|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On February 27 2021 14:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2021 12:53 Zambrah wrote:On February 27 2021 12:14 JimmiC wrote:On February 27 2021 12:02 Zambrah wrote:On February 27 2021 11:50 JimmiC wrote:On February 27 2021 11:45 Zambrah wrote:
What would it take for the people in this thread to consider Joe Biden's term inadequate pre-midterm elections?
Genuinely curious, what is the bar people have for him, is it just a notch above Trump, is he fine as long as he just reverts a certain amount of what Trump was doing, or are there higher standards/expectations for what you expect him to accomplish with two years of a Democrat house, congress, and presidency?
Would you accept almost no legislation being passed if Manchin and Sinema were holding it up as acceptable? When do we decide that they're worth primarying?
I'm legitimately curious what bar people have for Biden and the Democrats right now, its pretty obvious that me and GH have basically no patience for Democrats, but what are everyone else's limits and expectations, and what would it take for you to declare that Biden and the Democrats fell below those expectations? Depends what you mean. Do you mean how long until frustrated? How long until vote republican? Or how long until we March onto capital hill for a inserection like GH suggested a page or 2 ago? How long until frustrated is good, I don't expect almost anyone here would vote Republican basically ever, but maybe somewhere between acknowledging his presidency as poor and voting for someone else/abstaining from voting for him again. Already am, but more that there is more people who vote for the policy's that I don't want then at the people trying to put through what I want and can't. And I mean in the generals and the primarys. People in the US don't vote for policies though, they vote for politicians who theoretically should implement those policies, but American politicians are dog shit at doing that, theres a reason the US hasnt figured something out for universal healthcare. Also I'm surprised youre already frustrated with Biden, what are the odds that he winds up being effective past his first hundred days that may change your mind? For example, getting a 15 dollar minimum wage through and at least one stimulus check every two months or so would be enough for me at least stop souring on him, lol, I'd take stopping deportations and not bombing the middle east and recanting his awful views about increasing police funding to actively make me think, "wow, he was better than I thought! Maybe Democrats will be worth considering voting for." I'm not souring on him, he was never my first choice. As I said I'm frustrated that what he wants to put through is still too much for the others who were elected. The dems are not one homogenous group who all just agree (and isn't being that way partisan?) They are a varied group of people who represent another varied group of people that agreed about enough to vote them in. Clearly there is not enough people who support the type of dem who wants 15 dollar minimum wage in WV. If another had won the primary and then the election it would be passed and I would be less frustrated. Those are the people I'm frustrated with because why am I frustrated with Biden when he is not the one stopping it? And no the dems couldn't just not support the person the dems in WV voted to represent them because that is not how democracy works. And if they did that would disinfranchise all his voters, which is not what you do to people you disagree with.
But the Democrats can exert influence on their members, they're not just a collection of allied politicians, theyre actively a political party with a colossal fundraising machine thats a big part of why it can be so hard for progressives to win. If Democrats wanted they could tell Manchin that they will support someone to primary him next go around during his next election if he doesn't play ball.
I get that it may seem partisan (and frankly I wish we didnt have a system where such a huge indicator of who wins elections is how much party money they get funneled at them) but the status quo where the Democrats help fund Manchin is the same situation but in reverse.
The Democrats as a party are an institution that exerts influence over elections in order to help their preferred candidates win elections, its not a situation where its purely the will of the people.
When its Manchin vs. a Republican Manchin isnt the one footing his campaigning bills, the Democrats as a party are putting the money out there, and given what a huge impact money has over US elections its very much the same kind of subversion of democracy that I'd imagine you would oppose.
Another issue is the Lesser of Two Evils part. For instance, someone like Joe Biden likely had a lot of people who voted for him because the other dude was Trump, does that fairly indicate that people think Joe Biden's policies are the best? Our voting system creates a mirage around politicians where it looks like they'd have popular support from their voters, but how do you tell whats a vote AGAINST the other guy and whats a vote FOR the policy? We wind up lumping people who, for instance, support universal healthcare, being forced to vote for Joe Biden with people who agree with Joe Biden and dont want people to have healthcare. Neither Trump nor Biden agreed with universal healthcare, so basically if we vote at all it can be misinterpreted as not wanting universal healthcare.
