed with main popular sites and apps. There’s still more people using and improving the “old internet” compared to the 90’s, so it’s only a net positive in my book.

lol well then we need to add a proper title you’ll agree too so we can expand this zeitgeist :P You’ve definitely taken on a roll, just not sure what that would officially be called.