this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
874 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19229 readers
2244 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Billionaires like Marc Andreessen, Elon Musk, and Vivek Ramaswamy are spreading false claims to discredit the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a federal agency protecting consumers from fraud and abuse.

Andreessen falsely accused the CFPB of politically motivated “debanking,” despite no evidence.

This rhetoric aligns with the “DOGE” project, led by Musk and Ramaswamy, which aims to slash government regulations and programs under the guise of efficiency.

Critics warn this effort will harm public services, benefit billionaires, and push privatization at the expense of ordinary Americans.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 12 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And the Tankies and Anarchists both are cheering them on despite bullshitting to themselves that they're opposed to the Billionaires.

A planet overfull of people in the Age of Information and we've got Billions of fucking Rubes.

[–] Saint_La_Croix_Crosse@midwest.social 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Dude, this is a socialist publication and "tankies" have hated Musk before he explicitly tied himself to Trump and made liberals hate him. What are you talking about? After Clinton, the liberal orthodoxy had been that Reagan had a point with small government and deregulation.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

USA based news outlet Current Affairs has a MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY. Harvard graduate Nathan J. Robinson voted for Clinton and abhors Trump with every fiber in his being.

So no, it's not a tankie publication.

I don't really know about this imaginary "liberal orthodoxy" group you're talking about, but they don't have any lawmakers or voters in the USA so they're not relevant.

[–] lennivelkant@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Socialist ≠ Tankie

You can be in favour of dethroning capitalist oligarchs without licking dictator boots.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I said tankie, not socialist, and that user after me conflated the terms.

[–] Saint_La_Croix_Crosse@midwest.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It is a socialist publication, MBFC still has to give it high credibility because it publishes good stuff. NJR probably voted for Hillary in the 2016 general, but was pro-Sanders and obviously, because he is leftist and "tankie" hates Trump. You are entirely delusional for saying that socialists are more likely to side with Trump than liberals. The Democrat messaging, because of their lack of positive case for themselves just relies on equating anything less than unconditional support for the party with helping Trump.

I was literally talking about Bill Clinton and centrist Democrats. Depending on the specific time, literally either the most amount of lawmakers and congressional voters or second most.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Tankie's support Donald Trump because China and Russia support Donald Trump. Bill Clinton reversed the federal deficit while Republicans cut taxes and deregulate. You've been taken for an absolute fool, your entire worldview is flipped.

[–] Saint_La_Croix_Crosse@midwest.social 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Donald Trump is very anti-China and Russia post-shock therapy is a far-right neoliberal hell hole. Your worldview is flipped and twisted.

Oh, reversing the federal deficit by cutting social spending, totally progressive and not far-right Reaganism. Totally opposing the Republicans rather than being right-wing and simple enough to buy into the Republican kayfabe about the deficit...

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Donald Trump is Anti-Nato and a poison to the USA, if the military allied CCP and Putin were opposed to Trump they'd be insane to do so. Also, Trump vowed to stop the ban of CCP operated TikTok.

You think Trump is anti-China for what? Tariffs? China doesn't even pay those tariffs, and the Tariffs are as wide as Canada, Mexico, and BRICKs.

And yeah, there is nothing "small government and deregulatory" about maintaining and empowering the federal government like Bill Clinton did. Moron.

[–] Saint_La_Croix_Crosse@midwest.social -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Trump is very incoherent and contradictory, but his anti-NATO positions are just that he thinks that the US should be isolationist. The liberal opposition is that, lacking a positive position or vision, liberalism needs a new Cold War to define themselves purely in opposition to other nations. Russia and China are not formally aligned, but they are willing to work together and increase trade with each other out of mutual ostracization and opposition to US demonization. Same reason Iran and North Korea are in the same axis of opposition, purely allied out of mutual interest in resisting US opposition, than any other mutual ideology or interest.

The Tariffs are still harmful to China, it is an export economy. Yes the US firms pay it, but it drives up the cost and therefore reduces sales of the products, so it is still harmful to China, even if it is still not how Trump implied it works, with the Chinese government just paying money out of their treasury or whatever. Trump started the banning of TikTok in his first term. Again, he is really incoherent and stupid, and probably backing off due to his supposed support amongst internet media.

Ah yes, cutting social spending and (Bill Clinton actually did do) deregulation means that Bill Clinton "empowered" government. Republicans would never reduce social spending and regulations. Even if it reduced the deficit, and increased the police and military. That is totally different that what Republicans would support.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Russia and China were operating a Joint Naval Fleet in the Pacific starting years ago, get fucking real.

This is the problem with talkong to you tankies and right wingers, you can just make shit up all day long and it takes more effort to correct you.

You are the one making shit up. I am taking the, albeit misguided effort, to correct you and your misinformation. That is the problem with liberals, they love Dezinformatsia just as much as right-wingers. They just use more high-brow words while doing it.