Tying the will of the people to the beliefs and actions of politicians in the US just doesn't work, our system doesn't let it work, in a sane system we'd have enough political parties where people could viably place their votes in such a way that we could reliably get a rough idea of their beliefs, but we have our two party system, so we basically can't.
|
On February 27 2021 12:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
I also think Congress/Biden failed to deliver on "$2000 checks immediately" after winning the senate even letting Biden count $600 from Trump.
I think this is really bad. The longer it takes, obviously the "immediately" becomes more and more of a lie, but also the longer it gets, the less believable the "oh you already got $600" is too.
It's one of the reasons I really wanted Pelosi to take the imperfect deal back in, what, September? They could have passed something back then, and now in January / February, we'd be talking about something new, but with extra money from September.
I mean hell, if Biden can say "oh we already gave you $600 of it", why can't he say we also got $1200 of it several months ago? Both statements are equally bullshit.
On February 27 2021 13:45 Zambrah wrote:
Retroactive anything is absolutely not going to happen given its not even something any of the Democrats have pretended exists, I will say though that Kamala Harris was on the record supporting a 2,000 dollar a month check to people during the pandemic, so it'd be nice if she stopped being so silent on something she believes in and helped push the administration shes a part of towards helping people get through this crisis.
I knew we wouldn't hear another word from her on this as soon as, "well why don't you do it then?" became a plausible response. I'd love to think that she really thinks it's a good idea but just doesn't see a way to make it work politically. The alternative is that she is just said it for popularity with no plans of following through, which is what everyone thinks politicians do.
Taking over a month to pass something that people need to pay their monthly bills with is taking too long and if its going to be such a slog it needs to be something that can cover for the future so we aren't stuck waiting well over a month for relief when its needed.
That being said I think the last I saw was that apparently 1400 dollars is enough to last people til like July, and by then Im pretty sure stimulus checks are going to be off the table completely.
As usual, anything involving helping normal people is a bare-minimum band-aid solution.
|
Is there a way they could have done checks right away? I don't see the whole "they said immediate" as a valid criticism if there isn't a mechanism to do immediate checks. I always took it as immediately start pursuing it.
|
The narrative has been to send out 2000 dollar checks immediately,
https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-georgia-senate-runoff-2000-stimulus-checks-immediately-2021-1
President-elect Joe Biden told Georgia voters on Monday that $2,000 stimulus checks would be sent out to Americans right away if the state voted for the Democratic candidates Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff in Tuesday's US Senate runoffs.
they can weasel out of the 2000 dollar on a technicality (which is an idiotic move thats definitely going to lose them the GA senate seats because of it) but the "immediate" part, while being pretty ill defined, is definitely starting to feel like its not immediate any more.
They could have just tried to pass the amendment to the Trump bill for 600 dollars adjusting the amount to 2000 from 600 and let the Republicans try and turn that down when we have several of them as being on record supporting it (scumsucker Hawley being one of them) instead of tacking onto a horde of other things that Republicans can pick at and claim "Whoops sorry, we really like this stimulus check stuff for our voters, we really truly do, but this ____ in the bill is bad and so we have to vote no sowwy  "
They also could threaten Manchin and Sinema properly to whip their asses in line to have passed this way earlier, especially given that we've had two stimulus bills passed already that can provide a frame work to build off of, so the real difficulty of this is just passing it.
Manchin and Sinema should be threatened with loss of funding, loss of committee seats, etc. for now playing ball during THE most crucial part of any presidency, the first 100 days.
|
On February 26 2021 22:34 WombaT wrote:
I’m unsure why white folks have such an issue with the concept of privilege existing, it doesn’t confer individual responsibility upon them, certainly it doesn’t define you as an individual as an oppressor depending on how you behave. There seems a widespread misunderstanding on this, be it wilful ignorance or general ignorance.
Because it get thrown around willynilly and have lost all meaning since it's more often than not been (mis)used as a generalization. It's demeaning to all white people that have not benefited from "white privilege".
|
On February 27 2021 16:05 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On February 26 2021 22:34 WombaT wrote:
I’m unsure why white folks have such an issue with the concept of privilege existing, it doesn’t confer individual responsibility upon them, certainly it doesn’t define you as an individual as an oppressor depending on how you behave. There seems a widespread misunderstanding on this, be it wilful ignorance or general ignorance.
