215
Trump planning flurry of executive orders for first day, top aide says
(www.theguardian.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 12 Nov 2024
215 points (96.9% liked)
News
23376 readers
1663 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I'll never understand why anyone thought the guy to clean up after Trump's first term was an over 80 year old moderate who's views on presidential powers boils down to:
We need someone to fight fascism and we got a geriatric pacifist who spent his whole campaign lying about what he was prepared to do...
And then when he dropped out last minute we ran his VP who kept saying she agreed with him 100% and wouldnt have changed anything over the last four years, despite most of what he "tried" never making it I to the planning stages or getting struck down before implementation.
Biden failed and Kamala told voters she was fine with that and then acted shocked when that's not what voters wanted.
Voters want someone who will fight for them, not "aww shucks, vote for me again and we'll try the same shit".
Amazing. You read an article about how shitty trump is and you immediately blame Democrats.
This is the new narrative. "I don't share in the blame if people didn't vote for Harris. All I did was constantly tell people not to vote for Harris."
It's his whole schtick. Apparently trying and failing to hold Trump accountable is more immoral than supporting him and shielding him from him the consequences of his crimes. 🤷
The democratic party is absolutely to blame for this damning historic loss. The last time the Republican won the popular vote was over 20 years ago and the fact the candidate that just pulled that off is the ultra divisive Donald Trump says more about the failure of the left than it does about the right. The majority of Americans don't believe the Democrats can or will fight for them anymore and that's a major issue. Joe Biden wasn't able to effectively articulate his policies and the gaslighting us about his obvious mental acuity did nothing to build trust. I'm tired of hearing the Dems should pick a centrist candidate when it's obvious they need to dump big money interests and fight for working people again. They need to run a left wing candidate that has the ability to clearly speak to and defend their well thought out policies. They need someone who we can trust to take action on office and not just give lip service our issues. Until then get ready to fail.
Amazing. You read a comment about how Trump is a genuine threat that needs real opposition rather than a Democratic party that looks to compromise with that threat and you immediately decide to kiss the asses of the party that repeatedly fails to protect us.
Edit: The Democratic Party has learned nothing from 2016, they learned the wrong lessons from 2020, and I worry they'll learn nothing from this election. People critiquing the Democratic Party's approach is not an endorsement of Trump. We want better opposition that actually fights for us. If all you want is to root for you team and ignore their flaws then we're fucked.
You should be pushing the party to improve not shutting down any discussion of improving the parties platform or strategy. Trump got elected due to Democratic failures, not because people are discussing those failures.
Haha, if you think I have a "team", youre fucking cooked.
I'm calling a spade a spade. You want to avoid this? Vote for who is CLOSEST to what you want. Instead of waiting for Santa Claus.
Then don't defend the flaws of the Democratic party and call a spade a spade. We know Trump sucks. I voted and encouraged others to vote. The job of any party is to motivate turnout. Turnout did not diminish because some random person on Lemmy said they weren't going to vote or criticized somebody.
The Democratic party hurt their own turnout and appeal by defending the status quo and appealing to Republicans. That kills any sort of enthusiasm people have. They clearly did not win over any substantial number of Republicans and they suppressed their own turnout.
Many people voting do not have a deep interest in politics. I can complain about how they should care more, but they either don't have the time or they can't be bothered. Give them something to make it worth the effort. Trump motivates turnout because even though you and I know he's shit he says he's going to change things. For a lot of people voting works by assessing how I'm doing right now. Right now most people aren't feeling great. So when one party says, "things are bad and I'm going to change them," and the other party says, "actually things are great. Look how great the economy is recovering. Stop complaining about how your cost have living hasn't recovered," some people are going to ignore the bigotry and bullshit and others are going to give up.
I'm not asking for Socialist Santa Claus. I'm asking for the slightest bit of competency. I'm asking for assessing what the root causes of a loss are and how to fix it.
Im asking for the slightest bit of effort on their part.
But sure, keep making excuses for them and they'll take it. Im sure they'll wake up one day and realize it's all their fault after everyone has continually excused them.
Shaming people for not voting has never been an effective strategy for significantly increasing turnout. I feel like it's been tried and maybe people need some good policies in tandem with your shaming to motivate them.
