this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
605 points (99.2% liked)

World News

40161 readers
3113 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] realitista@lemm.ee 75 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Even local political funding should be banned. Elections should be funded by the state with each candidate getting the same amount of exposure.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I’m okay with funding from constituents, with strict caps on amounts. That way people who have lots of public support get more funding, but a wealthy person can’t outspend someone else.

No funding from corporations, and no anonymous funding.

[–] LostWon@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 day ago

We already have too many narcissistic leaders everywhere because they can be superficially charming and build up loads of useful connections. It makes sense to have a cut-off for who gets funding at all, but they should all get the same amount of exposure.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Andrew Yang has a great term for this:

Democracy Dollars

Also his term for UBI:

Freedom Dividend

Great naming lol. Like who could hate something called "Freedom Dividend" and "Democracy Dollars" 😅 (Magats would hate it, they hate democracy)

Other Policies, if you're interested: https://2020.yang2020.com/policies/?tab=all

If ranked choice was a thing, I'd probably rank Yang #1, Bernie #2. (Since Yang would probabky never get elected, so I might as well give him the #1 ranking, his ideas are cool)

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I used to be interested in the things Andrew Yang had to say back in 2020, especially with regard to UBI, but I'm really put off by him now. His whole schtick is a libertarian technocratic utopian fantasy. The expansion of welfare while simultaneously sucking up to oligarchs is just a way to preserve the capitalist status quo. He wants to breathe new life into the machine that's exploiting us and destroying the planet.

His vision for the future is basically just the UN as depicted in The Expanse.

Lol yea, dude is a capitalist, but I mean like... I still like him better than like... Joe Biden 🤮

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That sounds like a system that would be rife for abuse.

[–] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, good thing no one can abuse the current system by having a lot of money.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Depends on which current system you mean. I'm Canadian, and while it's not perfect, it's a pretty good system.

[–] YarHarSuperstar@lemmy.world 2 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Fair point, I assumed we were talking about US even though that wasn't strictly specified. I'm not Canadian so you probably know more than I would, but I'm pretty sure Canada has it's own systemic problems.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

I assumed we were talking about US

Well, the article's about Greenland, but I guess Ameri-centrism is par for the course.

I’m pretty sure Canada has it’s own systemic problems.

Sure, but I don't think our donation rules are big systematic problems. Our rules don't allow donations from foreign sources or companies, and include pretty reasonable limits for individuals (plus 75% of political donations are refunded next tax year). We have definitely had donation scandals, but they've almost exclusively been because people are breaking the rules.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

How? You get a certain amount of funds to be spent on specific regulated activities if you pass a threshold of signatures.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

A non-serious campaign could use those funds to enrich themselves/others even with approved activities. They could pay for staff, buy signs, etc. and all those people & businesses would make money doing legitimate work for a campaign whose only purpose was to employ those people/businesses.

[–] realitista@lemm.ee 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

Not if staff and signs were only provided by the government. It no doubt comes with its own set of problems, but given what we've seen with open campaign finance, I think those wouldn't hold a candle to what we have now.

[–] n2burns@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

TBH, that sounds even worse, and I am saying this as a fan of big government.