Politicians have to say a lot of things whether they mean them or not.

I like ex-New York Mayor Ed Koch's take on voting. "If you agree with me 51% of the time, vote for me. If you agree with me 100% of the time, see a psychiatrist."

no campaigning or politicking here, just pure statesman. his words are absolutely appropriate and expected from a government leader.

Agreed, I think that he should have said nothing or perhaps bring out the point that beyond how people may or may not feel we should not aim to live In a society that privilege vigilante that take justice in there hand as it can quickly slip into a very bad place.... I see people suggesting a purge.... I would recommend those people go out and meet some of the victims of the Rwandan genocide and see how they feel with there so called brave words...

It's easy to spout such things using social media because we are anonymous but we do not want such violence to reproduce itself... This is how collateral damage happens. In Montreal an 11 year old child died because of a car bomb that was set by the Rock Machines as retaliation against the Hells Angel's.... No one won that day, we only lost a fraction of our soul as a society when we had to bury a child.

This is the problem, this time someone did a clean shot, what if the killer choses bombs and causes collateral damage. Will any of you sacrifice your children for this so called justice?

i find it’s always helpful to follow the money in these situations. obviously we were all paid off by Big Woke. we’re financially invested in these institutions being seen as murderous. obviously.

Class consciousness

A person died, murdered in cold blood. That person had people that loved him. Politicians need to be respectful. Would you prefer they celebrated the execution of mass murderers on death row?

Maybe because people on the internet are mostly anonymous?

edit = someone pointed out that many people post their actual names, so I added "mostly"

at the same time tho, this is legitimately the worst thing i’ve seen/heard about him. i wouldn’t be surprised if he was currently being groomed for a presidential run fucken 4 years from now.

I mean, it's one thing for random citizens like us to celebrate this, but a prominent politicians acting like that would be highly inappropriate honestly.

Here ya go! | || || |_

Along those lines, monarchist is bad, too. The wealthy in the U.S. are notoriously touchy about being called aristocracy, and I maintain that it's because nobility not only punctures the meritocracy myth, but also carries with it the idea of noblesse oblige. They don't want any obligations to the peasants. (Won't be lauded as a great philanthropist for the dribs and drabs they give to charity, if it's expected!)

Socialism is not immune to monarchist or capitalist takeover, and the Democrats are not far right in this backwards ass country. They're the big tent of liberalism, which is right wing, but not as right wing as I wish it was. It's a distortion to believe that this country will democratically choose socialism. They're too invested in selfishness for egalitarianism.

If anybody ever believed that, they were a fool. Kamala's campaign promises were to tax the rich and legalize weed, Tim Walz from a deeply conservative district was the moderate to balance her out.

He was a best a signal Kamala was going to be a departure from Biden. There were a few weeks where that seemed to be the case too.

We need bumper stickers of this.

Any clue why it said depose instead of defend?

google translates from latin

so true!

You can't get elected in the USA if your party calls itself Communist.

Yes, we know.

no! we need to become transphobic!

(satire)

That's not how political parties work, though. Political parties are largely ideological institutions, they exist first and foremost not to win elections but to propagate an ideology, and winning the election is just a sign that they succeeded in their goal of convincing people of their ideology, and so now enough people agree that it can take root in the state. When political parties lose, it's very rare that they will interpret their loss as "we need to abandon all our values to match the opinion polls." No, they interpret their loss as meaning they failed in their goal of convincing people of their values, and thus should change their strategy of their out-reach, not changing their whole ideological position.

Democrats going against the rich elites would be an abandonment of their party's values and everything they stand for. In most countries, if you dislike the ideology of a party, you vote for someone else. The party itself has no obligation to change its entire ideology for you, such a thing very rarely occurs. If that was the case, then every political party would all have the exact same position, just all copy/pastes of whatever the opinion polls say.

I keep seeing all this bizarre rhetoric about how if the Democrats were "smart" they would just abandon their whole party's platform and adopt some other platform, but this makes zero sense, because you have to consider motivation. Their motivation is not to just win the election, but to convince you of their ideology, and abandoning their ideology does not achieve this. Democrats are not stupid, they just don't have the same motivations as you. Yes, they want to win, but they ultimately want to win on their platform, not on someone else's platform.

That's how political parties work. They have a platform, and the platform is paramount. If a green party adopted all pro-coal and pro-oil lobby positions just to win an election, that would not be a "smart" decision for them, because, even if it leads to their victory, it still is an abandonment of their ideology. Democrats are unabashedly a pro-rich elite party, it should not be smart for them to become anti-elite, because it is not aligned with their motivations.

The political system we live under is rotting. It’s holding us back, suffocating real democracy, and clinging to relics of an era we should’ve buried centuries ago. Why are we still pretending centralized power structures, dominated by presidents and parliaments, are the best we can do? It’s time to turn the whole thing upside down. Imagine power flowing not from the top down but bubbling up from councils—real, grassroots bodies in towns, workplaces, and universities where people directly decide what matters to them. No presidents. No untouchable elites. Just democracy as it was meant to be: local, participatory, and alive.

