this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2025
465 points (99.4% liked)

politics

26703 readers
2891 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Imagine if she ran on a $15 an hour minimum wage increase

To be extremely clear. THAT WAS ONE OF HER POLICIES

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

THAT WAS ONE OF HER POLICIES

Democrats run on $15/hr, win in a landslide (2020), and throw up their hands because they don't have Joe Manchin's permission to raise wages in the US Senate.

Republicans run on ending abortions and now abortions are fully illegal in a slew of states, with a national ban on the horizon.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago

I didn't watch her every appearance, but I did watch quite a lot, and minimum wage seriously got very little time compared to her pursuit of Republicans. Reporters and politicos who did watch everything agree. Abortion was in the forefront regarding their D platform, which has about as much support as higher minimum wage (over 60%).

If she had replaced her R outreach with campaigning for higher wages, and continued as she did with the abortion issue, she would have received many more D and independent voters. She needed them both to win, the "R strategy" was weird and stupid and in my opinion I think she was paid to do exactly what she did.

Her campaign undeniably made a fortune from somebody (over a billion dollars). Not only did she make more than anybody ever, she did it in just a few months. It's a radical and preposterous increase, right in the open, in public.

She immediately knew reaching out to Rs was a massive waste of precious time and that she would lose if she did so. It's a mathematical certainty, bOtH pArTiEs know that they need to court independents instead of their opponents to win a fed election.

I voted for her, this is not a Trump defense, he also is paid to do exactly what he does by "donors" (like Saudi Arabia and Musk and Bezos and Walmart and Russia and that guy from the Hercules sitcom).

[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

And you're every so politely ignoring the states run by dems having higher min wages, to pretend that it's only Republicans getting shit done. Notably just like there isn't a $15 min national wage, there's also not a national abortion ban. Your comparison is poorly cherry picked.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

I can't speak for everyone, but I thought thoroughness would be pedantic. I could have gone into much more detail, or at least typed out "FEDERAL minimum wage", but I had thought this was taken for granted in any FEDERAL election. So what do you do? Accuse me of "pretending" and "cherry picking", that's not nice.

So, for future reference, a President can only sign a federal minimum wage increase, they are unable to raise state, city, etc. minimum wages. I'll be sure to type that out into great detail next time. Ha, I'm kidding, ain't nobody got time for that.

You know my post would have had to be pages long for the wage increase if I went into detail, you could easily write a fat book about it.

Remember, 40% of voters are independent, Ds and Rs are at 30% each. It's to your advantage to be cordial, whatever party you are; hostility will NOT win elections. Not an accusation, just sharing a factoid (hint hint)

[–] ILoveUnions@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

For the comment higher towards you I really did mean that as a general clarification. I would've worded it more strongly otherwise. I wasn't entirely sure if you realized it or not given your wording, so I wanted to make sure less familiar people reading on that were more clear.

The cherry picking comment was not to you, it was to their person it's replied to. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just misread the comment chain

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

ignoring the states run by dems having higher min wages

Which states have a living wage?

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

To be extremely clear. THAT WAS ONE OF HER POLICIES

Of course, this is well known in politics circles. That is why I said, "a good portion of her campaign was targeting Republican women voters." (bold added for emphasis)

To be totally transparent, SERIOUSLY, THIS Is NOT A JOKE OR SOME KIND OF WORD TRICKERY OR CONSPIRACY, WITH NO CLAIMS MADE OF A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OR EXCLUSIVITY OF POLICIES.

[–] axexrx@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think the 2 of your's disconnect is over what 'ran on' means. Most people would take that to be the main emphasis of the campign messaging,

Not the total platform and all its contents.

[–] Mulligrubs@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

Yes, my opinion is she "ran on" abortion and R outreach primarily.

Abortion was a good issue, but any "R outreach" time spent was wasted. Spend that time on Democrats and independents instead.