The president often had a weak, raspy voice during his first debate against Trump, in what Democrats had hoped would be a turning point in the race.

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Bernie Sanders would have eaten Trump alive in every debate, including this last one.

    • hypnoton@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Dem leaders prefer Trump to a real structural progressive economic reform.

      The billionaires buy both parties now. Capitalism sucks chunks.

      The billionaires of today love the status quo.

      • b34k@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Is a full on fascist dictatorship the “status quo” now? Surprised billionaires would be behind this.

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          5 months ago

          Fascism is great for any buisness that is already established. These people are already buying off the government, they’re not the little guys who could be taken over by a fascist government, they’re the ones pulling the strings.

          • btaf45@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Fascism is great for any buisness that is already established.

            Fascism is actually terrible for capitalism in general though. Not that billionaires are smart enough to understand that.

            • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              So is oligarchy, the invisible hand, if it ever did exist, clearly no longer does if the market movements are determined by insider information and government bribes, I mean lobbying. Innovation is constantly stifled when that innovation costs rich people potential profit. Stock brokers shut down their consumer apps when those consumers invest in ways they threaten large hedge funds. Capitalists are about as good at following their dogma as Evangelical Christians.

              • btaf45@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Stock brokers shut down their consumer apps when those consumers invest in ways they threaten large hedge funds

                Only an idiot unwise person would use their phones to make stock trades.

                • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  You realize most consumer level brokers have apps right? The vast majority of Americans have retirement and other investments with brokers that have apps. You don’t seriously expect me to believe that inherently makes it dumb.

                  • btaf45@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    I’m not calling you dumb and I’m sorry I sounded that way. I would never access any financial accounts on a phone or have any financial phone apps because of the gigantic risk. And I would never make any trade that requires another human to confirm my trade. And I would certainly never let any ‘broker’ access to my investments.

        • Furbag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          The thing is, nobody ever said billionaires were smart. A lot of people conflate being wealthy with being intelligent, and that’s simply not the case.

          The fatal mistake the billionaire donor class is making here is that they think Trump can be controlled if he does win. They aren’t worried about fascism because money is the real king of America and always has been.

          And that line of thinking is solid until a fascist dictator who doesn’t want to give up their power or have it limited by anybody else decides that the wealthy are no longer their allies and has the secret police “deal with them”.

        • Seleni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Many billionaires are not only morons, they’re racist morons. They also love the trappings of fascism—as long as they get to be the ones on top.

          Have you seen that article about that one techbro rich boy and how he wants to structure San Francisco? How the techbros would wear grey shirts, and their Republican friends would red shirts, and everyone else would be forced to wear blue shirts, and those with grey and red shirts would get preferential treatment, because they would buy out the cops?

          It’s a chilling article; I recommend reading it.

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          You shouldn’t be. The rich supporting fascists (and vice versa) is nothing new.

          Excerpts from Blackshirts and Reds, by Michael Parenti

          To impose a full measure of austerity upon workers and peasants, the ruling economic interests would have to abolish the democratic rights that helped the masses defend their modest living standards. The solution was to smash their unions, political organizations, and civil liberties. Industrialists and big landowners wanted someone at the helm who could break the power of organized workers and farm laborers and impose a stern order on the masses. For this task Benito Mussolini, armed with his gangs of Blackshirts, seemed the likely candidate.

          In 1922, the Federazione Industriale, composed of the leaders of industry, along with representatives from the banking and agribusiness associations, met with Mussolini to plan the “March on Rome,” contributing 20 million lire to the undertaking. With the additional backing of Italy’s top military officers and police chiefs, the fascist “revolution”—really a coup d’état—took place. . .

          In Germany, a similar pattern of complicity between fascists and capitalists emerged. German workers and farm laborers had won the right to unionize, the eight-hour day, and unemployment insurance. But to revive profit levels, heavy industry and big finance wanted wage cuts for their workers and massive state subsidies and tax cuts for themselves.

