I would say CNN probably still is mostly left leaning (relatively), but they have had a lot more right wing stances over the past five years than they did the previous decades.

I believe you used those terms correctly, although offline people would tend to say it more as economically conservative for that second part, in the US.

You’re right about it being more of an aggregator. I think having a good aggregator is about as important as the sources. To be more informed, hearing the news from different perspectives is essential, I feel.

For actual sources, starting internationally is a good bet to get an outside perspective of what’s going on in your country. I feel that the BBC does a great job of covering US news for that reason. Al-Jazeera is another international source that is decent for most news in the US, but has notable biases for issues in the Middle East as far as I am aware.

For more domestic US sources, PBS and NPR are the gold standards and worth supporting since they are public broadcasting networks. The other major news networks have more notable biases since they are privately owned.

For business news, Axios, Forbes, and Yahoo Finance do a decent job.

They label it as “leans left” now, with independent reviewers, so not as left as other sources. Although, I question if that takes into account the topics that don’t make it on the website.

Sources like Ground News help to show where the bias of your sources lay. Mind you, even neutral sources have their issues since they may not cover more serious “partisan” topics, even if the material is very disturbing.

Ground News does have a Blind Spot tool as well to help show most stories that the other side is not talking about, excluding the very serious ones I mentioned.

It is with my in-laws at least; well for some of them. It’s how they envision coming on top in their American Dream. They get to spend their weeks pumping themselves up thinking it’s their turn next to win and envisioning all the things they’ll get to do with all that money.

I would say the scam is convincing people that they are lucky and that they specifically will eventually hit it big in their lifetime. This exact gimmick is what prevents some people from voting against their best interests because they could one day hit it big at the lotto and be in the big leagues! Assuming they don’t blow all that wealth on poor financial decisions in the few years thereafter or win at all for that matter.

> Assuming that the capitalists do not flee this country, wouldn’t they work tirelessly til the end of time to erode these regulations? What is to stop them from using illegal avenues to do so? Sure you could catch and jail some of them but under capitalism we require capitalists to exist so you can’t jail all of them. Effectively what you require are all capitalists to be good people forever which is unreasonable.

What the capitalists are currently doing to erode regulation is by gaining power in red states and stripping regulations in those states. I believe stronger unions that have federal protections would go a long ways towards keeping the capitalists in check. Not every business is necessarily going to skirt legislation, but any business big enough to afford it will try to lobby or just pay off the fines.

I think making it so the public has a share in the stock of publicly traded companies can keep them in check, as the executive officers and the board should face financial and criminal penalties based on the scale of them breaking the law. The government could then step in and replace the board and/or executive officers, or close the company entirely. Harsh penalties and punishments are how we should best try to keep bad actors in check.

Creating a culture around more ethical business practices is how you change things for the better in the long run imo. Our current system rewards the greediest actors and consolidates wealth to the select few. I would say that actually having a culture that holds leaders to higher standards and harsher punishments would go a long ways to creating a more ethical society.

If anything, I think creating a seat in government for union leaders to collectively vote on the House and Senate bills could be a helpful check by the people. If they had seats of power at the state house level as well it would be an extra layer of protections for the workers in our country.

Come to think of it, I believe it’s entirely possible to do something like this at the state level with either a simple majority or 2/3 majority depending on the state. It could be a helpful protection for the people in blue states and help build up unions. We could even give the union leaders the ability to draft legislation to pass along to the House and Senate within the state legislatures.

> Imperialism is actually just as bad as its always been maybe worse. It just looks different. There is a vast system of unequal exchange between the imperial core and imperial periphery. We still go to war to maintain our grasp on key resources. We still overthrow governments that try to nationalize their resources. We still influence foreign elections to get politicians elected who we can control. We still commit genocide in the name of profiteering. We just don’t rule over them like we used to because that was too blatant.

I agree that there are still cases where our actions were plainly imperialistic from the government side, such as the war in Iraq. I would say we lean more on our alliances for extracting resources, but that’s not to say we aren’t doing things that are imperialistic in nature. We’re more just doing it from every angle these days; from the business side, to strong arming countries.

> Ultimately what you want is great and I agree that it would be cool. But there are contradictory interests between the working and owning classes that always eventually lead to a necessary system change within production. Capitalists have a material incentive to do what they do and they are gonna keep trying to do it. It happened to the feudal order and it will happen to capitalism too. I only hope we survive the process.

