• some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    I don’t get it. But I also don’t subscribe to mainstream media and news. Is this a play on media trying to sell bidenomics as good for common, or most, people?

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      “The media” isn’t trying to “sell” Biden’s tax plan. Some guy on the internet is saying via meme that if you have popcorn ceilings, you don’t have to worry about your taxes going up under Biden. Biden has famously pledged that he will not increase taxes on people making less than $400,000/year, so the implication is that people with popcorn ceilings make less than $400,000/year.

    • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I think the implication is that rich people don’t have popcorn ceilings, so if you do, you don’t make enough money that his tax plan will hurt you. The premise seems flawed to me, but I could be interpreting it wrong.

  • davel@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s the wealthy that have nothing to worry about, as Joe nothing will fundamentally change Biden has said.

    • aew360@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      He wasn’t lying, he knew he wasn’t gonna get much shit through Congress when he had a 50/50 split with two of those on his side being Sinema and Manchin and the other side having folks who possibly schemed in having his entire administration cancelled before it ever began

      • davel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Manchin and Sinema played their assigned roles as rotating villains. And if a rotating villain can’t be summoned, there’s always the Senate parliamentarian. And if not that, then there’s always splitting the bill, as was done for the impending rail strike last year.

        The Democrats punk us over & over. football-lucy Both parties work for the capitalist class and against the working class.

        • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Americans are too busy trying to decide if they want to elect an orange king or keep the democratic experiment going a little longer to worry about small things like wealth distribution.

          People are easily manipulated. A smart electorate is a very hard thing to sustain.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            People are easily manipulated.

            People are not easy to manipulate. The amount of ads required for political work are immense, what are you talking about? It would be easy enough to prevent manipulation of the public if the US wasn’t so dogmatically free speech when it comes to right wing speech.

        • aew360@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Ok cool I’m still voting for Democrats down the ballot in November

          • kiljoy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            So you like bootlicking and when people spit in your mouth. Because that’s what the dems basically do when you ask for anything meaningful. Don’t reward shitty politicians and parties with your vote.

            • Spzi@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              I’m still voting for Democrats down the ballot in November

              So you like bootlicking and when people spit in your mouth.

              Statements like these are a testament to how much american culture has deteriorated. The hatred and lack of thought with which both sides talk to each other.

              When we analyze it, we first encounter a projection (“so you <something they did not say>”), followed by profanity. The factual content is zero or false. It’s a purely rhetoric figure, constructed from fallacies (like a strawman), made to be ugly, to poison the conversation.

              Sorry for being harsh, nothing personal. I believe you wrote what you said because you care about the outcome, and your country. I tried to point out how I think this specific tone might be counterproductive for these intents.

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago
      1. the voting system alone wrong break the two party system.

      2. Approval Voting is a better voting method anyway.

      3. We’re going to need to move to some kind of proportional system in order to get more parties, and sequential proportional approval is better suited for that task as well.

      I’m only coming at you so strong because it’s important that we get this right the first time. Approval is the way to go, both in the short term and the long term.

      For those that don’t know, approval works like this: vote for any number of candidates, most votes wins. That’s it. It’s dead simple while being one of the more accurate systems by multiple measures.

      Link 1 Simulating Elections with Spatial Voter Models

      Link 2 Simplified Spacial Model Example

      Link 3 2012 OWS Polling

      Link 4 Democratic Primary Polling

      Link 5 2024 Republican primary

      RCV has problems with spoilers, vote-splitting, and non-monotonicity. RCV is so messy we’re not exactly sure how often an RCV election was influenced by a spoiler, but it could be as high as 14%, which would put around 75 people into Congress thanks to a spoiler. We know our happened in the Alaska special election, for example.

      Anyway, if you want to help switch your local or state elections to approval (and you absolutely should) volunteer here!

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          So unfortunately I didn’t bookmark that particular source, but the estimates can range fairly significantly. They’re sensitive to your technique and your definition of a spoiler. For example, this article calculates both higher and lower probabilities of a spoiler. I don’t think it’s good for much more than saying that, all else being equal, RCV has fewer spoilers than FPTP (choose one). Contrast that with approval, where spoilers simply don’t exist, and approval clearly takes the cake in that category.

    • knfrmity@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Ranked choice won’t fundamentally change much. The parties allowed will still be within the capitalist window of allowed positions.

      What is really needed is a democratic centralist system, but that can only happen after revolution.