this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
150 points (100.0% liked)

politics

28978 readers
1896 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Minnesota suggested that Americans should cut back on daily costs amid the economic strain caused by the U.S. military operation in Iran.

Former NFL reporter Michele Tafoya acknowledged how “frustrating” and “hard” rising gas prices are for consumers during a Wednesday radio interview, but she suggested Americans should minimize some of their spending to support Trump’s actions in the Middle East.

“I think right now at least just kind of keeping a stiff upper lip. Maybe you take one less trip to Starbucks and so that gas goes a little further,” she told Tennessee’s KWAM radio host Todd Starnes.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 hours ago

Giving real jimmy carter energy. At least Carter was pointing to things outside of consumerism to focus on like community, health, environmentalism. The only thing trump was promising was cheap gas and watching his goons harass immigrants.

[–] rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 hour ago
[–] RiceBowl@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 points 5 hours ago

Ope. Starbucks won’t like that.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 2 points 5 hours ago

And then if people did cut back on expenses, she would be complaining about how we're killing the economy.

[–] comador@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Caribou Coffee is preferred in most of Minnesota anyways.

[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 25 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Them millennials can't afford houses because they're blowing all their money on military operations and avocado toast

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago

Alexa, order another air strike please.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 7 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

I knkw you'rr being facetious but it's worth mentioning that avacado toast ingredients are $2 for multiple servings.

[–] Duranie@leminal.space 3 points 5 hours ago

I love me some avocado toast, but unfortunately in the Midwest I usually see them for about $2-2.50 ea for a decent sized one. I've had a hard time with the ones from Aldi that are cheaper. They tend to be tiny and the window between unripe and rotten seems to overlap.

When them bitches go on sale for $1 ea? I'll eat it every day for a week lol.

[–] ContriteErudite@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Yep! Not only is incredibly economical, it's a healthier meal than most "traditional" American breakfasts. Didn't stop conservative media from deriding it as millennial over-indulgence and as a means to sway the older generations' opinions against the younger ones, but to also preserve meat industry profits. Vilifying the millennial tendency of frugality + preference for plants-based diet choices by portraying avocado toast as excessive and soy milk as emasculating, along with a concerted effort to say the /pol/ audience, it not only swayed the opinions of older generations, but spurred parts of the younger generations to resent each other.

The only winners in the culture war are the ones who drive the narratives, and it's been that way in the US since radio was invented.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 hours ago

The only winners in the culture war are the ones who drive the narratives, and it's been that way in the US since radio was invented.

And empowered further through industry funded research into behavioral psychology.

[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 3 points 9 hours ago

And geriatric impressions of house prices were based on when houses cost 200$

[–] Stern@lemmy.world 62 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

"Let them eat cake" ass reply

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 19 points 11 hours ago

"stop eating cake!" Antoinette cried "my oak trees need water."

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 10 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

And that time with the dolls, the time with the pencils...they keep saying it.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

You don’t need 30 dolls. You need two dolls.

[–] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago

I think it's let them eat less cake. 😉

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 11 points 9 hours ago

No Republican should be allowed back into office, ever.

[–] thehowlingnorth@lemmy.ca 40 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Negative one trips to Starbucks it is!

[–] Burninator05@lemmy.world 19 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

I think at that point Starbucks pays you not to come.

[–] lunchbox2287@lemmy.world 34 points 12 hours ago

Running in Minnesota and said Starbucks instead of Caribou? Already lost.

[–] Theprogressivist@lemmy.world 21 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Now gas prices aren't a problem. Funny how that works.

[–] resipsaloquitur@lemmy.world 9 points 10 hours ago

But what about the eggs?!??!!?

[–] grimpy@lemmy.myserv.one 4 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

and renounce your phone & television, eat one meal a day, etc

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago

How about we have a president that doesn’t start random shit to distract us?

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 12 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Imagine telling that to people who can't even fathom being able to afford going to Starbucks.

[–] GoofSchmoofer@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

There is a group, unfortunately large, in the political sphere that can't fathom there being people too poor to go to Starbucks. Their world view is that the poors are only making 80k a year (which is poor to them). We have some really old, really wealthy, and really out of touch people in leadership positions in this country.

[–] compast@lemmy.zip 7 points 10 hours ago

Its crazy how the ruling class is able to say this with straight face

we need to make them fear the people

[–] Englishgrinn@lemmy.ca 14 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

On the one hand, she did start with sympathy before she made her stupid ass comment.

On the other hand, it was unbelievably stupid and in support of a pointless war in the middle east.

But for context, I can't imagine any Republican winning in Minnesota this year, so maybe she's just running a sacrificial lamb campaign to launch her career as a right wing grifter.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 hours ago

maybe she's just running a sacrificial lamb campaign to launch her career as a right wing grifter.

