They don’t discuss the progressive policies of the candidate at all, Ken Martin just plugs his strategy of focusing on smaller races.

Because this is a “smaller race”…

just like how they always try to make Mamdani’s popularity about his personal charisma instead of his policies, reinforces that they’re trying to ignore progressivism’s popularity.

That’s not true either, and luckily I have a print quote for that one so we don’t have to argue over timestamps:

One is, he campaigned for something. And this is a critical piece. We can’t just be in a perpetual state of resisting Donald Trump. Of course, we have to resist Donald Trump. There’s no doubt about it for all the reasons we just talked about. But we also have to give people a sense of what we’re for, what the Democratic Party is fighting for, and what we would do if they put us back in power.

And that’s really critical. And I think that’s one of the lessons from Mamdani’s campaign, is that he focused on affordability. He focused on a message that was resonant with voters, and he campaigned for something, not against other people or against other things. He campaigned on a vision of how he was going to make New York City a better place to live.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/dnc-chair-on-the-path-to-winning-back-voters-and-lessons-democrats-can-learn-from-mamdani

But, if you think his opinions on policy matter, then you don’t understand how he’s running the DNC, even tho he’s very open about it.

If these candidates were piece of shit neoliberals, they’d get all the same support from the party, minus a few nice soundbites in interviews

That’s the strength of Martin, that he’s legitimately non-biased. All progressives need is a fair primary, and that’s what Martin gave Minnesota for a decade.

If you’re focusing on what he says on policy, you’re just not looking at the right thing.

This is a good time to remind everyone that most of the problems with using SSNs for security is because at no point during design or implementation was it supposed to be used as a private thing.

It was supposed to be as common and easily accessible as your name.

It’s just when it’s started, it wasn’t listed anywhere publicly yet

So third parties just started treating it like it was a secret, and eventually it had enough momentum that the government just went with it.

We don’t need to just give people new numbers, we need a new system with both a public identifier and then some kind of secure system.

There actually is an estate tax after death:

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/estate-tax

Right now it only kicks in after 15 million. A decade ago it was still 5 million. But it doubles to 30 million for a couple.

For the really wealthy people, they need to pay to obfuscate the rest of the money thru trusts and offshore banking, which they’d rather not to pay to do.

Which is why they’re still pushing to raise the cap every year.

those continually suggesting non-support for the Democrat party because of their failings.

That may be the confusion…

Because absolutely no one had said anything Bout that till now…

Rather than seeking to push people away from the D’s

No one’s doing that either.

Hillary/Kamala are not the party.

Neoliberals are not the party.

None of them have any political power anymore, especially not at the DNC.

I would be more inclined to view it as she’s actively trying to dissuade people from helping the patient that everyone knows is sick.

I think the issue is you’re saying “she” meaning Hillary or Kamala…

Meaning that because I used the example of a medicine woman/witch, you seem to have assumed it represented Hillary/Kamala just because it’s a woman.

Is that what happened?

Proposing running better candidates isn’t the same as ‘genocide joe’ was objectively worse and did x/y/z things that means the D’s are bad compared even to the current situation

If we ran a better candidate…

Then people wouldn’t be saying that stuff about them.

Like, those people weren’t the reason Biden lost. They were trying desperately to warn everyone that Biden was going to lose.

And a big part of why Kamala lost is she didn’t understand that and thought people personally didn’t like Biden, so she literally and repeatedly said she’d have made all the same decisions as Biden.

Like, you do get that right?

If a women says a wound is infected and without amputation the patient will die, if the patient refuses amputation and dies, it doesn’t mean we burn the medicine woman as a witch for killing him.

It means next time we should listen to her when she warns us, because she was right.

All youre worried about, is burning the witch because that makes you feel like you solved the problem and are preventing it. But you’re not, so you’re gonna keep burning innocent’s and genuinely believing your the solution and not the one ensuring people keep dying of infections.

You’re just causing even more damage.

That’s a super general question…

But in general it’s just understanding what makes people happy: dopamine. And then understanding how that specific person varies from average.

Like, it’s entirely possible they keep doing all things that would make most people happy, and they’re just wired differently so it’s not working.

So people can help someone learn to be happy. But you can’t really help someone learn how to help someone else.

But before you can do that you need to determine if you’re just trying to make them feel happy for an afternoon, or you’re going to try and help them change their behaviors so they feel happier on their own long term. Those are two very different things.

For the super general advice:

To feel happier, talk with them about what they’re doing that is helping their situation. Our brains are dumb and will dump dopamine for saying “I’ll do ____” almost as much as actually doing it.

But if you want to improve their lives so they’re naturally happier it’s the opposite. You want them to talk less about what they’re doing, and instead set very easily obtainable goals so their brain gets used to giving dopamine only for accomplishing things

It’s a short term/long term thing.

Like, are you trying to stop someone from going SAD in the next 24 hours, or is your friend just constantly a little bummed out the last year?

Still wild to me that people continue to act shocked that Dem voters have higher standards than Republican voters…

And they still want the path forward to be “dem voters just vote for anyone” while we’re actively living thru how that worked out for Republicans.

Like, wouldn’t the logical path be to ensure the next candidate to make it to the general is charismatic and has policy at least as far to the left as the Dems voter base?

We could just run candidates who are more progressive, and then when they win, they’ll actually try to fix shit. Then we won’t just hand it back to Republicans like Biden did.

