this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2026
177 points (97.3% liked)

politics

30374 readers
2545 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] almost_genocide@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Seems like you have two main rebuttles.

  1. Happened before the Boomers. Fine, "Boomers protected existing policy."
  2. "Policy not needed" either it's a problem or it isn't. If it's a problem then policy would improve it. If it's not a problem then don't list it.

Also

most Americans revere their vets.

Regardless, you listed a problem which could be improved by policy which never happened because Boomers didn't make it a priority.

I don't give two shits about Platner or whatever smear campaign corporate centerists are trying to run to stop the DSA from gaining ground.

[–] DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

.1. Happened before the Boomers. Fine, “Boomers protected existing policy.”

You moved the goalposts:

"Policy voted in by Boomers." → “Boomers protected existing policy.”

and even then you kind of fail:

I'd say boomers did little about it, aside from voting for politicians (pre-boomers (e.g Mitch), boomers (e.g. Richard Blumenthal), and post-boomers (e.g. Gen-Xers like MTG, or Millennials like Matt Gaetz)).

While proportionately more boomers might vote for the bad guys—by a few percentage points—than post-boomers, it's not much of a difference, and Gen Xers and Millennials might get more conservative as they get older. Look at Alex Karp, a Gen Xer: IIUC he went from describing himself as a Marxist and supporting Biden, to being in league with Trump.

.2. “Policy not needed” either it’s a problem or it isn’t. If it’s a problem then policy would improve it. If it’s not a problem then don’t list it.

I don't see how policy would improve such things.

.4. What policy would you think of that would stop people from using Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon? or give alternatives a chance?

Bluesky seems to be a big alternative to Twitter; but perhaps it's cool in a way Twitter was cool 15 years ago. How are we sure it won't become as bad as Twitter in, say, 2041, when members of Gen Alpha might become members of Congress?

.5. What policy would you have to prevent cat and dog owners feeding their pets factory farmed meat?

What about those poor Gen Zs who can afford the expensive free range meat? Should their pet food be subsidized? This might tick-off the animal rights crowd—the ones who protest veganism while not keeping darling cute little furry pet carnivores.

.7. What policy would you have for independent solar? That every house sold must have, say, an array of PVCs that can produce up to 4 kilowatts of power and an array of batteries—wp:Nickel–iron batteries as they are less harmful to the environment than lithium or even lead-acid?

Regardless, you listed a problem which could be improved by policy which never happened because Boomers didn’t make it a priority.

and I don't see post-boomers easily or quickly changing things either.

I don’t give two shits about Platner or whatever smear campaign corporate centrists are trying to run to stop the DSA from gaining ground.

So it's okay for a candidate to rape if he's a progressive. Ditto the totenkopf. Ditto that he participated in mass-murder of Iraqis and Afghanis.

Some of it makes me think of "wp:It's the economy, stupid" for Bill Clinton.

Also,

wp:Clinton–Lewinsky scandal#Legacy and retrospective assessment

Legacy and retrospective assessment

The Clinton–Lewinsky scandal was subject to widespread media coverage, resulting in considerable difficulties for Monica Lewinsky later in life as she attempted to find employment. In 2014, she publicly re-emerged as an activist against cyberbullying and public shaming after writing the essay Shame and Survival for Vanity Fair.[68] Subsequently, several prominent media figures who had covered or mocked Lewinsky during the scandal expressed regret at their role in it. David Letterman remarked "I feel bad about my role in helping push the humiliation to the point of suffocation".[69]

IMO, non-American boomer women are probably more progressive and/or less toxic than post-boomer American men.

Indeed, non-American boomer women from OECD, EU, and/or EFTA member states are probably more progressive and/or less toxic than post-boomer American men.

https://youtu.be/vbkxVa_3lGc?t=386 (cued, maybe watch for 100 seconds)