this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
336 points (98.6% liked)

politics

30610 readers
1913 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/68835958

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bustedknuckles@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Please throw 200 million behind Stevens!

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

I would say let him waste his money but Americans are fucking stupid and they watch political ads and say "oh I'll vote for that guy cuz I saw him on TV".

We deserve all that we get. Now they're going to have drones that hunt you down if you speak out against the fascists. Don't believe me? Look up Israeli death calls in Lebanon.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 18 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Hey sitouts, this is what happens when you sit on your ass.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 14 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (2 children)

I actively called my retirement plan manager and spent several hours on the phone, just trying to make sure they didn't spend a bunch of my money on the space X IPO. They did, and I lost about 4000 dollars in one day.

If I pull it out, I lose 30% instantly. Not to mention it's retirement value goes away entirely. Switching to another manager is pointless because they did exactly the same thing.

That was MY money, that I OWN. If I have absolutely no say in how that's being spent, how in the holy name of fuck do you expect us to influence elected representatives, that are being bought and paid for with those dollars by someone else?

The game is over, they've won. It's time for crime.

[–] OnyxRex@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

I have some basic understanding of finance (and I mean basic), so take this as an observation rather than investment advice. If your retirement plan allows you to change your asset allocation, and you have a high-conviction thesis that a significant market event is about to occur, it may be worth temporarily rotating from a growth-oriented allocation into a more conservative allocation to reduce downside exposure.

Under normal circumstances, attempting to time the market is a bad idea, and financial advisors or plan managers will usually push you away from doing so. However, there are rare situations where it's clear as crystal what's happening. In those cases, reducing equity exposure and increasing allocations to lower-volatility assets for a short period may be a reasonable risk-management decision.

Using the recent SpaceX-related market activity as an example, I find it difficult to believe that any fund with a genuinely conservative mandate would have maintained meaningful exposure to assets directly affected by that event. A conservative portfolio, by definition, should prioritize capital preservation over aggressive growth and generally avoid concentrated exposure to higher-risk investments.

You generally can't tell them, "I don't want this stock," when dealing with index funds, but you can get yourself out of the fund entirely while it's poisoned. Unfortunately, my company was changing providers right when the SpaceX shit was happening, and I couldn't make the change myself.

I haven't been keeping up with the bond market but last I heard it was it's own shit show so I'm not really sure anything is 'safe' these days.

[–] moustachio@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

Retirement accounts are a scam. It’s important for people to learn this, and stop contributing to them. It’s not a “benefit” to give all your money to corrupt Wall Street shit heads…

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

I opened this expecting to ask where to put the money instead, fully expecting to be told to buy gold.

I'm glad to see that conversation has already happened.

There are far better commodities to invest in. Gold is probably one of the worst. But good luck with that

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] OnyxRex@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Not entirely a scam in theory. Though we are currently in a period of unprecedented corruption that is so complicated and complete that it might as well be. Even 5 years ago, I would have attributed certain actions to protect the market as an attempt to protect everyone. The systems in place are such that if a ~~stock~~ company fails, it creates far-reaching market upsets across industries worldwide. Essentially, if something fails, it takes everyone down with them.

The fix would be the state taking control of those industries to allow them to stabilize. Unfortunately, most state actors are also tied economically to those systems. That is, they're corrupt as fuck and don't care about people, but their own money and status.

So retirement funds and entitlements weren't entirely a scam, but they are mostly so now. I doubt I will see a dime of mine if I don't use it soon for school, expating, or buying a house. I certainly won't see it when I retire.

[–] tmyakal@infosec.pub 2 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

A tax-advantaged account that (typically) grows faster than inflation and includes additional compensation that my employer would not otherwise give me is a scam? So where should I be putting my money instead?

[–] moustachio@lemmy.world 1 points 11 hours ago

It grows faster until they use it as a bailout for rich fucks. You should make your own investments; it’s your money and you should have full control of it. Any system that doesn’t allow that is wall steet holding your money hostage, and a scam.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 9 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

Why did america not arrest him the first time he did this?

[–] Bakkoda@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Money. Plain and simple. America belongs to the rich and will continue to until it's bag enough for everyone to start committing crimes.

[–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 2 points 12 hours ago

Isn't the wealth inequality double what it took for the french revolution?

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 4 points 15 hours ago (2 children)

I mean, he's allowed to spend money. The illegal part was offering money to vote Republican.

As to why no arrest, because this county's a sham. These midterms are so incredibly important, and it's kinda like, will they be tampered with, will they not be, wait and see! America loves drama and reality TV, and now we're all on the show.

[–] krisevol@lemmus.org 3 points 15 hours ago

I don't think paying them to vote Republican was the issue either. I think he's being sued because the lottery was rigged

[–] moustachio@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

If these elections are so important why haven’t people formed militias as a backup plan for if any fuckery happening?

Do we care about elections, if we’re not willing to do anything about them cheating brazenly in them?

[–] NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net 1 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

Because the people buying guns and forming militias are the one's in masks abducting citizens for not looking white enough

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] limelight79@lemmy.world 2 points 16 hours ago

Because the people he supported won.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 5 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

And it'll work too. Money talks in the old usa and people are being squeezed so hard right now you can buy their loyalty for very little. A perfect storm. I remember hearing as a kid that you don't have to be rich to be the president but no one ever added, but you need rich people to become president.

[–] Cherries@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago

It will only work if the Democrats put up a bad candidate. A good candidate with good policies can defeat billionaire money, like in NY or WI, but a bad candidate with bad policies, like Kamala Harris, can easily waste a billion dollars.

[–] Jaysyn@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

It didn't work for the recent special election that he spent $40M on.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 2 points 16 hours ago
[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

It didn't work in Wisconsin.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 4 points 16 hours ago

Money helps, but it doesn't GUARANTEE an election.

That's going to be MAGAs problem - they think they can win with money alone, flooding the airwaves and mailboxes with crude propaganda, rather than ideas. Nothing from the insane amount of past propaganda has come true, and things have only gotten much, much worse, and EVERYONE sees it, and EVERYONE is unhappy about it.

MAGAs have made the fatal mistake of believing their own propaganda, getting high on their own supply, so their ads disparaging Socialism are actually going to work against them, and be some of the DemSocs best promotion - "You don't want any of that FREE Socialist healthcare do you?"

And voters are going to to think, "Well, I can't afford the expensive MAGA health care, so I'll give it a try."

Always remember: MAGA talks a good game, but they are ALWAYS bluffing. Every one of them are virtuosically incompetent, and fuck up literally EVERYTHING they do, and they will fuck up this election, too. The Dems just have to be ready to take full advantage of every inevitable MAGA mistake that is surely coming.

These people are STUPID beyond words. Exploit that RUTHLESSLY and MERCILESSLY.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 2 points 16 hours ago

Good! Being wrong in my assumption is a relief!

[–] jaykrown@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

It's amazing how much this guy wants a revolution. You can't keep taking power away from the people without repercussion.

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 12 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

That's because he doesn't want to go to prison.

[–] osanna@lemmy.vg 5 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

lol. you think the democrats will send him to prison? good joke, you should be a comedian!

[–] DandomRude@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (2 children)

No, I don't think so at all, but depending on whether the Democrats field a reasonably progressive candidate, there’s at least a slim chance. If not, and it comes down to the usual corporate Democrats—who, contrary to the will of the voters, clearly call the shots at the DNC—there’s no chance from the get-go.

For the Conservatives, however, this chance does not even exist in the first place.

So the Democrats are still the lesser evil, because the conservatives are not only many times more corrupt, they’re also completely unscrupulous in their inhumane actions.

With a Democratic president, at least, it would still be possible to engage in dialogue on the international stage. A conservative, on the other hand, represents exclusively the interests of organized crime, as the current regime demonstrates day in and day out: It commits horrific war crimes, does nothing but enrich itself and its billionaire financiers, openly threatens even the U.S.’s former allies with armed force, and is doing everything in its power to replace international law with the law of the jungle.

These people are the scum of humanity. The conformist, greedy opportunists among the Democrats are certainly despicable as well, but even they are no match for the absolute monsters currently ruling the country.

Look up the term "Dark Enlightenment" —this far-right, inhuman "theory" is the foundation of what conservatives stand for and what they are working exclusively to bring about, since it benefits the billionaires and would give them absolute power without any restrictions. Should they continue to succeed in this, it would have enormous, negative consequences for other, still somewhat functioning democracies around the world.

In short: A democratic president would definitely be the lesser evil—for the world as well as for the U.S.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] blackberry28@sh.itjust.works 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Didn't Musk start his own party last year or so? I remember sth about a party called the 'American Party'.

[–] SippyCup@lemmy.world 5 points 15 hours ago

The American party, started by a white African American Nazi immigrant emerald mine trust fund grifter, who makes bad cars and launches rockets.

Yeah that.. That kinda tracks honestly.

[–] el_twitto@lemmy.zip 66 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Would someone please arrest and charge this motherfucker?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Wasn't this the same guy who said he was going to take a step back from politics to focus on running his businesses like he was supposed to?

[–] cunnililgus@sopuli.xyz 6 points 19 hours ago

It is a business investment tho.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] LuckyDevil@piefed.social 42 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] BillyClark@piefed.social 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's so blatantly bullshit that it even makes Wikipedia sound stupid:

The Supreme Court's ruling in favor of Citizens United sparked significant controversy, with some viewing it as a defense of American principles of free speech and a safeguard against government overreach, and others criticizing it for reaffirming the longstanding principle of corporate personhood,and for allowing large corporations to wield disproportionate political power by allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of money to support their chosen political candidates, provided the corporations were technically independent of the campaigns.

Ah yes, what a great "safeguard against government overreach," to give corporations unlimited power. You can't overreach if you don't really exist!

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