• FreakinSteve@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          I always imagined that if I won an office and lobbyists were throwing donations at me, I would spend all of it plus $1 on charities they despised

                • FriskyDingo@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Been on your side up to this point.

                  All those things about the new deal you pointed out are true in the abstract. Within context, all the most progressive wins of the new deal were compromises based on “saving capitalism from itself” under the pressure of activist and labor movements (much more radical and empowered than what we know) and the spectre of revolution.

                  It was activists and popular pressure (largely driven by communist and anarchist organizers) that advocated for these wins.

                  The powers that were didn’t do these things out of the kindness of their hearts. But it’s been too our benifit that fdr was willing to be won over in this way. Consider how he engaged with A Philip Randolph (who would later go on to be lead organizer for the March on Washington for jobs and justice) for further proof on his ability to be swayed.

                  Remember, the Bolshevic revolution happened not long ago at this point and was an ideological threat to capitalism. And the Spanish revolution had just happened and presented an even deeper ideological threat.

                  Tldr: there were popular movements domestically and external pressures abroad that made the concessions of the new deal necessary.

                  And again, generally agreed with you in this thread but your point here risks misrepresentation of the history of people power and agitation and how crucial it’s been to the few good things we know in this country.

    • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      28
      ·
      1 month ago

      If by grassroots you mean suspiciously funded by 80% out of district and living off her rich republican parents money to do it

            • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              who come from outside her district.

              She’s from outside her own district. That’s the primary thing that shows her blatantly questionable goals. She lives in a challengeable district with a dem who should be taken out. And she chose to campaign in an entirely different one.

              Yes, she’s very likely corrupt. She’s unemployed, runs a sketchy campaign with astroturfing and refuses to address in any AMAs why she’s moving to our district later and why she’s going straight for the highest seat in a district that isn’t hers.

                • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago
                  1. Since when does temporary unemployment imply corruption?

                  It makes me question where she’s funding her lifestyle.

                  1. Her campaign seems almost entirely social media and local charity work.

                  That’s bad. Real world efforts are necessary. Giving campaign funds to charity is sketchy at best when you’re showing it off to pretend you’re morally superior

                  She’s campaigning in a district where she will replace an 80 year old retiring progressive

                  Irrelevant as the 80 year is retiring anyways.

                  She has 200,000 followers which seems to have grown over time with several prominent videos.

                  So? Genuinely hilarious how irrelevant this point is.

                  1. Not here to reduce a woman to her husband, just pointing out a cool fact and rock-solid evidence that she’s probably legit - she’s MARRIED TO THE CEO OF THE COMPANY THAT OWNS THE ONION?! The source of the Pultizer-worthy headline, " ’ No Way to Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens"?

                  I had not heard this. However, it will not change my viewpoint that she’s as this post demonstrates running an extremely questionable and too early campaign, as well as being an out of district plant by not even trying to have lived a real period of time in the district she’s planning to run in.

                  She lives in Chicago, is campaigning in Chicago

                  The vast majority of the district is out of Chicago. Also, she’s not campaigning in Chicago. She’s campaigning online.

                  By the way, anyone in the back: did you watch the goal posts move? Did you watch us move right along, without defending the first claims?

                  Any one of the points is enough to make her not worth voting for. Her being out of district alone is ridiculous. If she genuinely cared, she should be running for a district she actually lived in. You are blatantly ignoring how much an issue an out of district congressperson is. Pretending it doesn’t matter just because you like the vibes of the candidate. And it really is just that and nothing more, just vibes. She has zero lower experience in politics, no record, no evidence of capability.

                  Especially when she’s consistently astroturfing reddits, it makes me question where her actual in district relations are. If she even has any.

      • madame_gaymes@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Although I agree with you, we will not get out of the hole we’re in if we don’t support people like this to overtake the ones that are legitimately hungry for power.

        On the flipside, there’s always the possibility she’s doing this as a stunt and doesn’t mean any of it. Plenty of Gen-Z pretend to feed homeless people on TikTok, could just be a glorified version of that.

        • GreatWhiteBuffalo41@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 month ago

          She’s got a beach cleanup going on this weekend. From what I’ve heard, she’s been at every event she’s hosted and she’s actually out there getting dirty. I’m not in her district but it’s not far from me. I might go just to see how it all works.

        • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          1 month ago

          I do genuinely hope I’m wrong, but even at a very basic level here - she’s using funds people donated to her campaign for a purpose other than campaigning,.did she make this clear to people before they donated? If it is just being done for campaign clout then it’s kinda disingenuous by definition. I do hate that I’m this cynical fwiw.

          • cjoll4@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            43
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yes, she’s been very upfront about it. She makes it clear at her fundraising events that the proceeds are going to charitable organizations. Her campaign has been soliciting canned goods and menstrual hygiene products, instead of cash, in exchange for yard signs and stickers.

            I get your cynicism, it’s a well-known adage that anyone who seeks power doesn’t deserve it. But for as long as we have elected federal representatives, I’d prefer to elect representatives who actually make tangible efforts to take care of people. Even if you see it as self-serving, to me it’s refreshing to see a candidate appeal to voters’ compassion instead of appealing to their fears and prejudices.

          • madame_gaymes@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            18
            ·
            1 month ago

            It’s all good, I’m in a similar cynical boat. By default I don’t trust anyone that’s in the spotlight by choice.

            However, if shitty people start doing things like this just for clout, well it’s better than the Nazis that are taking things over right now I guess that don’t even try to pretend to be a good person.

      • anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 month ago

        At least it’s a better platform than “Everything is that other groups fault, let’s hate on them and be angry!” that s eems a bit too common.