Because it get thrown around willynilly and have lost all meaning since it's more often than not been (mis)used as a generalization. It's demeaning to all white people that have not benefited from "white privilege".
I'm curious what the correct usage is according to your view?
|
On February 27 2021 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2021 16:05 Jek wrote:On February 26 2021 22:34 WombaT wrote:
I’m unsure why white folks have such an issue with the concept of privilege existing, it doesn’t confer individual responsibility upon them, certainly it doesn’t define you as an individual as an oppressor depending on how you behave. There seems a widespread misunderstanding on this, be it wilful ignorance or general ignorance.
Because it get thrown around willynilly and have lost all meaning since it's more often than not been (mis)used as a generalization. It's demeaning to all white people that have not benefited from "white privilege". I'm curious what the correct usage is according to your view?
I hate how the word is (now) used and dont think it should be used at all. But if you really want to use it, it should be something that's not "you are X therefore you have privilege". It's common usage is hypocritical prejudice at it's finest.
|
On February 27 2021 16:59 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2021 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2021 16:05 Jek wrote:On February 26 2021 22:34 WombaT wrote:
I’m unsure why white folks have such an issue with the concept of privilege existing, it doesn’t confer individual responsibility upon them, certainly it doesn’t define you as an individual as an oppressor depending on how you behave. There seems a widespread misunderstanding on this, be it wilful ignorance or general ignorance.
Because it get thrown around willynilly and have lost all meaning since it's more often than not been (mis)used as a generalization. It's demeaning to all white people that have not benefited from "white privilege". I'm curious what the correct usage is according to your view? I hate how the word is (now) used and dont think it should be used at all. But if you really want to use it, it should be something that's not "you are X therefore you have privilege". It's common usage is prejudice at it's finest.
I'm asking how it was used correctly in your view before you hated how it is "(now) used"?
|
Can we all stop pretending the Democrats can't manage to consolidate their votes like every other political party on the planet is able to do on important votes? The Democrats are the party of incompetence because they choose to be. Want to know what the Democratic party looks like when they really want something? Look at how quickly and efficiently they rallied behind Joe Biden to stop Bernie Sanders from winning Super Tuesday and taking the party nomination this past election. When they actually want something, they make sure it gets done.
The moderate and conservative Democrats absolutely have to fall in line with what the party dictates because that's where all of their funding comes from. They can pressure Manchin and Sinema to vote however they need them to because there's no way they raise enough money for a competitive campaign without the party's backing. It's the "far left" part of the party that's not beholden to the party's goals because they're the ones who actually inspire voters and can raise campaign funds without the party's help, and the "far left" wing of the party aren't the ones saying they won't vote for the bill. Please, quit babying these fucking people. Citizens of this country are starving, losing their homes, and dying while these people pretend they can't come together for a vote on a bill that is essentially a slam dunk win in approval rating.
|
On February 27 2021 17:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2021 16:59 Jek wrote:On February 27 2021 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2021 16:05 Jek wrote:On February 26 2021 22:34 WombaT wrote:
I’m unsure why white folks have such an issue with the concept of privilege existing, it doesn’t confer individual responsibility upon them, certainly it doesn’t define you as an individual as an oppressor depending on how you behave. There seems a widespread misunderstanding on this, be it wilful ignorance or general ignorance.
Because it get thrown around willynilly and have lost all meaning since it's more often than not been (mis)used as a generalization. It's demeaning to all white people that have not benefited from "white privilege". I'm curious what the correct usage is according to your view? I hate how the word is (now) used and dont think it should be used at all. But if you really want to use it, it should be something that's not "you are X therefore you have privilege". It's common usage is prejudice at it's finest. I'm asking how it was used correctly in your view before you hated how it is "(now) used"?
