top 78 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 87 points 1 month ago* (3 children)

It's why the corporate neo-libs hate him too. They truly are in the business of managing decline instead of doing their fucking jobs.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I can't remember who said it, but it's like he got in office and saw the "Get Shit Done" button an jus for the life of him couldn't understand why previous Mayors weren't usin it

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [–] 53 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    Next, convert Trump Tower into affordable housing.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Shit no. That would be like living in Mordor. No, to hallow that place turn it into the Trump library with every floor an exhibition of the lies, stupidity, evil and crimes he committed, with the penthouse dedicated to the Epstein Files.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 94 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (31 children)

    its why most democrats are against him too.

    Cause hes setting a dangerous precedent of an elected official serving people, not money.

  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago (27 children)

    Slavoj Zizek calls the Democrats “capitalism with a kinder face - LGBT rights and so on and so on.”

    That’s really it. They think the core economic system is working. They’re fine to greenlight social policies that don’t challenge it, especially if they think it will win them votes. And that’s all they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (26 children)

    Slavoj Zizek calls the Democrats “capitalism with a kinder face - LGBT rights and so on and so on.”

    Let's not pretend they stand for the T in that acronym.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (25 children)

    They stand for whatever gets them votes. Given the current cultural climate with the right actively controlling the media landscape and the left busy purity testing before they even consider voting, they would obviously consider taking a seat on the topic.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGfE-mbdmXg

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (24 children)

    They stand for whatever gets them votes.

    They stand for genocide and nothing else and do not care about votes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (23 children)

    Ah, you're one of those persecution fetishists. Normally y'all are about Jesus.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (22 children)

    Then you should have no problem identifying an issue that the centrist wing of the party has fought for harder than it fought for netanyahu's campaign of genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (21 children)

    Literally anything lol wtf are you smoking?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (20 children)

    Name one. Be specific.

    Because they were willing to break the fucking law for netanyahu.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (19 children)

    Infrastructure act. Nobody has fought for genocide, dude. Again, what the fuck are you smoking?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (18 children)

    The infrastructure act was the product of capitulation on Build Back Better.

    Democrats did not compromise on their unconditional support for genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    Democrats did not compromise on their unconditional support for genocide.

    Yeah you're gonna have to come up with even a little bit of evidence that Democrats wanted to do a genocide because this here is some seriously dumb shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (16 children)

    Yeah you’re gonna have to come up with even a little bit of evidence that Democrats wanted to do a genocide

    They kept selling weapons long after it became clear that they would only be used for genocide. They broke the Leahy law to do so, after three years of letting procedural bullshit stand in their way for things they actually ran on. You're just wasting my time in bad faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    Okay. So before you said Democrats care about nothing but genocide, and your evidence is that they maintained previously established diplomatic ties.

    There's a lot of things that Democrats could do better, but you've somehow managed to come up with the most brain-dead take I've seen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children)

    and your evidence is that they maintained previously established diplomatic ties.

    My evidence is that they broke the law to sell weapons to your favorite person for your favorite activity.

    There’s a lot of things that Democrats could do better

    I'm sure they didn't murder enough Palestinians for your liking.

    but you’ve somehow managed to come up with the most brain-dead take I’ve seen.

    You say that about anyone who doesn't worship netanyahu. You're just here to support genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    And you accuse me of bad faith.

    Enjoy your rage porn, I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (12 children)

    And you accuse me of bad faith.

    You keep deliberately ignoring how democrats broke the law to sell weapons for genocide. They capitulate, compromise, and make excuses in all other areas, but the law is no impediment to the only thing any centrist democrat wants.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (11 children)

    Whatever man. Vote for trump and then tell yourself the Democrats are worse if it helps you sleep at night.

    Fool

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (10 children)

    I voted for harris, and you keep ignoring that, just like you keep ignoring how your party broke the law to give you the genocide you want more than anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (9 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

    I voted for harm reduction. That doesn't mean I harbor any illusions that the party supports anything with as much fervor as they support genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    You voted for genocide because you love to kill Palestinians and trans and that's the only thing that makes you happy.

