138
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2025
138 points (98.6% liked)
Asklemmy
44672 readers
1520 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Less tax is better.
No saying that taxation as it currently exists it optimal, but any decent assessment of how to improve things requires a lot of nuance that is nearly never considered by most people.
I'm not mad at the huge amount I pay in taxes. I'm mad about what I get in return.
Yeah, that's fair, for sure, to some degree. For instance large fractions of policing funding should be redirected into various social services, and military spending can get fuck off all together.
But also, wealthier people paying more than an equal share of tax is a good thing too, and provides lots of intangible benefits (e.g. better education systems and fewer people in extreme poverty and desperation leads to lower crime rates)
Nuance is boring, voting and/or complaining is easy.
I mean, people are right about slimy politicians too, but they never seem to consider that it's them that keeps electing those people.
How so?
If one doesn't vote, a slimy politician still gets elected.
If one does vote, in most elections they can only choose from a small group of people who probably fail to represent them, and even if there is a reasonable option, they probably won't win the vote anyway.
The system is rigged, when it comes to voting there usually* isn't a correct option. Our political voice must exist outside of elections.
(I say usually, because a few elections are better than other, but generally speaking at a federal level, it's slime no matter how you vote)
See, this is it right here. Anyone can run, but nobody can win without being slick and two-faced. The idiot vote is the largest block. If you get involved it'll be obvious pretty fast.
So, you're assuming we're all American here. This applies to every democracy, including my own. In America, just add a probably terminal deadlock problem in on top of that.
And don't forget 'rich', or more importantly, supported by the rich. A national-scale campaign requires resources that a typical organization can't gather, and to win without such a campaign is miraculous in most systems.
Nah, like you said it applies to most democracies, even if America is an extreme example of these universal trends.
Well, in countries like mine there's donation limits (with teeth). Middle class people are the ones you pursue for financing. That's not really the issue so much as the majority of voters that barely know what they're voting for - and soundbites or a personal hearty hello at a local event work wonders on them, while actual honesty or competence has little effect.
Refreshing to hear!
I haven't looked into this but I'm tempted to believe that immediately. Election awareness is amazingly low, even among people who do have strong political beliefs.