15 million of them. That is a staggering number.
It’s also not an accurate number. The official count for Biden in 2020 was about 81.3 million (found many places online, but the official one is a good choice) and the unofficial count for Harris by AP so far is about 74.3 million. That’s about 7 million, which is less than half of what you claimed.
People have got to stop just posting straight up false information. If you don’t know, don’t post.
I haven’t read the book - and probably won’t, since Dyer’s not a historian, has no relevant credentials listed on his website, and has never written a book before - but based on the article, it doesn’t sound like he’s saying anything new.
It does sound like it’s being weirdly misrepresented, because Dyer didn’t “reveal” anything and his wealth isn’t any more or less “intimately connected” than any other wealthy person’s at that time. It also sounds like it overstates his wealth. He primarily got his money from being Master of the Mint, which until Newton was a symbolic post intended to give him income in return for his major contributions to science, but in standard Newton fashion he ignored the implied social norm and took it seriously instead. That gave him a comfortable income to essentially have some nice things. We’re not talking billionaire wealth.
As for the connection to the slave trade - based on the title, I’d expect him to have owned the slaves, or led the expedition to enslave people in order to be “intimately connected.” For the time, this was about as connected as any landowner was to slavery. That’s not to say it was fine, just that this is expected for anybody of his station and is absolutely not new or surprising information.
But I guess I’m acting all surprised that the Guardian made a shit article, and that shouldn’t be news to either.
He’s gotten worse, but people also used to be more charitable. I thought he sounded like a pretentious know-nothing CEO when I heard him talking about the Hyperloop in 2012, and it’s been an impressive downhill run from there.
My gut says “that’s probably true, but that doesn’t mean much.” Let me pick it apart.
LBJ attempted his War on Poverty and Great Society, and while it didn’t go as far as he wanted, he still got some good stuff out the door. Food stamps, medicare, medicaid, minimum wage, just to name a few. No contest compared to everybody that came later.
Nixon was a Republican, and I’ll skip all of them because by this point in history they would never be as economically progressive as Biden.
Ford was a Republican.
Carter ran on being socially liberal and economically conservative. Outside of minor policy like the Community Reinvestment Act, there’s no help there, obviously.
Reagan was a Republican.
Clinton ran on the Third Way, which was sort of what Carter did but even more disastrous. Notable policy included gutting welfare and widespread deregulation.
W was a Republican.
Obama got ACA passed and used an obviously Keynesian approach to economic recovery with the recession he was given, pulling away from Clinton’s conservative Third Way.
Trump was a Republican.
Biden did a similar Keynesian approach to economics.
I would assume your statement hinges largely on the “biggest infrastructure bill” type rhetoric, because he didn’t do anything new, he just continued to fund things that the government needs to fund in order for the country to operate. He sure spent a lot, but whether that’s the metric we should be using for most progressive is up for debate.
Personally, I’d say Obama was more progressive because he actually did something substantial and new with the ACA, but it doesn’t put him in another tier above Biden. Of course, neither comes remotely close to LBJ.
What that statement really shows is how far the government has fallen from even attempting to provide value for people.
My household is in the top few percentile, we’re fine. I just think everybody else should also have the luxury of not having to choose between relationships and shelter.
People say this kind of thing a lot, but I don’t really understand if they don’t have any family or friends, don’t care about their family and friends, or just think it’s reasonable to have to choose between your relationships and living in an affordable house.
if this given instance is the first instance to which most people will be introduced, being the closest thing to an “official” instance, should they have a duty, or at the very least, an interest, in maximizing the inclusitivity of their community?
I think this goes back to what teawrecks said earlier:
it’s not a for-profit business
It’s a private club with a trivial admission process. It’s not just that they don’t care about maximizing inclusivity, growth, and total users, it’s that they don’t want any of that. They want like-minded people and they’re happy to keep out or ban people that don’t fit that mold.
It feels like you’re saying they should want something else, but I don’t see it as obvious why they would, and I don’t think you’ve explained your reasoning why they would.
