Political Memes

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 2 years ago

It’s illegal for them to not do what helps their shareholders.

This has been repeatedly shown false. They have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, not a legal one. As Tim Apple once told an investor asking about gains on their push for environmental greenness as a company, he told them that if all they want is for the number to go up they should get out of the stock.

Cook then offered his own bottom line to Danhof, or any other critic, one which perfectly sums up his belief that social and political and moral leadership are not antithetical to running a business. “If that’s a hard line for you,” Cook continued, “then you should get out of the stock.”

https://alearningaday.blog/2016/03/12/tim-cook-on-roi

parent

[+] orcrist@lemm.ee 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago*

Businesses also have wide latitude in how they interpret profit mandate. They're allowed to make purely gut-driven predictions and take huge risks with little evidence on the grounds that a payoff is on the horizon.

Tim Cook could blandly assert that environmental greenness does increase profits and then just hand wave in some fuzzy math about hypothetical waste management or non-renewable material costs or public sentiment. And who could argue with him over a 20 year time horizon?

You can say whatever you want as a CEO and most people will reflexively trust you simply because you're in a position of authority.

parent

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

They ARE services. They're not services run for the benefit of the public.

I think we all got a little messed up by the few years that journalism had a bit of credibility. For the vast vast vast majority of humans on earth all forms of mass communication have been propaganda for those in power.. I mean look at the Catholic Church for the best modern example

parent

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Which few years are you referring to?

parent

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Sgt_choke_n_stroke@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Yea it's now an election of the old school vs new school and the passing of the torch. Boomers are going down kicking and screaming

parent

[–] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@fedia.io 70 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I make my livin' off the evenin' news Just give me somethin', somethin' I can use

hideshow 4 child comments

[+] banner80@fedia.io 25 points 2 years ago (4 children)

[deleted]

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I feel that would only fuel the misinformation machine with more fake news. I’d be interested in knowing your rationale and how you feel it would be beneficial to anybody except the news organizations.

parent

[+] banner80@fedia.io 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

[–] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I’m not usually one to take this stance, but just because the Republicans are doing it does not mean the Democrats should too.

It seems to me that your main reason for your stance is that you feel the Republicans do these outlandish things, which makes them “newsworthy” and stand out in the crowd, while the Democrats are left sitting in the back mumbling like they’re Milton from Office Space. You think that if they start saying their own outlandish things, it’ll somehow balance the scales in the news media and get people back to paying attention to the Democrats and focusing on their real agenda.

The way I see it is that Republicans, while loud, are very much not well respected by most anybody that makes a difference to the Democrats. In other words, acting like Republicans to get attention would be counterproductive as it would greatly offend their base. You don’t win an argument by being louder than your opponent. You definitely don’t win when your answer is to model “I know you are, but what am I” responses.

If anything, no one wins an argument at all. What you want to do is to flip the narrative by remaining calm, focusing on the facts, and pointing out the flaws in your opponents arguments. You repeat what they’ve said, ask them to explain it further or that you don’t understand what they mean, and then hold them accountable for their responses.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[+] banner80@fedia.io 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

[–] kautau@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Or more than half of the electorate. There are dems on lemmy that want blood and conflict, who would rather see trump killed instead of being defeated in an election and being sent to prison. There are independents who will vote for whoever appears "stronger" on video as opposed to who is more likely to work for their interests. The position of president has been "who the american people (and remember, corporations are people) love from their media exposure to said candidate" far more than "who has the best policy" for a long time

parent

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] bennel@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

You're replying to a song lyric

parent

[–] Soup@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

I’m not sure Trump actually has any idea what’s going on around him. His nonsense just doesn’t get caught by the equally stupid base so he looks like he’s playing them. The only people that would support him are the dumbest people imaginable so it’s like saying I’m a skilled athelete based solely on the fact that I can absolutely obliterate my competition…which just so happens to be a bunch of toddlers.

This isn’t to say he’s not a massive threat and that the base won’t vote him in if Americans don’t vote against him but let’s not give him any undue credit here.

parent

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] CynicRaven@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

People love it when you lose. Give us dirty laundry.

parent

[–] abracaDavid@lemmy.today 34 points 2 years ago (3 children)

It's a low bar. If we're now judging candidates in comparison to Trump then we're in trouble.

