this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2026
622 points (99.8% liked)

politics

30590 readers
2497 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MonkRome@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Your reading comprehension through all of this has been abysmal, possible explanations have been given by me and others and you are still sea-lioning.

They probably realized their cost outlay is lower than they anticipated and they are passing those savings on to the consumer.

Others have suggested they are absorbing those discounts in non essential items.

You can disagree with these explanations, but you instead keep sidestepping them and choosing to pretend your question wasn't answered.

[–] artyom@piefed.social -5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Asking a question is not sealioning. I don't even think you know what that word means. No one has answered the question. Yourself included.

You provided a flawed explanation, which I then explained to you. Instead of providing some sort of counterargument, you then go on the offensive and blame me for it. It seems like you're just offended that anyone wouldn't just accept what you say and not ask questions.

They probably realized their cost outlay is lower than they anticipated and they are passing those savings on to the consumer.

This is not an explanation, this is speculation, as denoted by the word "probably".

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

Congrats on actually addressing an answer. I have hope for you. Maybe go back to the person you claimed never answered you, with your response to them as well.

Any answer any of us give is going to be speculation, we don't have their financials in front of us. If you want more than speculation your best option is to research the topic yourself or go to New York and foia request the grocery store financials. No one on Lemmy is going to do that for you just because you asked a question. People are going to respond what they think while they take a shit and go about their day.

This is not an explanation, this is speculation, as denoted by the word "probably".

A speculative explanation is still an explanation. We are not obligated to give an academic response to a half asses question to a person too mentally lazy to research their own question. If this is so important to you, that you will attempt to annoy dozens of commenters and readers on the internet, you could have used that time to try to answer that question yourself if you need a thorough accounting of their financial outlay. No one here will do that for you just because you are, "just asking questions".

You can try to annoy me all you want though, I enjoy responding to people looking for pointless arguments.

[–] artyom@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Any answer any of us give is going to be speculation

Actually not correct at all. Someone did come and actually provide a factual answer. You could learn something from them.

No one on Lemmy is going to do that for you just because you asked a question.

They did though. Because that's precisely what forums like this are for.

A speculative explanation is still an explanation.

Wrong again.

We are not obligated to give an academic response

You're not obligated to give me anything. And yet here you are, making up answers that don't even answer the question I asked. If you don't have an answer, just keep scrolling.

I enjoy responding to people looking for pointless arguments.

Sorry to disappoint. Will have to look elsewhere.