          During the 1920s, the Nazi Sturmabteilung or SA, the brown-shirted storm troopers, subsidized by business, were used mostly as an antilabor paramilitary force whose function was to terrorize workers and farm laborers. By 1930, most of the tycoons had concluded that the Weimar Republic no longer served their needs and was too accommodating to the working class. They greatly increased their subsidies to Hitler, propelling the Nazi party onto the national stage. Business tycoons supplied the Nazis with generous funds for fleets of motor cars and loudspeakers to saturate the cities and villages of Germany, along with funds for Nazi party organizations, youth groups, and paramilitary forces. In the July1932 campaign, Hitler had sufficient funds to fly to fifty cities in the last two weeks alone.

          In that same campaign the Nazis received 37.3 percent of the vote, the highest they ever won in a democratic national election. They never had a majority of the people on their side. To the extent that they had any kind of reliable base, it generally was among the more affluent members of society. In addition, elements of the petty bourgeoisie and many lumpenproletariats served as strong-arm party thugs, organized into the SA storm troopers. But the great majority of the organized working class supported the Communists or Social Democrats to the very end. . .

          Here were two peoples, the Italians and Germans, with different histories, cultures, and languages, and supposedly different temperaments, who ended up with the same repressive solutions because of the compelling similarities of economic power and class conflict that prevailed in their respective countries. In such diverse countries as Lithuania, Croatia, Rumania, Hungary, and Spain, a similar fascist pattern emerged to do its utmost to save big capital from the impositions of democracy. . .

          Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their big business patrons by privatizing many perfectly solvent state-owned steel mills, power plants, banks, and steamship companies. Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to refloat or subsidize heavy industry. Agribusiness farming was expanded and heavily subsidized. Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations while assuming most of the risks and losses on investments. As is often the case with reactionary regimes, public capital was raided by private capital.

          At the same time, taxes were increased for the general populace but lowered or eliminated for the rich and big business. Inheritance taxes on the wealthy were greatly reduced or abolished altogether.

      • btaf45@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Dem leaders prefer Trump to a real structural progressive economic reform.

        Literally no Dem in the entire country prefers Traitorapist Trump to even a house plant. Trump and “real structural progressive economic reform” are completely disconnected things. It’s not even remotely an either/or choice.

    • NatakuNox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      He could energize the electorate by ending the genicide in Palestine, nationalizing the rail industry or Boeing, expanding the Supreme Court and investigating their corruption, or displaying unlimited support for clean energy and dismantling the fossil fuel industry. But I doubt any of that will happen.

      • AgentDalePoopster@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        It won’t happen because Biden doesn’t want to do any of those things. The DNC would rather risk the nation crumbling into fascism than take any of those steps to stop it.

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          The DNC would rather

          The newly elected delegates this year literally is the DNC. The smaller group of caretakers do not have the legal power to purge the large number of elected delegates. And these delegates are bound by the party charter to vote Biden on the first ballot. Unless Biden releases his delegates, which he could do and might do if convinced he is not the best choice to defeat Trump. So I am hoping that behind the scenes Dems are working furiously to convince Biden to release his delegates so that Gavin Newsome can be the nominee instead.

    • BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I think we’ve been operating on the false assumption that the Democratic partys primary goal is to win. I would wager that as far as campaign contributions go, it’s likely better for them financially if they barely lose. I feel like the past few presidential races have been the American populace trying to force them to win anyways when they obviously didn’t want to.

      A lot of their decisions make a lot more sense in that context.

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s easier to fundraise as an opposition party.

          Any funds raised can only be used to win elections, not to buy themselves candy and ice cream. But if they don’t win they don’t get any personal gifts from lobbyists or cushy jobs after leaving office.

      • btaf45@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        it’s likely better for them financially if they barely lose

        LMFAO that makes absolutely no sense. The only use of the money they raise is to win elections. It’s not like if they lose they can use the leftover money to buy a new car. If there even is any leftover money, which there almost always is not.

        • BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I admire your optimism, but even if you aren’t willing to bend the rules and stick to the letter of the ethics rules, you can still use campaign funds for a fairly broad amount of items. And, if you are willing to bend the rules… when’s the last time you heard of someone getting in trouble for misuse of campaign funds? If you remember one at all, i’d wager it was George Santos, and it took a huge amount of misuse there for people to start paying attention.

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Show real people who have been helped by Biden’s policies in the commercials.

      People don’t trust institutions anymore. They don’t trust authority anymore. But put a real person in front of them and there’s a chance a plurality won’t call them paid actors and will understand that things are getting better.