    That's what you sounded like two comment ago, lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (6 children)

    You have yet to provide any policy that centrist democrats support with greater fervor than they support genocide.

    You can't because there isn't one. They broke the law to give you your precious genocide.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    It's your genocide, you voted for it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (4 children)

    You have yet to provide any policy that centrist democrats support with greater fervor than they support genocide.

    You can’t because there isn’t one. They broke the law to give you your precious genocide.

    I will not reply to any of your pro-genocide trolling attempts in any other way until you answer the question.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Why don't you answer the question, you voted for genocide

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)

    You have yet to provide any policy that centrist democrats support with greater fervor than they support genocide.

    You can’t because there isn’t one. They broke the law to give you your precious genocide.

    You haven't answered my question. I answered yours.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I'm not gonna answer a loaded question. Also, I don't accept your answer. Do better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Democrats supposedly have many policies they're willing to fight for harder than they fight for genocide.

    And yet you can't name one. Not a single one. Thank you for the admission that you exist in bad faith.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

    My thought is that for many many years politicians didn't really have to do anything to re-elected. And when they were asked to do something they would always say "we can't afford that." or they would write a bill that would promise "thing" will get funded 10 years from now. So these lifelong politicians have turned into lazy fucks just there for the money and are pissed at these younger officials that are actually doing the job they were elected to do.

    I have to admit I had been lulled into a sense of nothing will change attitude and now that I see how wrong I was I've become quite pissed off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

    I live in Harlem. He really has been great! He's just a genuine and nice guy too!

    Edit: word

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Edit: word

    You don't have to add "word!" just because it's Harlem

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 27 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    Yep.

    They are going to reach into your pocket no matter what. The only question is if your money goes to a bunch of rich guys or back to people like you.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    I don't know if I love that phrase's use here as it sets up the government as some foreign entity that is stealing from you when, at least in theory, it should be the price you pay for your community's betterment. Of course that's not what it feels like in the US (maybe anywhere, maybe federal taxes feel bad always), but that's an argument for redistributing power and fixing the underlying systems more so than it is to be upset that taxes are a thing (or paint them as... Evil or something which this phrase does).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    That is the point. The taxes are reality, you are going to pay them. Whether they are evil or not depends on what that money is used for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    "Reach into your pocket" makes it sound as if they're stealing from you. Which, if you live in the USA, is mostly true.

    In functioning democratic societies those taxes pay for things that benefit the citizens. At least that is the stated goal, and if they fuck it up, they get voted out.

    I think you guys need to start voting with your bullets.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    Even if it's for something good, they're still reaching into your pocket and taking wages you earned by working.

    It would be more progressive if taxes were raised from the unearned rents of the wealthy, with land value taxes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)

    I am slowly loathing commenting on Lemmy, people here seem increasingly incapable of having a good conversation.

    I'm explicitly saying framing it as "reaching into your pocket and taking your wages" is a negative light to cast taxes in. You don't go to the bakery and buy bread and describe it as the baker reaching into your pocket and taking your wages. That would be insane. You pay the baker to provide you bread.

    Society should, and I'm gonna emphasize this for the most common commentors, should as in theoretically in an ideal society taxes should feel like a person paying the city for good public transit, universal healthcare, UBI, minimally expensive maximally effective defense, a social safety net, regulatory bodies, public education, fire protection, wildlife preserves and parks, libraries, and public and enriching spaces.

    It shouldn't, ideally, feel like someone reaching into your pockets, it should feel like a valuable transaction. Taxes don't have to be a negative thing, akin to someone stealing your money. They should be something people take pride in.

    Of course the US is a falling state and so this hasn't been the case for a long time (if ever), and most other countries despite providing better services still have to deal with the conservative propaganda that "welfare" and "healthcare" and "public transit" are wasteful. That's not what I'm really here addressing. I'm just saying painting taxes as theft enables and supports conservative propaganda that disables or errodes community ownership and power - the very things that are synonomous with quality of life.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

    Pausing the discussion about progressive taxation for a second.

    If people on Lemmy seem increasingly incapable of having a good conversation, then who do you think is the most likely person to have changed?