I would say that incentives for the owning class are to make as much money as they are allowed to make. For some reason that is deemed acceptable legally and culturally since we let individuals have more than $1 billion in actual money and in wealth. Until those things are changed, individuals will continue to push to for maximizing their wealth. Things need to be reined in. If anything, wealth could be taxed to such an extent that these wealthy individuals can’t afford to do these forever legal challenges or to be buying lobbyists. Plus it would help our system as a whole since if people reach the maximum income threshold, they may not care to expand their business much more since that extra income will be taxed at 95+%. This would leave holes in the market for other businesses to pop up and create competition.

If we change the rules, they will have no choice but to either play by the new rules or leave the system and let new players take their place.

> This requires reversing a supreme court decision that benefits capital. This means 5 members of the supreme court must vote to end something that vastly benefits them and the people who got them appointed to that position. You do not get that high up in our judicial system by consistantly ruling in favor of the working class. You simply won’t get appointed with that kind of track record. I’m sorry but the odds are really stacked against us here.i’m not saying its impossible but I am saying that its close. Even if it were to happen I am almost certain corporations would find other avenues to control our political establishment.

It’s possible to reverse Citizens United if we expand the court, that would at least make it so we wouldn’t have to wait a whole lifetime. That has its challenges to do, but theoretically it’s possible with a simple majority in the House and Senate + the Presidency. We would want to do it after getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate. Alternatively, if we already have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a majority in the House, we could pass a new law that puts limitations on Citizens United. Implementing term limits on the Supreme Court would make sense as well if we had those capabilities.

I do agree that finding suitable judges to be appointed that would overturn Citizens United would be challenging, we would also need a progressive President in power that would nominate those kinds of progressive judges and enough Senators to support those nominees.

I agree corporations will always look for ways around it, especially if they have the funds to spend buying influence.

> Implementation is once again very difficult here. This requires incumbent politicians who see their positions as a career to intentionally put themselves at a disadvantage. This isn’t impossible and i am certain it will happen in some places from good faith actors but nationwide? Idk if that is feasible and who’s to say this wouldn’t eventually be reversed by new incumbents looking to hold on to power and their career? Essentially this requires politicians to act against their own interests on a large scale

Alternative voting seems to have the highest chances at success at the local level. The more cities that adopt it, the higher chances it has at taking off at the state level. If it’s adopted at the state level, then there is higher odds of that state wanting it implemented at the federal level elections for elections. For instance, Alaska and Maine are two states that already use an alternative voting system for their state and federal elections.

I believe off year elections are our best bet at passing an alternative voting system, as the voters in those elections are often more informed. Any alternative voting system will struggle to pass in a presidential election year imo.

To a degree, most states can implement an alternative voting system without needing to rely on the state legislature. Through ballot initiatives citizens can directly vote to pass an alternative voting system. Currently no blue states have banned alternative voting systems from being voted in, meanwhile several red states have already banned Ranked Choice Voting since they know they would lose power if it were to pass. Overturning an alternative voting system that is passed by a ballot initiative has a higher barrier to remove. Most states allow citizens to gather signatures to overturn a veto on ballot initiatives.

> Misinformation is currently very beneficial to the political establishment. It allows them to spin whatever narrative they want through whatever avenues they want. This goes for both sides of the american political dichotomy. If the people cannot trust anything then they will only trust what reinforces their already held beliefs. Meaning they won’t differ from the party line they already subscribe to. It allows political parties to isolate their members from external narratives highly effectively. From the perspective of the bourgeois rather than the political class they use, misinformation allows them to keep the working class divided. Instesd of the working class recognizing our common enemy we are kept busy fighting eachother through whatever narratives can be whipped up by the slim few who control all of our media services. To put shortly, neither the ruling economic class nor the political elite have a material interest to reduce misinformation. We are post truth.

I agree that it is difficult to break through in our age of misinformation. I would say the incentive to change things are for those struggling to break through currently. Corporate news is almost completely controlled to drive narratives, at the very least certain stories are stopped from being pushed by the editors and owners. While those owners may not want things to change, I believe the constituents may still want a fuller picture.