I don't like that they don't vote. I think that they should vote. I want to think about how we can get them to vote.
Keep being dense though. I'm glad it makes you feel better.
Keep giving excuses and being dense. See how that works out for you. Great job.
How am I making excuses?
I would have liked Trump to lose. When assessing what went wrong we need to look at the causes. You can say, "these lazy dumb idiots didn't vote," but that isn't a fix. That's only identifying a problem. We now need to figure out how to get lazy dumb idiots to vote.
My frustration is that its the job of a political party to motivate lazy dumb idiots and the democrats haven't been doing a very good job.
You make excuses for them not voting and absolve them of ownership of the situation. They'll never feel like theyre at fault if you do that. And they should.
And I fundamentally disagree- the party is supposed to convince you to vote for them, not to vote in general. It's a civic duty.
So yes, so long as they never are made to feel they drove the car into the ditch, they won't. So my suggestion is to start making them acutely aware that they are at fault and when bad shit happens let them know that they brought it upon themselves but they also have the power to change that in the future.
For fucks sake read the words im about to write.
It sucks that those people didnt vote. I think that they should have voted. It's even okay to be mad at them for not voting, but that's not the important part. None of that fixes anything. I think its more important to look at why they didn't vote and how to get them to vote.
Wanting to make them hurt because we're hurting is not a strategy. The problem is that people did not vote for Kamala Harris. Trump's turnout increased in 2024. Do you think Republicans shamed their voters or do you think that they offered change? The solution is not to lash out at other voters. The solution is to identify people not voting as a problem, but to then look at the root causes of that problem. I can promise that the problem is not that you didn't vote shame people hard enough.
Looking for reasons why something happened does not excuse it, but it does help you understand why it happened.
The root cause is that people are let off the hook. "Oh both candidates were bad, no point in voting." Hell you hear that crap all the time "republican and republican lite." It's not even close to the truth and people saying it are just giving people excuses for being lazy and letting them off the hook.
I'm not trying to make them hurt. I think they will be by default and deserve to be reminded that doing nothing ensured it.
And if you would read what I wrote then you'd see that I am saying the Dems need to make changes sure but we also need to remind nonvoters they most definitely culpable for everything that happens in this administration. Why are you so averse to that? Afraid they might actually be forced to do some introspection and realize that they are part of the problem? Maybe they'll finally take ownership and actually go vote?
For real- take the L and move on.
"Dems need to make changes sure but we also need to remind nonvoters they most definitely culpable for everything that happens in this administration. Why are you so averse to that?" The vast majority of voters and non voters are not on Lemmy or in your circles. The protest 3rd party votes and non voters are a small fraction of the overall turnout suppression that happens with a bad campaign. My frustration is that I'm already seeing individuals like yourself and establishment democrats learning the wrong lessons. What you're saying is the same lesson the Democrats have learned in past elections and it's what will keep them losing. Rather than energizing support with a populist campaign and policies they only campaign as the status quo compared to the Republican threat and it is not working.
Obama won by a large margin in 2008 because people were energized by the promise of change. Rather than delivering on that promise or learning that that was effective messaging they thought they had gained party loyalty that they could exchange for corporate friendly policy.
You're right nonvoters, Trump voters, etc are culpable for this loss. My frustration is seeing so much focus on it. Shaming people did not did not work this election and it won't work in the next. The issue wasn't that you didn't shame.hard enough. Keep doing it if it makes you feel better, but you're yelling at a wall.
Id say the same to you. Agree to disagree. Im moving on.
Voter turnout in swing states, the only ones where the voter total really matter in our trash electoral system, actually stayed the same or increased. You can check and compare the reuslts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The large drop is due to turnout depression in blue strongholds where voters knew democrats would win. Trump won swinstates in spite of turnout. I want you to be more informed.
Bernie would have been that person. I'm still upset about that.
I can't think of anyone aggressive enough for the future. AOC maybe?
AOC is the best bet.
But whoever it is, the focus needs to be on increasing turnout from the left and not attempting to steal Republican voters by moving the whole party right.
Republican voters will always say if Dems agree with them they'll vote D, but it's always a lie and they'll always vote R.
Just this way they still get what they want if they lose and they know it'll help the Republican win.