When it's used as in it's classical sense, "I was privileged to work with highly competent co-workers" or when you know it for certainty "Millionaries are privileged by not having to worry about health insurance".
|
On February 27 2021 12:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2021 11:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2021 10:59 Gorsameth wrote:On February 27 2021 10:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
What happened to the hundreds of bills that would be passed if McConnell couldn't stop them from getting voted on? Its been a month? Like seriously, can you do anything but whine? Your complaint is now that the Senate hasn't been passing 3 major pieces of legislation a day, including weekends? Almost 2 months + Show Spoiler +(EDIT: granted they couldn't actually do the voting part for almost a month of that) During the Obama administration Democrats had passed a recovery bill (way less popular than covid relief), Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, and renewed SCHIP by now. The idea that covid relief (which is largely just continuing existing responses) has been too complicated for them to be passing things they've already written and passed before (but McConnell stopped) is asinine to me. As long as Democrats have strung people along thinking Trump would be removed from office and/or sent to prison I fully expect to be hearing the "what do you expect them to do it's only been/THE RUPUBLICANS!!!" all the way until they lose the house, senate, and white house again. EDIT: Thousands of people are dying every day from an ongoing pandemic and Democrats aren't even passing hazard pay for the essential workers having to work amid the public, often for months without adequate PPE (people I know). I disagree that pointing out that inaction is "whining". I feel like Feb 26 isnt 2 months after Jan 20.
it's not just that. I would say that while it is certainly urgent now for the people in somewhat financial limbo to get covid relief asap, the urgency is worlds apart compared to 2009. people seem to forget that the economy was in literal freefall, and Republicans wanted no stimulus/relief. and as back then Dems are getting shat on. sound familiar? funny how that goes lol.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On February 27 2021 17:36 Jek wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2021 17:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2021 16:59 Jek wrote:On February 27 2021 16:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 27 2021 16:05 Jek wrote:On February 26 2021 22:34 WombaT wrote:
I’m unsure why white folks have such an issue with the concept of privilege existing, it doesn’t confer individual responsibility upon them, certainly it doesn’t define you as an individual as an oppressor depending on how you behave. There seems a widespread misunderstanding on this, be it wilful ignorance or general ignorance.
Because it get thrown around willynilly and have lost all meaning since it's more often than not been (mis)used as a generalization. It's demeaning to all white people that have not benefited from "white privilege". I'm curious what the correct usage is according to your view? I hate how the word is (now) used and dont think it should be used at all. But if you really want to use it, it should be something that's not "you are X therefore you have privilege". It's common usage is prejudice at it's finest. I'm asking how it was used correctly in your view before you hated how it is "(now) used"? When it's used as in it's classical sense, "I was privileged to work with highly competent co-workers" or when you know it for certainty "Millionaries are privileged by not having to worry about health insurance".
I see. I thought you meant "white privilege" had lost it's meaning to you. Like you agreed "white privilege" accurately described the US under Jim Crow but it was gone now and shouldn't be a term people use to describe modern conditions.
On February 27 2021 17:11 StasisField wrote:
Can we all stop pretending the Democrats can't manage to consolidate their votes like every other political party on the planet is able to do on important votes? The Democrats are the party of incompetence because they choose to be. Want to know what the Democratic party looks like when they really want something? Look at how quickly and efficiently they rallied behind Joe Biden to stop Bernie Sanders from winning Super Tuesday and taking the party nomination this past election. When they actually want something, they make sure it gets done.
The moderate and conservative Democrats absolutely have to fall in line with what the party dictates because that's where all of their funding comes from. They can pressure Manchin and Sinema to vote however they need them to because there's no way they raise enough money for a competitive campaign without the party's backing. It's the "far left" part of the party that's not beholden to the party's goals because they're the ones who actually inspire voters and can raise campaign funds without the party's help, and the "far left" wing of the party aren't the ones saying they won't vote for the bill. Please, quit babying these fucking people. Citizens of this country are starving, losing their homes, and dying while these people pretend they can't come together for a vote on a bill that is essentially a slam dunk win in approval rating.
The short answer I gather from many here is "No" we can't stop pretending.
|
Why wouldnt Democrats be to blame when they had the presidency, the senate, and the house in 2009? People don't seem to have a problem blaming Republicans when theyre being shitty but it feels like to some people the Democrats never do anything worthy of being shat on. If Republicans are being pieces of shit we rightly complain about it, when Democrats aren't doing enough we should shit on them.
