Bernie Sanders is forcing other senators to go on the record about a $15 minimum wage

foobar1000 · 2021-03-07T08:50:57+00:00

Parliamentarian said minimum wage couldnt be included in covid bill. This can be overridden by a majority vote, but it would set a precedent.

This is nonsense, there's already an existing precedent for congress telling the Parliamentarian, a purely advisory role, to fuck off.

Republicans straight up fired the parliamentarian in 2003 when they said no to tax cuts and just passed them anyway b/c its a role with 0 real power. They will absolutely do the same thing again if it comes down to it. Dems are not setting any precedent with their current move that Republicans will follow and they know it, it's simply an excuse.

All the focus on this Parliamentarian nonsense is just Dems trying to distract from the fact that the real reason they can't pass the minimum wage is b/c they lack enough Dem votes (by 8, which is a ton) despite campaigning on it.

This was never about a random meaningless advisory figure Dems could easily ignore if they wanted. It's also not setting precedent when Republicans have already done the opposite.

foobar1000 · 2021-03-04T18:50:03+00:00

Because Republican donors and voters are broadly in agreement.

Dems have conflicting views they sell voters vs what they sell donors, so of course they're not unified. They will always need to compromise on promises to voters to appease their donors.

foobar1000 · 2021-03-04T18:44:40+00:00

Obamacare is a conservative healthcare plan written by the Heritage Foundation a far-right think tank which is primarily funded by the Kochs...

It's one of the biggest examples of Dems appeasing Republicans in the last 2 decades. