The LA Times has been consistent since its founding about shilling for the rich.
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2026
59 points (84.7% liked)
politics
31673 readers
2552 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
propaganda is entirely too effective on stupid people.
Keep in mind that the LA Times is owned by a very rich person.
I love how their poll is an outlier and they just assume voters have changed their minds en masse
I don’t doubt it. there are some stupid motherfuckers in California. I am voting for it. Yes, on 40. no on 41 and 42
I smell some serious bullshit here
Those billionaire-owned media companies are doing their thing in real time. They are good at what they do too.
Who the fuck doesn't support a wealth tax? Do poor people seriously think wealthy shouldn't be taxed their fair share? If you make under $500k in this country, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't fully support a wealth tax. And last I checked, there are far more people who make <$500k than there are who make >$500k.
I swear, the poor are only poor because most are ignorant as hell and don't know how to vote in their own self interest.
"Prop 40 means higher costs and more taxes! Vote no!" Ads like that are running constantly I'm sure.
Growing up in a very conservative bubble I can say that most who oppose a wealth tax do so on the basis of “when I get wealthy I don’t want them to tax me.” That or a general belief that a wealth tax will result in preventing them from becoming wealthy. This is also why they oppose regulations.
Also they seem to think the wealthy already pay their fair share and it's wrong to make them pay more just because they are smarter and more successful.
I had to explain to my own mother how they actually don't pay their share. That she pays more in taxes than apple does.
She just kinda mumbled off after that but still I don't think she believes me.
Some people want to stay ignorant and poor.
My mother has been on welfare her entire life and still currently is.
Yet she always goes on about al the people taking advantage of it. But of course she's not. She actually deserves it. But pretty much no one else does.
Not going to get into details but everything she says other people do, to not deserve it, she herself has done.
It's always the other poors who are the problem. Never the billionaires. Even poor people believe this. It's illogical.
My accountant wife used to lean libertarian until she got a job with a firm doing forensics for wealthy divorce cases. Once she saw the actual financial info she was appalled to see not only how little they paid in taxes, but also how deeply uncharitable they were (which is another classic argument the right uses against taxing the wealthy; that this empowers them to be more generous).
Which is a very ignorant way of voting. They might as well vote based on whether or not they're going to win the lottery.
Ignorant voting is the most common kind of voting.
This is utter facts
Oh totally
I am fearful about the extreme ignorance, simple mindedness and gullibility of some of the electorate. They are completely blind to the effects of neoliberalism, which is the main guiding force behind the bumptious, odious and fascist/racist Republican party who believe that competition is the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised; public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve. We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance, and class that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
"Poll Question 5:
Do you support an evil, vindictive tax an the innocent leaders of this great state -nay, world, the people who keep food on your table and provide you with your sole sanctuary from the vicious lashings of the eternal storm of life, without whom this country, to say nothing of its fragile soul, would collapse like a pillar of dust?
A. No (select this option to receive $5 and a voucher for a free hot dog).
B. Yes (select this option to enroll as a volunteer for the No on 40 Campaign)."
Yes on 40, no on 41 and 42
Yeah I get worried that even those who might want to tax the wealthy might misunderstand 41 or 42 and they’ll end up with more votes…