this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2024
549 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3223 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Dems win in areas with greater populations, which is why they have to listen to the voters. You’re right though, but tbh it’s a balancing act. I am the type to believe in “healthy” corporations, so there’s that. Uncontrolled and unregulated entities will always seek to centralize power and resources, doesn’t matter what type they are

[–] Rekorse 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I was pretty bummed to hear mark Cuban wants Lina Khan fired. Cubans been a huge spokesperson for Kamala and insists they talk often.

Edit: here's an article recently about it where he tries to be the "I'm just saying" guy.

https://nypost.com/2024/10/28/us-news/mark-cuban-backtracks-after-urging-kamala-harris-to-fire-big-tech-trust-buster-lina-khan-if-she-wins-white-house/

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I mean Cuban has some redeeming qualities but he is still a gold hording billionaire. Linda Khan is a threat to his and all his billionaire buddies' status to being a billionaire, so it's not really too surprising he wants her gone.

And this is what frustrates me about billionaires, this pathological fear that they have about losing anything, especially money. These people are addicts to money and power. And when someone or some institution gets in the way of them getting their next money fix they will do whatever they can to tear them down. And there are many many people in this world that enable this addiction they have, they praise it and encourage them to do more. People like Khan are seen as 'narcs' out to ruin their fun. Fuck that.

I would love to see a nationwide intervention and help these poor souls break this dangerous and deadly addiction they have.

[–] Rekorse 3 points 2 weeks ago

I had really hoped that he would be one of the ones who could rationalize living the rest of his life as a simple millionaire or something.

You are right about the knee-jerk reaction to avoiding losing even a bit of wealth.