this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2024
486 points (99.6% liked)

News

23397 readers
4510 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

A Harris poll reveals that 69% of Americans believe Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs would increase consumer costs, with many planning purchases ahead of his inauguration to avoid price hikes.

Trump has championed tariffs as a key policy to boost domestic manufacturing, but economists and corporate leaders warn costs will be passed to consumers, potentially adding $2,600 annually to household expenses.

While Republicans are more supportive of tariffs, only 51% think they will benefit the economy.

The poll highlights widespread concern over tariffs’ economic impact, especially amid lingering inflation and financial uncertainty.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ReanuKeeves@lemm.ee 75 points 16 hours ago (4 children)

If 2/3 of people seemingly understand the truth, how tf was he voted back in? Can they get rid of the outdated electoral college system yet?

[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 15 points 13 hours ago

Most voters are dumber than dogshit. Can’t blame the EC for this one. Blame the fucking dumbass voters.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 43 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Electoral college was irrelevant this election. Trump won the popular vote because people don't think voting is important. Kamala Harris was a shit candidate, but Democratic voters weren't given a primary to pick a better one.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 55 points 16 hours ago

While the Electoral College did not directly factor into this election it could have indirectly factored in due to minority voters in solidly controlled states simply deciding not to vote due to their votes having no impact on the outcome. If for instance you were a Democrat in a state that Republicans have won by double digit percentages for the last couple decades you might rightly assume that whether you vote or not the outcome remains unchanged.

If we had a straight popular vote rather than the EC then literally every vote would count, unlike the current system where that's only true in battleground states. In this case the EC is just another in a long list of voter suppression tools.

[–] Frost752@lemmy.world 11 points 16 hours ago (2 children)
[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 22 points 15 hours ago (6 children)

Make not voting cause you to be chosen first for jury duty.

Personally, I've never minded jury duty, but people seem to lose their minds over it.

[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 25 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I don't want to potentially be judged by people who can't even be fucked to vote, thank you very much.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

Do you want to be judged by someone who isn’t smart enough to get out of jury duty?

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 13 hours ago

I never understood the hatred over jury duty. Except for people who work minimum wage or don't get paid jury duty.

Jury duty is the most direct way a normal citizen can affect democracy.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 9 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

I'd agree, except do we really want to emphasize the least engaged citizens for jury duty? That's still someone's freedom on the line, and while for some select few people finding a chance to vote is extremely difficult due to registration fuckery in Republican states, with the rise of early voting and vote by mail, the primary demographic of non-voting adults is people who are apathetic or intentionally ignorant to the political process. My fear is: "This is a waste of my time, and 30 days isn't that long; just send them to jail." And there won't be anyone who cares strongly enough to object because the jury is packed with these apathetic citizens. To clarify, I see this as more of a problem with small-fry misdemeanor or less serious felony cases, not like murder or rape trials. But that's most trials.

You could argue that politically engaged Republicans can be much, much worse on a jury, that this could help them develop a sense of engagement with politics, and that they might care if they can see their choice directly affecting someone else, but it seems sketchy.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 9 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

When we don't get paid because we miss work and are dependent on that money, it can be annoying. In theory, I think it would be cool to be on a jury, but its a luxury to be able to afford to be on a jury.

[–] Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I guess it depends on where you are. In my city, you get 150% of minimum wage/hour of jury duty, so $18 an hour. Though of course if you make more than that and are paid hourly, it's a definite loss.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 4 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

My state pays $20/day. The last time I was summoned, the estimated cost of the commute using the IRS average is $35 (granted, that's a high estimate) and not reimbursed or compensated. Also the $20 is taxed. So it effectively cost me money to go to jury duty in my old county even before accounting for lost wages.

[–] Goodmorningsunshine@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Oof - yeah, that's garbage.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

I vote in every primary and every election and have never been selected for jury duty.

Which implies I have no peers.

[–] Brokkr@lemmy.world 3 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

While I too want more people to participate, I think we should also recognize that choosing not to vote is protected speech. That's probably not why people don't vote, so we should probably find other ways to encourage voting (holiday, more access to polls, etc.) Unfortunately, some repulsive people prefer it when fewer people vote.

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

For protected speech, I'd prefer if people would go in, take a ballot, and submit it blank. Essentially, making a statement that there is no one on the ballot who would represent them. It would be more meaningful than not going to the polling place at all. It sends a more significant message than just staying home.

I do agree that we need to make it easier, not harder, to vote.

Automatic registration, election day holiday, laws forcing employers to facilitate voting by their employees.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

"If you are going to protest at least do it exactly the way I think you should."

[–] NABDad@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Well, perhaps you should do it in a way that doesn't appear exactly like you actually can't be bothered to do anything.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 hours ago

Matter of perspective. Its not important that you think their action has no effect, its important that they think their action has effect.

Neither perspective is really wrong or right absolutely. We won't know which is right for so many decades that its useless to declare one perspective entirely baseless.

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world -3 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

The new suppressed it, or the democrats restricted who could run, or anything else, but stop telling me the primary I voted in didn't happen.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 12 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It did happen, it was just irrelevant. No serious competition was allowed (Sorry, Dean Phillips).

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 7 points 14 hours ago

This is fair. It was a bad primary

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Was Kamala on your ballot? If the results of an election are ignored, was it really an election?

[–] BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not going to say that people were so stupid that they didn't realize a vote for Biden was really a vote for Kamala.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 1 points 3 hours ago

What a weird reality you live in. Especially funny given that Kamala came in almost dead last in the 2020 primary that Biden won.

Democracy depends on an informed public. The Democrats concealed Biden's mental decline so, arguably, a vote for Biden wasn't even a vote for Biden.

Also, an election without adequate media coverage and no debates makes a mockery of the idea of an informed electorate. That's how they run elections in Russia or North Korea, not in a functioning democracy. If you don't have higher standards than that, you don't deserve democracy.

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 25 points 15 hours ago

Less than a third of eligible voters voted for him, so it tracks. Close to half the country not voting suggests they understand tariffs, but either just fine paying 20% extra for everything or don't believe he'll actually do the things he's been most vocal about doing.

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 points 13 hours ago

The guy didn't even get the majority of the votes.