Democrats said "immediate 2,000 dollar checks" and they've fucked up both halves of that, they should be shit on,
Democrats are backing down on a 15 dollar minimum wage, they should be shit on,
Democrats backed out of halting Trump and Obama era deportations, they should be shit on,
We don't shit on Democrats so much when Mitch McConnell is Majority Leader because he acts as a huge wall through which nothing passes, but Mitch McConnell is not Majority Leader, Donald Trump is not president, Kevin McCarthy is not Speaker of the House.
Chuck Schumer is Majority Leader, Joe Biden is president, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Democrats have both houses of Congress right now as well as the presidency, they're in the driver's seat, Republicans aren't getting shit on for how long this is taking because Republicans no longer control Congress or the White House.
When Democrats fuck this all up and lose the Senate and House again in 2022 we'll go back to pissing on Mitch McConnell, but 'til then, what happens now is on the Democrats.
|
So, incase some people are still confused about whether the GOP might be turning away from the far right.
The CPAC stage is in the form of yet another Nazi symbol...
Still blowing as hard as they can on that dog whistle.
|
There are certain kind of priviliges:
-being born rich
-being born in rich country
-being of certain ethnicity (but this depends on country -- usually white or asian)
-being of certain religion
Being white polish non-catholic born in poor family during cummunist times i have to say that my "white privilige" is extremly limited, litteraly everyone around me is white so it doesnt matter most of the time. The only thing i can think of is that i have it easier than brown people during traveling by plane (but only in EU - I had one extremely unpleasant situation in Beijing airport due to being white). Otherwise my "white privilige" is nonexistent.
And being noncatholic i had hard time since gradschool in Poland.
On top of that i am polish comming from poor faimly so i am extremly underpriviliges in economic area.
So when some rich Scandinavian or Brit who spends more on one meal than i earned in my first job in a month tells me to STFU because of "white priviliges", i am getting really angry. Because any "white priviliges" i enjoy is trumped by underpriviliges in other areas.
|
They've made it clear they're going all in on their neo-fascism bullshit, McConnell has stated that if Trump is the nominee next go around he will support him, lol. Republicans have to be crushed, playing nice with them should be so off the table to anyone who actually gives a shit.
Thats part of why is so important that Democrats stop fucking up right now, if Democrats look weak and ineffective going into 2024 they're going to be in a bad position to beat Trump, and given they're likely to see a chamber or two of Congress flip in 2022, they really only have two years to do it.
Running on "Our first two years were great and then Republicans fucked it up!" is a stronger position than "Our first two years were...uh, yeah, Republicans fucked it up!"
|
On February 27 2021 18:19 Zambrah wrote:
Why wouldnt Democrats be to blame when they had the presidency, the senate, and the house in 2009? People don't seem to have a problem blaming Republicans when theyre being shitty but it feels like to some people the Democrats never do anything worthy of being shat on. If Republicans are being pieces of shit we rightly complain about it, when Democrats aren't doing enough we should shit on them.
Democrats said "immediate 2,000 dollar checks" and they've fucked up both halves of that, they should be shit on,
Democrats are backing down on a 15 dollar minimum wage, they should be shit on,
Democrats backed out of halting Trump and Obama era deportations, they should be shit on,
We don't shit on Democrats so much when Mitch McConnell is Majority Leader because he acts as a huge wall through which nothing passes, but Mitch McConnell is not Majority Leader, Donald Trump is not president, Kevin McCarthy is not Speaker of the House.
Chuck Schumer is Majority Leader, Joe Biden is president, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Democrats have both houses of Congress right now as well as the presidency, they're in the driver's seat, Republicans aren't getting shit on for how long this is taking because Republicans no longer control Congress or the White House.
When Democrats fuck this all up and lose the Senate and House again in 2022 we'll go back to pissing on Mitch McConnell, but 'til then, what happens now is on the Democrats.
I am just offering a bit of context. rage away all you like lol, and hold their feet to the fire. it is not without reason that you do. Dems need to man up, but more importantly voters in general need to wise up which party stands for what given the chance. and I am not sure they actually backed out of the 15$, it's just separated from the covid bill right?
I mean it speaks volumes for what kind of country the US is that the last time a minimum wage hike was in discussion - and subsequently shut down - was under Obama. is it not hilarious how no one asked the king of parler and cpac about the minimum wage when he created the biggest bestest economy?
