this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2024
221 points (88.0% liked)

politics

18930 readers
5131 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago (4 children)

In what way is CA doing 'pretty damn good'..?

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

By being richer than most other countries in the world.

That's really what it's about anyways. Identity politics are just icing for wealth generation for the upper class.

[–] hate2bme@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

By bulldozing homeless camps I guess.

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

Income, life expectancy, healthcare access. Union membership. Cali home prices are unaffordable because people want to live there and are willing to pay for it.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You live under a rock or something?

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I mean it guess they're not banning books or switching to school vouchers but I'm pretty sure low income households are doing just as bad if not worse over there

Aren't they, like, tearing down homeless encampments on a monthly basis?

edit: spelling

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

Guess you have been living under a rock. Strong economy AND strong worker protections, lots of unions, high minimum wage, robust anti-discrimination laws, there's countless things that make life in California better for low income households.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Gee, I can't imagine what motivation you would have to cherry pick stats to try and make California look bad

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Lol, those are bellwether economic statistics for any state, it's not 'cherry picking'.

Capital D democrats love California because it's a democratic stronghold and a testing ground for all kinds of liberal policy, but it's also dominated by capital interests. In terms of GDP it represents 1/6th of the entire US economy.

It's one of the clearest examples of liberalism's relationship with capital. Most socialists would not look fondly on California governance.

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

Uh huh

We both know you hate California because all you ever do is attack Democrats. There are dozens of "bellwether economic indicators" and California is doing excellent on most of them. Of course you'd pick a couple of bad ones because you have an agenda.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well I do attack democrats an awful lot, but not because they're any kind of model of leftist governance

Those are the metrics any leftist would be interested in with any highly developed state or economy. How distributed is the wealth? Are low-earners able to afford a comparative standard of living? Do they have economic and employment mobility? ect. They look to answer the question, "to what degree is the working class subject to coercive capitalist conditions?"

Other economic metrics are weighted toward assessing the performance of capital, and are far less relevant to the questions leftists care about answering.

[–] Cryophilia@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

That's a particularly sad and flimsy justification for cherry picking.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 20 hours ago

Maybe we just don't share the same political goals, then.