Either the people running the DNC are so stupid they still haven't noticed, or they're in on the grift. Considering the same billionaires/corps donate to both parties, I'm not really it out.
But regardless of why they're so bad at their job, we can't afford to keep letting them run the literal only other option to fascism.
As John Oliver just said (paraphrased, but around 10:30 of latest episode):
She can't have gone any further "center" and she performed horribly. Anyone saying we went to far left isn't paying attention to reality, they'll listening to billionaire's talking heads on the TV.
A populist. That's what the people crave.
And they always should.
We are meant to be a democracy, a populist is literally a person who puts citizens issues ahead of others.
Bernie is a populist, populists are great.
And for those who are still confused: Bernie and Trump are both populists, but Trump is also a demagogue and that's what's a bad thing.
That and electrolytes
Always have and always will.
It's common sense that voters want someone who they think can and will help them.
Republicans lie about it and win elections. Dem politicians try to convince us populism is bad because it's not what their donors want.
A little bit of me dies everytime a "moderate" conflates populism with evil.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
They hate populism because they're the political elite. They're the ones already not helping the common American and instead helping the other wealthy people.
If the Dem party pivots to populism, it means replacing both the elected and non elected leaders of the Dem party. And they're not going to do what's best for the country but worst for them personally voluntarily, or they'd be populists already.
We need to either force them out or start a new party, and four years isn't as much time as it seems.
Bernie party for the future. Whatever name it needs.
Semantics...
But no.
We can't tie it to a person, and Bernie is far to old to be the candidate.
Tying it to a person is what happened with Obama in 08, so when he left in 2016 there was a vacuum in the party. Hillary and the neoliberal rank and file filled that vacuum, and they were rooting for trump because they needed the worst possible opponent for Hilary to have a chance.
Bernie has been saying for decades he's not the answer, the answer is a movement. Not loyalty to a single person who can never last a decade in office.
As much as I love Bernie, he shouldn't even run for his own Senate seat again. He doesn't have to retire, there's a lot of good work he could do growing the movement. But he's too old for office and has been for a while.
I'm not talking about the man. I want his attitude and policies as the platform.
conflate sure, but they're not mutually exclusive.
Obviously not.
But populists fucking win elections.
No one is saying the Dems need to run an evil populist. Or someone that lies about being a populist, like trump.
I'm more concerned that a populist Dem is a unicorn. The closest I've ever seen is Sanders or AOC and they're hardly mass appeal popular.
Anyone with a solid conscience and mass appeal that we actually know wouldn't want the job.
What?
Bernie could actually get republican voters and people who think the current Dem party is too far right.
Withe division along party lines being so deep, progressives are probably the most popular politicians in America right now, everyone else just most of their own party likes them. They're capped at 1/3 approval because of that
People continuingly act like 1/3 of the country just doesn't vote.
We saw in 08 with Obama they'll show up for a Dem running a populist campaign, and for whatever reason that's the last time we've tried it in 16 years.
Neoliberalism isn't popular enough to win elections. And all it's ever accomplished was driving Republicans to ever increasing extremes.
nah, not buying that one. Never seen ANY inclination for them to call him anything but a dirty socialist.
do you have any data that suggests overwise?
63.6% turnout. Less white votes, more minority votes than 2000 or even 2004
This we can ardently agree on.
edit: spaces for formatting
They call all Democrats dirty socialists already. If you start running somebody with popular policies it'll be harder to boogie man them away.
100% propaganda pushed by the capitalist (and therefore anti-populist) mass media.
I wouldn't exactly call Biden a pacifist...
I would, he's an extreme pacifist to the point where figuratively if he saw a grown man beating a six year old to death in an alley he wouldn't lift a finger to stop it.
He'd admonish it, tell them to stop, maybe even call them corncob.
But he wouldn't use violence to save that childs life.
And obviously in this analogy Gaza is the child that can't defend itself.
He's literally sending weapons to the man beating the child and telling him where to hit him where it hurts most
What about supplying weapons or even directly aiding a war effort negates pacifism?
You're talking about the most extreme as far as determination not commitment, absolutionist pacifists is what they're called.
They would have a problem with that.
But treating every member of a group like they're the same as the most extreme...
I'm hesitant to ask but whatever groups do you apply that logic to? It's rarely (if ever) a good idea.
Uhhh ...