At the very least, I think conceding this fight for information is not one we should ever back down from. It’s not even just misinformation being spread these days, but the fact that bots are pushing the same misinformation everywhere all day, every day makes it more difficult each day to combat it. Either we need to be building bots of our own to respond to the misinformation by other bots in real time or we need to rein in the media system itself.

The media sphere is perhaps the most frustrating issue to deal with. I firmly believe bots and paid propagandists are propping up many of the most toxic content creators on say Twitter, YouTube, and Twitch. They make it appear as those views are more popular than they are, which in turn makes some real people that are fence sitters or young adults give their opinions equal weight to real experts or people with more reasonable takes.

> Okay so let’s say we have a perfectly regulated system where our politicians legally cannot own businesses, be landlords, or accept money from corporate interests. Why wouldn’t the capitalists just leave? Fuck off to some place where they can do that. Then what? The vast majority of our wealth just gets transferred to another country where we cannot siphon some of it off as taxes for the public good. Now we are a country of workers entirely dependant on a foreign ruling class for jobs who have no interest in improving or maintaining our infrastructure. Capital flight is a real thing and I encourage you to look into it. Regulating capitalism is not feasible at this point, not in any way that matters. I guess we could stop them from flering the country through the threat of violence but I don’t think you are in favor of that.

If the current capitalists in power leave, others who are not well off will take their place overnight. Capitalism is a beast of competition, any perceived weakness or market that is left open will be a void that becomes filled by entrepreneurs looking to make a profit for themselves. The billionaires are more than welcome to go where they want, but their assets and wealth are tied to the US currently, especially for the company stock they own. If the billionaires want to transfer their wealth, then they will need to cash out their stocks which is the one thing they would hate to do.

Billionaires pay for everything with their stocks so it doesn’t get taxed and they get treated as though they have no income. Currently, we can’t tax their wealth unless they cash out their stocks which or unless it is sold to go to their next of kin. Now, if they did decide they wanted to sell their stocks, while paying moderate taxes in doing so, and then leaving the US after, they will have to convert US dollars to another currency. There is no guarantees that where they go will be as profitable for them.

The issues they would face of a new market are the following: the market is already dominated by another local company and the new company struggles to compete (like Starbucks failing in Italy), the business owners may not know much about the market they are entering and do not understand the wants/needs of the locals, and the owners would lose out on the US market which is one of the largest economic markets to sell to.

The US is mostly a service economy that is hard to replace in full. I would say our current predicament is close to being that of one where there is little interest in improving or maintaining infrastructure. I believe we can still regulate capitalism, it just takes a majority of the states to want that as well. Many blue states do regulate capitalism in their own states, but there could be more done such as public utilities and more public housing.

I disagree that they are impossible; hard to do yes, but not impossible. They require the political power to implement those things is the key thing, but that goes with everything. In the US for instance, if it was just the blue states voting for those things to be implemented in blue states and if the blue states funded it then I think would be possible to implement some of those things even in our current political climate.

There’s a few things you need to make it possible though:

• Ending Citizens United, as it is much harder to implement these changes when politicians can be bought by corporate interests.

• Alternative Voting systems in place at local, state, and federal levels. As progressive politicians sometimes have a higher barrier of getting off the ground verses incumbents due to vote splitting.

• Reimplementing and expanding the Fairness Doctrine to include all traditional media, social media, and apply to online influencers. As misinformation is currently allowed to be spread without audiences being presented a more well rounded picture.

I will add that the monopolies are inevitable if the system is unregulated. Same thing with cartels. Capitalism only works with regulations to keep the system working. As the entire benefit of capitalism, innovation, all but stops when competition is not allowed to happen with big companies. That is why we need regulators that are not able to be influenced or bought out by corporate lobbyists.

Imperialism is less a feature these days, more globalist multinational conglomeration. It’s cut from the same cloth though, with unscrupulous companies seeking to exploit locals in international markets. The answer to dealing with these entities is that we need a multinational trade deal with our allies.

Namely, we need to punish companies and countries that try to exploit locals in other counties for cheap/exploitative labor practices. Any country or company that doesn’t do business by the agreement should be met with steep tariffs, ideally with some of those funds set aside to go back to the workers who were robbed of the fruits of their labor. I believe the agreement should require that resources be collected in a way that is sustainable, implementing green practices, and non-exploitative.