Critics say that direct democracy would be too costly and cumbersome in large countries. But that’s a lie told to make us think power belongs anywhere but in our hands. The truth is, it doesn’t work their way—infrequent, clunky referenda that barely scratch the surface of what real participation looks like. But why not councils that meet regularly, that use technology we already have to count votes and hear every voice? Why not frequent, transparent, and accessible decision-making? We have the tools. What we lack is the will—and that’s on us.

And about the politicians. They’ve turned ruling into a career. They live above us, pocket bribes, rub shoulders with CEOs, and laugh at the idea of accountability. Enough. All representatives should be recallable at any time, earning no more than the median worker’s salary. Partial sortition (random official selection) could ensure even more fairness. It worked in ancient Greece which was (for the free male citizens ofc) closer to actual democracy than the unaccountable neo-aristocratic order we have today, so why not today when we have the formal equality before the law and equal rights, but we know the reality.

But if no one will be above anyone because everyone will get their chance to actually change something about the world and their life without running into the stone walls of the system, it will be a complete revolution in human relations that will uproot the poisonous root of disdain so many feel for their fellow humans for simply being worse off than them.

Imagine a system where politics isn’t about who has power but about how power flows and where the needs of the people are actually heard and resolved. Blockchain (and no, I'm abso-fucking-lutely not a cryptobro. PoW is still useful for things like captcha replacements but the whole thing is the biggest example of capitalism's way of turning useful and promising inventions into means of speculation and outright scams by and large) could be used to make the process more transparent than ever. It's not the technology that hold us back, but their fear of us using it to take what’s ours.

Term limits, too. No one should sit in power long enough to forget what life is like for the rest of us. Politics should be service, not a career. If we’re serious about democracy, every single one of us—no matter how "uneducated" we’re told we are—needs to learn how to govern. Because democracy isn’t just voting for the lesser evil every few years. It’s taking the reins of your life, your community, your future. It’s about ruling instead of being ruled.

Here’s the thing: the ruling class will not go quietly. When we start to take real power into our hands, they’ll fight back. They’ll use every dirty trick in the book to claw it back. That’s how this game works. But if we stand together, if we build a united force that can’t be undermined, if we refuse to let fear or complacency stop us—then they lose. And we win something they can never take away: the power to determine our destiny. That’s what’s at stake. Let’s stop settling for scraps. It’s time to demand the whole damn table.

i will believe this if at any point in the near future the man comments on the popular reaction to this event in relation to the need for national healthcare.

he won’t but that’s what i would believe if he did.

Instead of saying what he said here, Walz could've just not said anything and nobody would've batted an eye, aside maybe from some shareholders at "United" "Healthcare"

nd if he were to say something along the lines of "the bastard deserved it" he'd face a ton of consequences for it?

Right because american politicians totally get consequences for their words lmao. Where have you been since 2016?

You think? Then how come they get away with murdering thousands of people every year?

Option 1: say nothing. A lot of politicians did this.

Option 2: be vague. We saw a lot of this BS during the pandemic to somewhat appear like you care. "We are in trying times."

Option 3: not include the "a terrible loss for the business and health care communities". So he is rubbing shoulders.

That's 3 options right there. Am I'm not even a political strategist.

Personally, if I were in the position, I'd say something like: "It is a tragedy that a murder happened. No one should ever feel like murder is the only chance at justice." Maybe expand on it a bit and add a link to a bill proposed to either fix the justice system to not favor the rich, a bill that forces health insurance companies to do a better job and not be as greedy, or, even better, a bill that provides Medicare for all.

Like what do you want him to say?

Nothing. Nothing would be perfectly acceptable. See: https://lemmy.cafe/post/10402549/8792150

Edit: Also, a mitigating alternative I would accept would at the very least not laud the “business and healthcare community.”

Like what do you want him to say?

He didn't need to say jack shit.

I want him to say nothing.

Jesus Christ no wonder American is is the dam shape it’s in because of bullshit like this. The political IQ of a four year old

And the effect of media bubbles. Including self-selected ones, not just algorithm driven bubbles.

The plurality of voters this last election voted for greed and selfishness as celebrated norms. Over a third of voters said they didn't care. Of the remainder, a significant percentage of them are obsessed with civility and the proper way of doing things.

Laughing about capitalist cunts getting their just desserts is funny, but not as popular in touch-grassville as it is on Lemmy, and public figures have to deal with that fact

Makes it all the more ironic that he was less neoliberal than her in the ways that actually mattered.

it’s weird that you thought the goal was selecting a “very progressive politician”? if you want to, let me know why you think that.

it’s pretty clear to me that OOP’s goal is to select a representative of establishment and the DNC. as a literal dem vp pick, walz is definitely representative of establishment in the democratic party.

jfc what is wrong with this country when legalizing weed and taxing the rich are ideas that need to be balanced out by a "moderate."