this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
197 points (98.0% liked)

politics

24832 readers
1998 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

President Biden is heading to North Carolina on Thursday to announce $82 million in new investments to connect homes and businesses in the state to high-speed internet.

He will go to the Raleigh-Durham area in the critical battleground state to make the announcement, alongside Gov. Roy Cooper (D). The funding comes from the American Rescue Plan, which was the COVID-19 relief package Biden signed into law in 2021, and aims to connect an additional 16,000 homes and businesses in North Carolina.

The investment, according to a fact sheet from the White House, will also create jobs in manufacturing and construction to produce “Made-in-America fiber-optic cable that will build out internet infrastructure across the country.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (4 children)

Why he's doing this:

Former President Trump beat Biden for North Carolina in 2020. Trump also won the state in the 2016 election, beating former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

All this stuff coming out now is just token measures to make it look like he's helping people so they vote for him.

And sure, they're better off than if nothing was done, but it's going to be obvious for voters they're only getting attention because an election is coming up.

Trying to help them the whole term and not just pre election would get a lot more votes, and help a lot more people.

But would be a bigger hit to donors pocketbooks.

The article is light on details too, so I suspect most of this money is going to telecoms again for them to run the fiber, and like every other time we've given them money, they'll likely just keep it and not do anything

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Presidents do this every time they're up for re-election. This is nothing new. Of course they're going to pander to states they want to win.

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The kleptocracy already paid billions for high speed broadband infrastructure. Telcos stole the money, delivered nothing, and the kleptocracy kept giving them money.

What's changed?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

I have no idea what changed. I didn't say anything changed. I said he was pandering to the state, which is just what presidents do when they want to win a state and they're up for re-election.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago

I think this will be the third time, but maybe the fourth? I'm not sure why it's expected to work this time. Maybe Biden even knows that but just wants the optics? I don't know what would be worse honestly.

And yeah, if we're subsidizing this states internet bills....

The providers are just going to raise the price by that much in a year or two anyways.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Sure it doesn't work and voters have wised up to it... But this is what we always do so we'll keep doing it even tho it doesn't work!

You know what we haven't tried and will likely work?

Actually putting the work in and trying to help Americans the entire term and not trying to only do the bare minimum for appearances to trick people into thinking they're being helped...

At least that way, even if we don't get the votes, we're helping people.

For fucks sake, the most common reason most non voters have given for decades is that neither party legitimately wants to help them, they just get tossed crumbs before an election, and that's only if they live in a battleground state.

This shit isn't complicated. It's just helping Americans makes donors unhappy, and Dems consistently underestimate how much voters can see thru this pandering.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

What do you call a nation-spanning infrastructure bill? Or offering cash payments to low income families so their kids can buy food in the summer?

I'm all for criticizing Biden, but it should be honest criticism.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Voters have wised up to it? Do you have any actual evidence of that?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah, election results...

In addition to surveys of non voters.

I get a random person on social media not knowing that, but our president and his campaign team should.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Please present this evidence. Just saying you have evidence is not actually having evidence. I would like to see these surveys and how they show that voters have wised up to political pandering.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Politics is simply not the way to make change, they said. Two-thirds of nonvoters agree, for example, that voting has little to do with the way that real decisions are made in this country; they are 21 points more likely to say so than people who voted.

A majority also said they believe it makes no difference who is elected president and that things will go on just as they did before. Nonvoters were 29 points more likely to say that than people who voted. (Read more about why they didn't vote, in their own words.)

And

Nonvoters are also more likely than voters to say that traditional parties and politicians don't care about people like me; the mainstream media is more interested in making money than telling the truth; the American economy is rigged to advantage the rich and powerful; success in life is pretty much determined by forces outside our control; and to feel that most issues discussed in Washington don't affect them personally.

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/945031391/poll-despite-record-turnout-80-million-americans-didnt-vote-heres-why

The article already says NC voted trump the last two elections, and I already quoted it...

So I'm going to assume you don't need another source for that

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Well I'm going to need a source for why non-voters matter to a president when pandering to a state. They weren't going to vote anyway.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Well I’m going to need a source for why non-voters matter to a president when pandering to a state

What?

You want a source for why a candidate pandering for votes would care about people that aren't going to vote?

Literally the only point of pandering for votes, is to get votes...

If not, what the fuck is the point of pandering at all?

And why are you saying it doesn't work?

That's how Obama and Bill Clinton got elected....

And let me guess, you're just going to ignore everything you were wrong about and ask for a source on that too...

That's called "sealioning"

Edit:

Yep. That's definitely what's happening and worth a block

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

To get votes... from people who vote.

[–] Candelestine@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

That's a troll, fyi, I've run into him a couple times now. If you drive him into a corner he'll just start name-calling and block you, so you can't debate him in the future. He does not seem to realize this does not prevent us from leaving our own replies to his posts for everyone else to discuss, without him.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)
[–] Blackbeard@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago)
[–] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The article is light on details too, so I suspect most of this money is going to telecoms again for them to run the fiber, and like every other time we've given them money, **they'll likely just keep it and not do anything **

That is the real problem, the government throwing money at Telcos and expecting them to do something other than line their bottom line.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago

A cynic would say Biden knows this and is trying to get in with giant telecos and trick voters.

Although it would be even worse if he legitimately expects them to go or their end.

Considering Biden legitimately ran his last primary on his ability to cooperate with Republicans...

There's a pretty good chance he's not smart enough to see this coming. If he is, then he's still just lying and doesn't see an issue with that.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 2 years ago

i mean it's actually part of the infrastructure bill that was passed earlier but go off i guess