Yeah, given that her former job is "NFL reporter", there's almost no doubt that this is an attempt to get a gig on Faux News, OAN, Newsmax, or the like.

[–] Janx@piefed.social 4 points 9 hours ago

Fucking Republicans. We all need to tighten our belts further because of Trump's pointless war against Iran!? Just like the tariffs we're all paying for, it's a policy failure we had no choice in. Republicans should never win another election ever again...

[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 13 points 11 hours ago

I Voted for TRUMP because Gas Prices were OUT OF CONTROL under Biden!

-People who Support gas Prices doubling OVERNIGHT to Protect Epstein and other Israeli Pedophiles!

[–] CainTheLongshot@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

Ok, you heard her everybody! Time to boycott Starbucks!

While we are at it, might as well boycott some other frivolous things like streaming services, toxic social medias, and any non-local restaurant, on top of the other things we were already boycotting, like Target. And, wait.... why's the economy tanking even faster now!!!

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 8 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Starbucks isn't gonna like that.

Also. Who the fuck can still afford to go to Starbucks? Out of touch idiot

[–] crystalmerchant@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I mean we all like $11 lattes don't we

[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago

I don't really think we have time for a handjob, Joe

[–] N0t_5ure@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

How condescending.

[–] TheGoldenV@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

What about the dude yesterday that just suggested we just need to increase our take home pay.

I guess the answer was right in front of me all along…

[–] devolution@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

And she should spend less time with her plastic surgery. Can save money.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Couldn't you just say the old, "I understand that war causes issues for everyone, but we should support our troops. And meanwhile I am running for congress to work to lower all costs for American families," shtick and then do nothing as always? Like why do you have to be a condescending bitch dripping with disgust and condemnation for the poors? Gain some fucking perspective, you stuck up twat.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

They do this because they’re stupid and it’s an old, parroted line aimed at passing the blame to other people. If they said what you’re asking for that wouldn’t be as effective at blaming others.

The other reason is that they know that the centrist/conservative idea of a Starbucks costumer is a woke person who likes fancy drinks and not just black coffee. It’s all about creating a strawman for their base to hate. If they were doing it honestly, they’d also be saying that people should buy smaller vehicles that consume significantly less fuel but SUVs and trucks are associated with their base so they don’t do that. Their base isn’t smart enough to make those connections so it’s all good. They’re not clever, these politicians, they’re just playing “manipulate the voting base” on baby mode.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

The other reason is that they know that the centrist/conservative idea of a Starbucks costumer is a woke person who likes fancy drinks and not just black coffee. It’s all about creating a strawman for their base to hate.

Sure but that seems like a stupid strategy too. The people complaining are more likely to be people living on lower incomes which are A) more likely to be conservative themselves, and B) less likely to be driving to pick up Starbucks or other luxuries and frivolous things on the regular. So she is simultaneously downplaying the problem that people are actually experiencing, blaming a thing that is not something that they are even doing, and associating them with the people they hate in the process.

I may be giving them too much credit, but if I were a broke conservative struggling with affording travel between home, work, school drop off/pick up, and the grocery store, and you said something like that to my face, I'd have some very audible words for you. Maybe some spit too.

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

You miss the fact that conservatives, nearly universally, do not accept that any of their situation is their own fault(sounds strange when us on the left will blame capitalism and the elite for most of the problems in the world, but we also come with petabytes of receipts and the right is allergic to facts). Many of them who live deeper in poverty are also living in cheaper areas, too, and have already cognitive-dissonanced themselves out of needing to worry about paying for things like health insurance(especially since many benefit from public healthcare systems, even in the US).

Now, the other important thing to remember is that conservative said those things. That’s crucial because it means that they aren’t talking to their voting base which is cool and tough and good with money, they’re talking to the other guys who need to get their shit together. If their guy does it then there must be a reason and if their enemy does it then there must’ve not been a reason, except they don’t base that on anything real like who’s actually done the research and shown their work.

Conservatives, no matter where you find them, are inherently anti-social power-seekers who refuse to take true responsibility for their actions. Whenever someone I know moves away from conservatism it is around the time they also, for whatever reason, begin to finally understand that the rich don’t actually love them and that maybe they actually do want to have real friends who aren’t also just other hateful goons, afterall.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Couldn't you just say the old, "I understand that war causes issues for everyone, but we should support our troops. And meanwhile I am running for congress to work to lower all costs for American families," shtick and then do nothing as always?

No, she's not running as a Democrat.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 2 points 11 hours ago

Doesn't even realize that Starbucks is a stop you make on the way to somewhere else.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Maybe you should forego one more donut a day michele.

load more comments
view more: next ›