top 82 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 172 points 5 months ago (36 children)

The Republicans have demonstrated that no, these things do not take time.

  • source
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 114 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I asked for a gender inclusive restroom, was gaslighted those things take time. I then emailed CEO cc’ed chair of board of directors. It was converted in 2 days.

    It was never about time, it’s about agency

    ❤️ 2
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [B] 30 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Add long as you brazenly break rules and laws, and your controlling party willingly does nothing about it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Let's break some laws to make everyone better off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    I wish that the Democrats had anybody who was willing to fight for Medicare For All the same way Republicans fought to overturn Roe v. Wade.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I would like to think that Bernie Sanders is one of those people.

    Republicans have a propaganda network back then to fight against Obamacare (which isn't even Medicare for all). It was really surprising how much the Republicans fought back given the zeitgeist was going the other way with Michael Moore and all that. The whole "death panel" stuff took the air out of the room and Republicans were going on non-stop about how it was the greatest injustice to all of America. It was wild.

    Also, if you look at those that benefit from Obamacare and the fact that they're losing it. They still hate that it's associated at all with the Dems. It's weird.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Bernie isn't a Democrat, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    If America was a school we'd have one party full of bullies smoking in the bathroom who don't give a shit if one of their ranks breaks the rules so long as it's not messing with them personally, and we've got another party full of brown nosers who will run and tell the teacher any time someone even thinks about using the wrong kind of pencil. Neither is good for the student body as a whole, but in very different ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (6 children)

    Burning things down is easy, building them up takes time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    If they truly get a majority to override the president, or in the future can then make the tri fecta again, it's easy to fix shit. Just make it what it was before, blast it through committees like the Republicans do with hardly a word from someone else. The question then is are Democrats incompetent or complicit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Excuses excuses.

    Yes, Democrats like to whine that they only got 60 votes in the Senate for a short period during Obama's term. You want to know the last time Republicans had 60 votes in the Senate? 1911.

    It's been over a century since Republicans had that kind of majority, and I think back then the filibuster had a larger threshold to overrule, so they probably didn't even have a filibuster-proof majority even then. You probably have to go back to Reconstruction to find Republicans with that kind of majority.

    Do you know how Republicans dismantle programs without a filibuster-proof majority? They do it by cutting funding. They cut funding to programs and zero out their budgets. The program still exists in legislation; it just isn't funded.

    To fix that damage does not require breaking a filibuster. It just requires properly funding those programs again. And funding can be passed with just a simple majority.

    And of course, much of what Republicans do is done by executive order, and that can easily be reversed by the next Democratic president.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -3 points 5 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    Particularly when you're not interested in fixing them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 5 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    That doesn’t excuse not starting when given a chance. The focus should be on establishment Dems’ failures to start fixing things

    And until they start fixing things, "fixing things takes time" holds within it the implicit lie that they're trying.

    not on setting some unrealistic expectation that all it would take is a snap of the fingers and bippity boppity boo.

    You're right. That's only for netanyahu's every whim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] [S] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    In the words of James Baldwin, how much time do you want for your progress?

    Democrats tell you that fixing things takes time so that you eventually give up waiting. Incrementalism is a tool of fascism to prevent progress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 5 months ago* (3 children)
  • [–] [S] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    California has a bulletproof Democrat supermajority and does not have livable wages, universal healthcare, affordable housing, affordable COL. So the argument that Democrats need more time Is verifiably false

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] [S] -1 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    So you believe that electing more progressive candidates within the party that operating exactly as designed is gonna change things? Any new politician that is deemed a threat to the status quo will never be placed into positions of power or influence that can threaten the existence of the status quo.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -3 points 5 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] [S] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    When Democrats do absolutely nothing to counter anything that Republicans do, they are complicit and are to blame for everything Republicans do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 5 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] [S] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Oh, please explain how it all works for us

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 5 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [+] -1 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    LMAO, you're out here making a fool of yourself. The only person getting clowned on is you because of your ignorant ass takes, and debate style that very much reminds people of MAGA. And it's so funny about you mentioning the "No U" as if that wasn't your reply to someone asking you to actually explain your perspective. You certainly wield willful ignorance like a conservative.

    But yeah honestly I think you're a shill trying to make more non-voters and drive people away from the Democratic Party with your over the top style of BS. Which ultimately helps Republicans. Then deflects these accusations by making your own, just like a Republican.

    You're embarrassing to be associated with, which I think is your goal.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 68 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    Only in amurica would they sell people on the right to be fired for no reason and call it "right to work"

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] 16 points 5 months ago* (9 children)
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    At-will employment and "right-to-work" are distinct ideas. The first has some real benefits, while the other is just union-busting bullshit.

    At-Will Employment means that the relationship of employee to employer is technically voluntary. Your employer can fire you or lay you off for almost any reason or no reason, but you are likewise free to just walk away without even finishing your shift and get another job. (Non-discrimination laws and professional continuity-of-care rules are common exceptions.)

    Right to work doesn't affect whether or not your employement relationship is voluntary. Instead, it means only and exclusively that you can freeload off the union, getting all of their benefits and leaving them with all of the expenses of negotiating your salary and work rules.

    In the USA most (but not all) states are "at-will employment", and most red states have the same sort of bullshit anti-worker "right to work" laws that MLK was campaigning against when he was murdered. And, unfortunately, thanks to SCOTUS fuckery all of the USA is essentially "right to work" since the same assholes behind "corporations are people" and "money is speech" decided that payroll deductions for union dues are terrible in way that payroll deductions for taxes or insurance aren't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    The problem with at-will is the unequal relationship corporations and employees have. If I, as an employee, simply walk off the job, that hurts my chances of employment at other corporations. A company, however, will never see any consequence no matter how badly they treat employees.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Exactly. You can walk away and get evicted and starve vs. they can make you walk away and get evicted and starve… This is what constitutes fairness by modern democratic standards, apparently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Understand that the precursor to at-will employment was that you walk away from your job and get arrested for breaking contract, and your family gets evicted without you able to earn money to pay for their food or shelter.

