politics

They can collect donations just fine. It was big, huge donors saying "I won't give the democrats one red nickel if Biden doesn't step down" that helped get Biden to concede his candidacy.

The announced speakers including both Clintons doesn't have me hopeful

I gotta say, if it's all a PR act, it's dumb as fuck. it might work for this election but it will then disillusion millions of young voters permanently if she can't follow though on these promises, leading to a huge loss (or worse, migration) of young Democrat voters.

I'm holding a hope that Walz hasn't succumbed to the greed yet. Though I expect Harris has to some degree. Like it or not, there is enough money in politics that most of us could probably be bought eventually, to lesser and greater extents.

The real question is "when?''.

Duplicating my comment in one TG chat (and roughly translating it to English):

this is like saying that "some girls are beautiful, and some are nice", or saying to someone "your family is good" ;

what the promises of regulating prices and such really tell is that there's no mention of actually splitting and killing those corporations and reducing their power.

In other words, oligopoly is nice, and power from centralization is nice (of course it is, since what a big corp can do, government can use), it's just prices that we want to fix.

State capitalism with a human face is what she's promising here.

Trump doesn't really know or care about what words mean. He cares about how words feel.

Unfortunately, many people are the same way.

Marxist is not extreme left, just a kind of left. You can be anything from a socdem to a bolshevik while remaining Marxist.

And stalinism one can call rather right and fascist, at the same time with Marxism used as a foundation, and it's not as easy as you'd think to find counterarguments to what they've come up in USSR to tie a totalitarian state to Marxism.

So there's one thing which is all these at the same time - stalinism.

By the way, if we give Trump's word hu-uge benefit of doubt and forget for a minute that we are humans, thus tribal apes, this is not that wrong.

She's talking about regulating prices and other populist and pretty socialist things, but she doesn't talk about killing oligopolies and preferential treatment. Which is kinda close to state capitalism with populist elements. Which would in rough strokes make things closer to stalinism in economic part.

You got that right. Talk is cheap. Presidential candidates are basically used car salesman.

Yeah, it does, in the sense that Harris has said she's going after greedflation and the article mentions that and then explains how it is definitely, actually greedflation and not normal supply and demand.

No it doesn't in the sense that it doesn't address how she's going to do that, but she hasn't said that either so what else can they say?

You expect people to read the article? You must be new here. 😅