Despite his pledge, Obama hasn’t exactly been stumping for the minimum wage increase. Pursuing such legislation is a long shot in the Republican-controlled House, given the opposition of business interests and free-market conservatives who argue that higher minimum wages force owners to curtail hiring. Even though the voting public generally supports raising the minimum wage, the administration might be fearful of the “job-killer” tag that inevitably would come with it. The president’s labor secretary, Hilda Solis, dodged the question when asked this summer if the wage should be boosted. The Obama campaign didn’t comment when asked this week if the president would recommit to the pledge.
Plenty of economists — not to mention low-wage workers — believe the raise is due. Because the federal rate isn’t adjusted annually for inflation as many state rates are, it tends to lose some of its purchasing power every year. (Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have higher minimum wages that prevail over the federal one.) The federal minimum has been generally declining in real dollars since its high in the late 1960s. If it had kept pace with inflation since 1968, it would now stand at around $10.
The extra $2.25 an hour floated by Obama would mean a lot to workers like Fernando Gomez, 23, of Indianapolis. The minimum wage in Indiana is $7.25, as is the case in most states. Working as a full-time custodian in a hotel for the second half of 2011, Gomez took home just a couple hundred dollars each week in wages, he said. He still lives with his family since his rent check would swallow most of his income if he tried to live on his own.
it's like we are in a time machine lol.
|
Norway28712 Posts
On February 27 2021 18:48 Silvanel wrote:
There are certain kind of priviliges:
-being born rich
-being born in rich country
-being of certain ethnicity (but this depends on country -- usually white or asian)
-being of certain religion
Being white polish non-catholic born in poor family during cummunist times i have to say that my "white privilige" is extremly limited, litteraly everyone around me is white so it doesnt matter most of the time. The only thing i can think of is that i have it easier than brown people during traveling by plane (but only in EU - I had one extremely unpleasant situation in Beijing airport due to being white). Otherwise my "white privilige" is nonexistent.
And being noncatholic i had hard time since gradschool in Poland.
On top of that i am polish comming from poor faimly so i am extremly underpriviliges in economic area.
So when some rich Scandinavian or Brit who spends more on one meal than i earned in my first job in a month tells me to STFU because of "white priviliges", i am getting really angry. Because any "white priviliges" i enjoy is trumped by underpriviliges in other areas.
Does it really happen that rich scandinavians or brits tell you to stfu because of your white privilege? As a phrase it's hardly relevant for most of Europe anyway, certainly not for ex-communist countries (where pretty much everybody is white anyway).
But recognizing that 'white privilege' is a pretty meaningless phrase for polish people doesn't make it any less meaningful for Americans.
|
On February 27 2021 19:05 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2021 18:19 Zambrah wrote:
Why wouldnt Democrats be to blame when they had the presidency, the senate, and the house in 2009? People don't seem to have a problem blaming Republicans when theyre being shitty but it feels like to some people the Democrats never do anything worthy of being shat on. If Republicans are being pieces of shit we rightly complain about it, when Democrats aren't doing enough we should shit on them.
Democrats said "immediate 2,000 dollar checks" and they've fucked up both halves of that, they should be shit on,
Democrats are backing down on a 15 dollar minimum wage, they should be shit on,
Democrats backed out of halting Trump and Obama era deportations, they should be shit on,
We don't shit on Democrats so much when Mitch McConnell is Majority Leader because he acts as a huge wall through which nothing passes, but Mitch McConnell is not Majority Leader, Donald Trump is not president, Kevin McCarthy is not Speaker of the House.
Chuck Schumer is Majority Leader, Joe Biden is president, Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Democrats have both houses of Congress right now as well as the presidency, they're in the driver's seat, Republicans aren't getting shit on for how long this is taking because Republicans no longer control Congress or the White House.