Trump isn't the standard. He's an anomaly, and we should aim way higher.

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] InternetUser2012@lemmy.today 8 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Lol, name the last Republican President that wasn't a moron.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Roosevelt

parent

https://ictnews.org/archive/theodore-roosevelt-the-only-good-indians-are-the-dead-indians

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago

Morality wise, the last good Republican was Grant.

For intelligence it's Nixon imo. Tricky Dick didn't get where he was by being a moron, evil isn't stupid.

Eisenhower very definitely wasn't stupid either.

parent

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago

I don't agree. A scale has to be useful for separating what you're measuring. Any scale that puts Kamala as "low" is like trying to measure the size of a banana and an orange in kilometers, they'll both measure "low". There is no decent measure by which Trump is anything but scum. Kamala (or just about anyone who isn't a Trump voter) ranks so far above Trump that they can't be anything under "excellent" on a scale designed to meaningfully compare these candidates.

Obviously the scale we should be using for our politicians SHOULD be better, and that's because we should have produced better candidates. With the candidates we have, we don't get to use a better scale because in doing so we'll be playing right into Republican narrative of "they're both the same" or Kamala is "low" quality so vote for Trump.

parent

[–] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 6 points 2 years ago*

Well, Trump did make a ton of people madly follow him.
It may be leading the world to ruin, but it is still leading.

I'd put the impact rating as "high".
The direction being undesirable.

parent

[–] Pandemanium@lemm.ee 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Which pundits actually said that? Most of what I've read, people were saying she did pretty well. But you sure got people here believing this meme.

[–] blady_blah@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

Fox news. Daily beast. Daily Mail. etc. The usual suspects. But no matter what she said or did, they were going to bash her. If she were the 2nd coming they would say she was a "trans ultra-left authoritarian".

parent

[–] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The winner of a political debate is whoever the audience likes more. It unfortunately has nothing to do with being a reasonable person.

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Stalinwolf@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 years ago

It's fucking absurd and embarrassing that crowd participation is even permitted in televised presidential debates.

parent

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago

This is the folly of representative democracy. It inevitably becomes less about policy and instead a popularity contest between figureheads.

Representative democracy has run its course, and the problems it solved (the fact that it's not practical for everyone to attend places of government from far away) have all but been solved by technology. Bring on direct democracy.

parent

[–] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Media is a circus. Dont clown around or stick head in the lions mouth and youre gonna get a low score

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The media is owned by old white conservative men who would prefer fascism over more taxes.

The 'liberal media' is a lie

parent

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Had a coworker get very mad when I threw "liberal media" back in her face by noting FOX brags about being "the most watched network".

She responded that FOX is too liberal.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

load more comments (1 reply)

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 years ago*

of course they did, they don't understand shit and need to drum up literally anything to get clicks lmao

[–] abfarid@startrek.website 10 points 2 years ago

When the other candidate's performance is "rock bottom", "low" is a massive step up. Not doing the listed things shouldn't raise the evaluation to "high", because that's the bare minimum.

[–] don@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

I was under the impression that we all know that nearly all media pundits are greedy and suffer from some form of dementia or other brain disease.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

She also clarified her stance on Israel i.e. exactly the same as Biden, full support for genocide.

[–] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Yeah idk why you're getting downvoted, that was one of the most disappointing parts of it.

She could have tried to wriggle around it a bit more rhetorically but she just went "I'll bang my head against the wall with Israel just like we've been doing till now."

In general it was a pretty bad showing from Harris, and Walz did only a bit better.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[+] orcrist@lemm.ee 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

[deleted]

parent

[–] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I feel like having to preface evert criticism of dems with "Trump is worse but..." seems pretty silly.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] wagesj45@fedia.io 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I generally consider Republican candidates and ideas non-starters. Not even worthy of consideration. When I criticize Democrats, the "Trump is not an option" is implied.

parent

[–] Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

But then your comments are identical to those posted by people whose goal is to undermine democratic support through single issues in order to create voter apathy and let Trump win.

It's not the message people are downvoting it's the effect. If you don't do anything to separate your message from this type of malicious attack, it'll unfortunately be taken as that.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] exanime@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Why? In this race he is literally the alternative