    Like the other commenter says, it's extremely flawed but serves a purpose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    "There used to be something worse" is not the same as "the current thing is good"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Absolutely not, I agree.

    But it's also kinda like Republicans saying they'll "repeal then replace" the ACA. You need the plan for the replacement beforehand, otherwise you just return to the old problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I mean, sure if you take anything a Republic pol says at face value. The real agenda is that they want to return to the old problems because they don't view it as a problem. Insurance companies having capped margins, fewer people being able to afford care… These are good things to them. What they say they want to do serves only to get their voting base on board with it.

  • source
  • parent
  • That's still the law under at will employment, if you sign a contract, you can't just quit anymore. We lost the protection of one year contracts, like you really think it's better for employers to be able to fire you with no warning than having one year contracts?? This all happened centuries ago of course

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    "Right to work" means you can't be required to join the union, but the union is still required to bargain for you without you contributing to it. Its designed to defund and kneecap organized labor. It has nothing to do with firing.

    At will employment is what lets the employer fire at any time, and that is the law in 49 of the states.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago
    [–] 19 points 5 months ago

    Right-to-work is just another bullshit anti-Union policy.

  • source
  • [–] 47 points 5 months ago*

    Power is never given, it is taken.

    I see a lot of discourse around this theory that when Democrats are in power they’ll reverse everything this regime has done. Yes this is a comforting thought but it’s way too much to expect from the Democratic Party as we know it now.

    The Executive branch has been given (and has taken) an extreme amount of power to the point where the balance we once knew is now nonexistent. Does anyone think for one second the next president will just forfeit those gains? What incentive is there? And as we’ve seen and continue to see, who will hold them to account?

    My bet is that we’ll see a few easy ‘gimme’ reversals that are enough to enable our slide back into the complacency we so desperately crave.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago

    Spanberger is part of the paid opposition party. She will never do anything to take power away from capitol, and Republicans will do everything to give more power to capitol.

  • source
  • [–] 74 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    They'll give Trump a golden parachute, wish him the best, then continue the ratchet effect. Neo-liberals are as much enemies of democracy as the reactionaries.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    Assume that Democrats win the next presidential election and enough seats in both the House and Senate to take meaningful actions.

    Assume that there will be a peaceful transfer of power.

    Assume that Trump doesn't die in office.

    If all of the above come to pass, and Trump doesn't face real legal consequences for his actions, then it's another in the long line of flashing neon signs telling would-be dictators that America is up for grabs for whoever strikes first.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 24 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    This is part of what just erodes the hope out of me. We all know there are periods of regression and periods of progress, but whatever damage is caused by the regression period is

    1- Caused much more quickly than any progress.

    2- Is usually beneficial to the ruling class, thus they have less of an incentive to fix it.

    3- Might just become normalized, at which point you're just starting from square one all over again.

    Like, age/identity verification. We are in a period of mass and widespread regression right now and age verification is making progress, eroding freedom and privacy on the internet. Do you think that when we enter the period of progress, the age verification systems of today will just be reverted? Fuck no. They'll stay. They'll become normal. And the fight against them will need to start from scratch, with an ever bigger amount of opposition.

    I'm really jealous of the people who can maintain hope.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    Right to work is great, they just use the term to justify awful laws.

    Right should mean if you demand a job the government has to give you one instead of this forced labour version the yanks use.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    Americans are fucked either way, and that's the crux of it. Both highly corrupt parties blowing smoke up their ass and they've all been socialized to regard third options as jokes, meanwhile the establishment is the real joke. There is no good solution, only shades of shit.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    I have concluded that the Established Democrats would rather that Trump or somebody like him is POTUS than to concede to the Left on anything, even on a morally highly charged subject like the mass murdering of tens of thousand of children (in Gaza) which at least for some people would make the Democrat candidate so repugnant that they couldn't bring themselves to vote for her even "to stop Trump"

    Had Kamala genuinelly conceded to the Left on some things and not latched on to none other than the Cheney familly (honestly, I don't thing the Israeli subject was by itself enough to cause that loss), she could very well have won, but that faction of the Democrats would rather loose than stop cozing with the hard-right, so they lost to none other than Trump.

    If what the Democrat tribalists were parroting back them about how Trump was so horrible and the Democrats needed to win to stop his policies was indeed how the Established Democrats felt, they would NEVER had risked a Trump victory by adopting a Reject The Left strategy at all levels.

    All this to say that these people will never undo what Trump did to the broader society (though the parts that make them less electable - i.e. that affect their own personal upsides - I'm sure they'll undo) because they're totally fine with it, as shown by how in the last election they would rather risk a second Trump presidency to keep on going Right politically than to pivot Left in the slightest of ways.

    Without a Revolution inside the Democrat Party, the US will keep on going in the same direction as these Democrats will do nothing but talkie-talkie on reversing Trump's policies and then in a few years another Trump character (or, worse, a genuinelly intelligent one) get in power again.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I remember having this same conversation 20 years ago, except instead of Harris and Trump it was Kerry and Bush, and instead of Gaza it was Iraq. We didn't get somebody smarter than Bush, though, we got Trump.

    Here's the thing. You don't need to be a smart president to do a lot of damage. You can have smart people in your cabinet. You also don't have to be very smart to break a ton of shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    I'll give you that.

    The "smarter" part is just something I threw in but which I did not really pondered on all that much.

    In all fairness "nastiness" is the only thing which seem to have moved (upwards) consistently.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›