You have this perspective that “we can show them” if we just let the Republicans win, but there’s no evidence to support that. Every time the Republicans have won, the Democrats have moved to the right, not the left.
If you want a third party to emerge, you can advocate for that, but a truly leftist third party isn’t possible if we lose all our limbs.
What an absurd headline, so ridiculous they even debunk it themselves immediately. He doesn’t need Venezuela’s cooperation, he’s considering making a deal with them. We know from recent history that the US has no issue deporting people to any country they find convenient, regardless of where they originated. As long as the US has any agreement with any country anywhere, they’ll go ahead and do it.
Two things I don’t see anybody saying:
Yeah, how often do the Republicans actually manage to come together to stop Trump?
One major problem here is the lack of community. It was easier to get in-person events organized when the default was to do things in person. #resistance isn’t just more common because people aren’t willing to be in person, but because it’s not as easy to get involved.
As far as actual political groups are concerned, a lot of them have very little online presence, or their information is only available through something like Facebook where you need an account to view it. Those that are more available frequently only hold their meetings online, and many make it difficult to find how to get involved because you have to navigate through all their requests for donations to find there’s very little else available.
But that’s just my experience over the last few years. I imagine it’ll get a lot worse when these groups aren’t legally allowed to exist.
The point is that there’s sanctions, and the sanctions are supposed to prevent those parts from getting into Russia. It’s not surprising to a lot of us that sanctions are ineffective at anything other than hurting the general population, but it’s good to report it and have that data point.
Not who brought it up, but it’s essentially just checking a box if you approve of the candidate, and check as many boxes as you want. Highest number of box checks wins. I’d take it over first past the post, but I prefer RCV still. Proponents of approval voting say it helps weed out extreme candidates, but I find the most extreme candidates in the US have historically been a huge net win, so I’d prefer to give them a better shot at winning.
Conservative messaging wins propaganda battles because it’s simple. Democrats can’t use the same tactics, because they’ll be less effective no matter what. Preventing consolidation of media and monopolization of media would be more effective, since it’s a centrally coordinated effort. Or just preventing anybody from having enough money that they’d even have the ability to do that.
If we get elections in the future, it’s possible we’ll get Democrats in two of the branches, and if they get their shit together they can pack the courts. It’s not entirely hopeless, but it does ride on the Democrats being remotely competent as an organization for even a brief period of time.
Like for a reasonable, ethical individual, that should 100% be enough.
Conservatives have never been reasonable, ethical individuals. Slavery, Jim Crow, against women’s suffrage, against the equal rights amendment, against social security, against gay and trans rights, the list goes on forever. The country’s fight isn’t to change a conservative’s mind, it’s to get enough of the non-conservatives to engage, protest, and vote such that they overwhelm the small but galvanized conservative base.
When you win on those issues, those conservatives don’t change their mind. They continue to support slavery, or voter suppression, or the issues of their time, but eventually they die off. Then you have new fights with the new conservatives.
True, but that’s not new. George Floyd, Occupy Wall Street, Seattle WTO, and the entirety of the civil rights movement all were met with state violence. The more they crack down, the more necessary it is to protest it.
They won’t hear about the bad things, or they’ll be told it was the Democrats that did it, and they’ll be believe it. Convincing MAGA of reality is pointless while they’re still feeding from the trough of conservative shit. We’re better off protesting and being disruptive in combination with getting our shit together for next round, where hopefully we’ll have real primaries and get our first competent general election candidate since Obama.
We both know the reasonable way to interpret your post, and the way nearly everybody would interpret it, is that that’s the current or final count. It’s also outdated to say 74 million fewer people voted for Harris, but at one point, that was in fact the count. But it’s more than outdated - it’s misleading to the point of being factually inaccurate to any observer.
I can’t believe instead of being like “oh shit, I made a mistake, my bad, I better think for a second about this in the future” you’re going to try to justify it. Whatever, that’s social media at this point I guess. Surely I’m not the problem, says everybody feeding misinformation in a giant circle. I thought Lemmy might be better, but it’s just not. Thank you for convincing me to finally give all social media up.