I think you have definitely nailed the issues of most of the Democratic Party politicians in power. The Democratic Party Politicians don’t necessarily represent the interests of their leftist-liberal voters. They probably will continue to not do so if they are in safe seats and funded by corporations.

What needs to change at the local level, state level, and federal level is implementing an Alternative Voting system. As this is the key way we will be able to get progressive politicians, that support progressive policies, into power.

NYC had Ranked Choice Voting and it likely contributed in part to people feeling safe to vote their conscience and list Mamdani at the top of the ticket.

I disagree that there is a strong divide ideologically speaking. I think regarding the liberals in Congress this holds fairly true for their more conservative approach to progress, but I wouldn’t say it’s the same for what leftist-liberal voters want.

For instance, I’m in favor of Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services, union support/collective bargaining, Universal Healthcare, universal daycare, free college/trade school education, and support for nuclear power & renewable energy solutions.

I believe the capitalist system needs to be reigned in entirely where there should not be any billionaires. Tax loopholes need to be closed on corporations that allow for the billionaires to take loans on their stock. There should be no monopolies or big conglomerates as they prevent competition.

Furthermore, we should change the reward structure of our economy by highly subsidizing jobs like teaching, researching, and the arts as I believe these sectors are what help a society to flourish yet are underfunded/underpaid.

You get it; I think there is an issue of conflating what the lazy, safe seat Democrats in office that are borderline Republicans want and what the Democratic voters want. Mamdani is closer to what liberal/left Democratic voters want for our party. A big issue is the politicians in power of our party are mostly corporate types that are not necessarily trying to rock the boat too much.

It’s a nuanced and multifaceted issue which mainly comes from Citizens United. Plus, it’s an issue of the First Past the Post voting system in much of the country making it harder for more progressive candidates to come out ahead.

I think there’s also a bit of a misconception that we can’t incorporate things like Universal Healthcare, Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services, or other progressive/leftist policies under our current economic system.

That’s not to say that we can’t change things down the line, but we can regulate capitalism and create income floors so no one is going without food, medicine, shelter, or support.

When they said wicked, they meant wicked, not wicked.

If California is allowed to look good, then it hurts the credibility of their ideology.

I think there are some criticisms about Californians leaving the state raising housing prices in their own state. That’s just how supply and demand works though when the supply of houses suddenly becomes more limited in your area.

They like to say things along the lines of: “Californians messed up their own state with their high taxes, fled here, are driving all the prices up, and are now trying to bring their fAiLeD PoLiTiCs to the state.” The real answer is that California is such a desirable place to live that there are not enough houses and well paying jobs to go around. People leave the state because of unregulated capitalist pressures, not because of the state’s strong social programs.

It’s not just Californians moving to other states that are driving prices up. Housing prices going up is also caused by private equity firms buying up available properties, a slowdown on building new houses capping supply, people from other states moving, and Not In My Backyard people trying to prevent lower cost housing in their towns since they don’t want the price of their house to ever drop.

Having strong social programs in their own states could actually help mitigate the impact of prices going up for housing as well as for other goods and services. For instance, they could have their own state provided healthcare coverage to help them have guaranteed healthcare. They could have better public transportation systems so they are not so car reliant to get to work. Rent controls in place to mitigate landlords pricing people out of the area. Affordable housing construction. Even things like public utilities could be offered for less by the state for gas, electricity, phone, and internet.

deleted by creator

It’s not the solution, but one of many I would say and an important one at that.

Also, the UK uses First Past the Post for the House of Commons, mayoral elections in England, Police and Crime Commissioner elections and local councils.

They use Alternative Voting systems for some of their elections for like the chair of committees in the House of Commons and the Lord Speaker.

The system needs to change for it to not be a bifurcation, for all practical purposes. The system of voting needs to be changed from First Past the Post to be something like Ranked Robin voting, STAR voting, or Score voting. All of those are my preferred alternatives, but Ranked Choice is still solid over First Past the Post as well.

A different voting system enables third parties to hold real power and to grow in influence.

Good to know for future reference! Thank you!

Cool! Thank you for clarifying!

I think for those types of communities having it be open but restricting commenting to flaired users that are verified makes way more sense. I’m not sure if that’s possible on Lemmy, but it’s an easy way to have the best of both worlds.