this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
259 points (98.1% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5843 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kescusay@lemmy.world 95 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not surprised. They're not doing it out of some newfound sympathy for the plight of working folks, but because even they recognize that the chaos and instability Trump brings is bad for business.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 34 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

After weighing the tax breaks and deregulation, the vast majority of corporations still continuously donated to the Christian fascist party throughout the last decade of open fascism.

Of course they don't like the idea of having to bend the knee and kiss the ring of King fascist, or the risk of being destroyed because they're arbitrary labelled too "woke" by a mentally ill cult, but the dramatically increased profit margins remain far too tempting for most.

[–] Infynis@midwest.social 10 points 2 months ago

Yeah, each one of them individually would be totally fine with it if they were being made King Fascist, but they can't allow anyone else to take the spot

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

That's why the media seems to be pro Trump.. chaos and turmoil sells their product for them.

[–] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 43 points 2 months ago (30 children)

these fucking people are finally considering that the societal collapse trump would bring might be bad for business?

The timing implies it's in response to Harris' new capital gains policy rather than any sudden crisis of conscience.

load more comments (29 replies)
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 31 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'm gonna need them to create an account, log in, enable notifications, write a cover letter, and come talk to me at my workspace in person and then fill out this form three times for me to give a shit about rich people's politics.

Tell me about your bank account you rich twats.

[–] Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Fox was not a name I expected to see on there given all they've done to supercharge the right-wing, but I suppose even Murdoch isn't crazy enough to actually think that it is a good idea to put Trump back in office

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

One of Murdoch's younger sons has been giving money to Dems for years

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

They're playing both sides, so they always come out on top. Politicians are exceptionally cheap, even for multi-millionaires.

[–] dubya43@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

There was a schism between the murdoch camp and the Trump camp after they called Arizona “super early” for Biden in 2020 and Trump threw a fit. That’s when NewsMax and OAN kinda became his preferred, publicly at least, news platforms.

[–] realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.club 13 points 2 months ago

Join the resistance! Fight big business! Brought to you by Yelp.

[–] alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Like the Liz Cheney endorsement, I feel like Harris's campaign should ask them not to. There's not a big contingent of pro-CEO voters, and that contingent is probably going to vote republican anyway, but there's a lot who sense their interests are diametrically opposed to the CEOs who've spent billions lobbying congress.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

there's a lot who sense their interests are diametrically opposed to the CEOs who've spent billions lobbying congress.

The donor class is willing to spend a lot of money to break those people and convince them that they'll only ever get oligarchic bullshit or the blatant incompetence and violent bigotry of Republicans from their government

I bet these donations were at least implicitly contingent on being publicly announced like this

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That's an interesting point.

They're rubbing our noses in it.

[–] AdamBomb@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 2 months ago

88, really? It couldn’t have been 87 or 89?

[–] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

While they simultaneously donate to Republican PACs.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

not sure if bad or marketing?

load more comments
view more: next ›