When Democrats fuck this all up and lose the Senate and House again in 2022 we'll go back to pissing on Mitch McConnell, but 'til then, what happens now is on the Democrats. I am just offering a bit of context. rage away all you like lol, and hold their feet to the fire. it is not without reason that you do. Dems need to man up, but more importantly voters in general need to wise up which party stands for what given the chance. and I am not sure they actually backed out of the 15$, it's just separated from the covid bill right? I mean it speaks volumes for what kind of country the US is that the last time a minimum wage hike was in discussion - and subsequently shut down - was under Obama. hilarious how no one asked the king of parler and cpac about the minimum wage when he created the biggest bestest economy? Show nested quote +Despite his pledge, Obama hasn’t exactly been stumping for the minimum wage increase. Pursuing such legislation is a long shot in the Republican-controlled House, given the opposition of business interests and free-market conservatives who argue that higher minimum wages force owners to curtail hiring. Even though the voting public generally supports raising the minimum wage, the administration might be fearful of the “job-killer” tag that inevitably would come with it. The president’s labor secretary, Hilda Solis, dodged the question when asked this summer if the wage should be boosted. The Obama campaign didn’t comment when asked this week if the president would recommit to the pledge.
Plenty of economists — not to mention low-wage workers — believe the raise is due. Because the federal rate isn’t adjusted annually for inflation as many state rates are, it tends to lose some of its purchasing power every year. (Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have higher minimum wages that prevail over the federal one.) The federal minimum has been generally declining in real dollars since its high in the late 1960s. If it had kept pace with inflation since 1968, it would now stand at around $10.
The extra $2.25 an hour floated by Obama would mean a lot to workers like Fernando Gomez, 23, of Indianapolis. The minimum wage in Indiana is $7.25, as is the case in most states. Working as a full-time custodian in a hotel for the second half of 2011, Gomez took home just a couple hundred dollars each week in wages, he said. He still lives with his family since his rent check would swallow most of his income if he tried to live on his own. it's like we are in a time machine lol.
Yeah I basically agree with you more or less, I think its hard for voters to wise up in this system and the political climate we've got at the moment, like I was mentioning with Jimmi, when you have just the two candidates its very easy to get this warped idea about what America wants, because even if people voted for Biden exclusively in order to get rid of Trump, it can be construed as though Biden's actually just really popular and people want more of his austerity politics, and anti-universal healthcare-ness, etc.
And as Stasis mentioned, Democrats are uniquely good at making sure that candidates that represent really meaningful change are consolidated against and beaten.
Its a real systemic uphill battle for change, I just get very frustrated with the way Democrats seemingly get away with more. I know thats not strictly the case, the Democrat's voting base seems to be a lot more conscious of what they're doing as opposed to the Republicans who can and will vote for literally anyone, but I wish Democrats had as much potential to get really upset as Republicans do.
Republicans are basically reforming (in the most awful fucking direction humanly possible, naturally lol) because of Trump, but Democrats just seem to be extremely resistant to doing anything but their Clintonian shtick.
Plus whenever its floated to maybe not vote Democrat you get the flood of "So you're voting Republican then?!" Democrats can basically do literally whatever they want and as long as they're an iota to the left of Republicans they'll have to be defaulted to because they can point at the Republicans and go, "You want that then?"
Its all so very frustrating, lol, if I had money I'd definitely have left the country, but as a poor person I'm choosing to perpetuate my own cycle of hope and despair that America can do better. 
|
On February 27 2021 18:48 Silvanel wrote:
There are certain kind of priviliges:
-being born rich
-being born in rich country
-being of certain ethnicity (but this depends on country -- usually white or asian)
-being of certain religion
Being white polish non-catholic born in poor family during cummunist times i have to say that my "white privilige" is extremly limited, litteraly everyone around me is white so it doesnt matter most of the time. The only thing i can think of is that i have it easier than brown people during traveling by plane (but only in EU - I had one extremely unpleasant situation in Beijing airport due to being white). Otherwise my "white privilige" is nonexistent.
And being noncatholic i had hard time since gradschool in Poland.
On top of that i am polish comming from poor faimly so i am extremly underpriviliges in economic area.
So when some rich Scandinavian or Brit who spends more on one meal than i earned in my first job in a month tells me to STFU because of "white priviliges", i am getting really angry. Because any "white priviliges" i enjoy is trumped by underpriviliges in other areas.
Honestly imo the term shouldn't be used that much outside of America, where the class struggle and the race struggle are inextricably linked and share common goals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.treasury.gov%2Fconnect%2Fblog%2FPublishingImages%2FUSEcon1EconGrowth1.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