I just can’t see any logic in your position

Well, I was saying Dems “as a party”…

You’re referencing the House and Senate leadership, who notably got elected a week or two before Martin, when the old DNCs threats of “vote neolib or we defumd your state party and let Republicans take all the seats” was a valid and well proven threat.

They’ve been lame ducks this entire congress and everyone knows it. The media just won’t say it because they’re still trying to prop up neoliberals as effective and in control. Just because that will depress dem.primary turnout and help neoliberal candidates.

Like, Jeffries and Schumer are literally trying to be as terrible as possible intentionally

If a progressive Dem becomes president, they name the next DNC chair and neoliberals lose the party for good. They’d 100% rather a Republican wins 2028 if it’s not a neoliberal, because that gives them a chance to take the party back.

Like, I dunno man. I overestimate people a lot, but I really feel like all of this should be common sense and easy for people to figure out on their own.

But it’s seems like despite most people realizing billionaires are the problem, they still only listen to what billionaire owned propaganda says on the TV

Well, Lemmy isn’t big enough for that…

What we do have unfortunately is more than a few people who spin up 5-10 accounts and when they get offended they can easily flip thru them on an app and manipulate votes.

It’s very obvious, but it seems like admins have given up trying to stop it. If they ban the accounts the person just makes 5-10 new ones again.

So I just block them when I notice now. But even that’s still better than corpo bots that are actually organized and spreading a message, here its almost always just well intentioned idiots.

Trump:

I can go lower

Taylor Rehmet, a Democrat and local union leader, won a runoff for a state Senate seat that’s been held by Republicans since 1992. What’s more, he bested the Republican Leigh Wambsganss despite having one-tenth as much money. Much of Wambsganss’s funding came from Dunn and the Wilks brothers.

Here’s the DNC chair talking about it two weeks ago:

https://youtu.be/J9Nk7RcZh7k?t=46

We’re not “over performing” this is the natural result of undoing the damage of 30 years of neoliberalism and especially the “victory fund”. Up until a year ago the goal of the party wasn’t “as many seats as possible” it was just to have a neoliberal president and at most House or Senate, but never both.

It’s like going from a pitcher who wants to win but not cover the spread, to one who just wants to win by as many runs as possible.

Dems aren’t intentionally holding themselves back, so we’re going to keep seeing massive gains.

You know Biden’s DHS did this about BLM and Gaza too…

Right?

Like the thing you’re sarcastically saying Biden would never do, he did that

It’s just it was against the left so the right and neoliberals didn’t care, and most people who aren’t politically engaged never heard of it.

Ignorance is killing our fucking country, please put down the knife and pick up a book.

new

It’s not new, it’s just happening to white people from the suburbs now…

This was going on for BLM and Gaza protests too.

For over 20 years now…

The first investigation was early 2005

But this was an international ring, other countries had other sources as well, and have for just as long.

Look at Jimmy Saville in the UK, everyone knew but no one said anything till he died, and then some random henchmen were all that went down.

Epstein and Saville weren’t the only ones, and others are almost certainly still operating as open secrets right now.

That’s the real reason every government is slow walking this. People implicated in the Epstein files, would snitch on people from other rings. Those people would snitch on the rest of their ring. And then another start it again.

It’s basically how the aliens from Solar Opposites works, and it results the same: exponential growth.

If people on the Epstein list are prosecuted then virtually every trafficking ring and every other shady thing billionaires get up to will also likely come out. Everyone of them would sell the rest out to save themselves.

And that’s why we need to do it before they die, and they can still be pressured to snitch.

It’s been a minute since I learned electrical stuff, so I might be off on details.

Like maybe a pretty steady amperage from the cord and it’s regulated inside thru resistance or something more complicated?

But that’s the general gist of why not all parts of the equation can be static.

The advertised Wattage is also “max” it can use/produce.

Like a 850watt power supply can handle an 850 power watt draw, but if all the computer is doing is playing YouTube, it’s going to draw a lot less amps, and produce a lot less watts as a result. If it needs more watts, it “pull” more amps to make them

Steam turbines are actually self regulating because of this. The more power being used, the more amps are automatically produced. Once you spin it up it manages its own speed.

They’re really trying to ignore it.

Man, they suck at ignoring things…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Nk7RcZh7k

I’ve never tried to ignore something so hard that I travelled back in time two weeks ago to retroactively support it.

Maybe the DNC really is all powerful, I mean, they got a time machine

Hopefully the DNC doesn’t plug it’s ears and ignore the obvious.

As soon as Mamdani won his primary, the DNC chair said we need a candidate that not only emulated his charisma, but also the popular policy position Dem voters want…

That was months ago.

It’s been a year since that chair was seated.

I think the problem isn’t that anyone is plugging their ears, just that the billionaire owned media doesn’t want people to be engaged with the DNC now that they no longer control it.

I mean, here’s the DNC chair talking about this race two weeks ago…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9Nk7RcZh7k

But you didn’t hear about it.

Amps are the variable part of the equation…

There are other parts of the equation, every one being constant would make every electrical component binary. Either full power or no power.

That’s why we really only see variable amperage on battery charges to force a slower charge rate for the health of the batter. On something like a radio, you could think of the volume knob as amperage control. The more power, the louder the sound comes out of the speaker.

A steady amperage current would “lock” the volume at one setting forever.

It’s absolutely insane that all a lot of people need to do is eating more fiber, especially leafy greens…

But a pilotless brain worm mech is running the HHS right now, so he told everyone to only eat meat and fat, just do coke off toilet seats to build up our immune systems