    We should be able to discuss this subject without personal attacks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    I mean I get your point, it's easy to assume the consistent factor in the discussions is the problem and you might be right. Id argue the systems of Lemmy are producing, through a mechanism I don't understand, worse conversations over time. It might not even be Lemmy but the rise of AI or bots, I don't really know. But I've had a couple conversations now within a short period that it's like talking to people with an axe to grind throwing a random dart at the comment section and having it out there under the guise of talking to me - a person. It's infuriating.

    You've not been that bad, but you did miss the entire point of what I was saying and didn't really engage with the point of my comment. Maybe my comments aren't as focused as I think they are, or maybe in online discourse the capacity to focus on the secondary threads (or maybe the inability to distinguish what the main topic is) is too hard. Idk.

    I'm not trying to attack you, I'm venting my frustration for something you did but that isn't your fault as I'm systemically seeing it on Lemmy as of late.

    Like imagine replying to this comment with "ignoring what you wrote, when the government reaches into your pocket to take your money, shouldn't we have a better say in where that money gets spent." It's like... Not engaging with the person's comment in it's entirety and focusing on the smallest secondary thread instead while reinforcing the reason why I brought up the primary thread.

    Again, no shame or disdain or ill feelings towards you. I'm just trying to explain what happened from my perspective and now officially and publicly wondering why this keeps happening.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    They've raised a valid criticism of our tax structure and we're focused on wording. Governments are taking money from working class people, and the assertion that this is necessary for a healthy society is not true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    The OC did not raise a valid criticism of our tax structure, or calling their statement that is a stretch. They complained at where it went, but not how our taxes are structured. You brought up a tax structure complaint, specifically a land value tax. That's not applicable to the primary thread although sure, I'm all for taxing landlords out of existence. Everyone should own the land they live on and part of the land they work on and part of the land their community is built on.

    Now back to the primary thread, explain to me how the exchange of goods and services for money is taking money from working class people? Do you describe the baker as taking money from you? I know you don't because you aren't programmed to, so why not extend that same language to the government which (ideally) does the exact same thing.

    I don't know how a society gets high quality public healthcare, research, transit, welfare, regulations, or defense without taxes. I think that's naieve given the current state of the world showing that when you remove or corrupt government from/in things like healthcare (for example in the US) you get a terrible healthcare system. Same with every other category. There is no country with strong defense that doesn't have a government and taxes, same with every other category I provided. Not to say what exists today bounds what can exist tomorrow but still.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago*

    "It sucks that they're taking our money by force, but at least it's going to something good."

    "That's not taking your money by force because it's necessary! Why, it's basically the same thing as choosing to hire a baker."

    "It's not necessary to take poor people's money by force."

    "What are you even blathering about? Wow, people here are getting worse. No offense."

    Nobody here is suggesting we get public healthcare, research, transit, or welfare without taxes. I'm suggesting that tax incidence is why the initial comment had to even qualify it. The lady doth protest too much.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    They are going to reach into your pocket no matter what.

    They aren't even in your pocket, relatively speaking. At the local level, you're a drop in the bucket beside the big land owners and corporate industries. At the state level, you're even less relevant. At the federal level, between intentional trade and deficit spending, you might as well not exist.

    The joke of modern taxation is how it's largely unnecessary at the individual level. If the state simply planned it's economy and managed it's natural resources, everyone could do the Alaska thing where they pay you to live there.

    California hosts multiple trillionaires, ffs. Nobody with an income under seven figures needs to pay a dime to support that state's spending plan.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Sounds like here it's letting a private company spend the money to get access to 3,000 residences in exchange for 1,000 affordable ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    The phrase "at no cost to the city" is a red flag.

    It either means someone is lying, or that there's some kind of "public-private partnership" which are frequently handouts to corporations or rich people.

    Maybe this is the rare case when the government will properly supervise the private side, and hold them to account.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    And as usual I don't know if I should be outraged that a private company is involve that may lead to questionable practices or happy that at least they are 1000 affordable units available. Both maybe? I guess I'm cautiously optimistic.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Converting the Oldest House into literal housing? Bold choice!

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›