93
Angry Democratic donors turn off the flow of money
(thehill.com)
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 24 Feb 2025
93 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10294 readers
128 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
It's a rational position. "Tell me what my money will actually accomplish after all these failures."
That said, getting rid of big donors doesn't really have a downside for the party platform. But I think a schism is coming.
Being the longest running democracy (though flawed) is encouraging. The rabbit hole of US politics is daunting. I try to not get too emotionally invested.
I don't think the timeline is relevant. Rome didn't exactly fall in a day, it turned from a republic into proud empire as conditions for the plebs degraded, and ... well, that's helpful to bear in mind.
And Iran went from mini skirts to burqas in three years.
How quickly we forget.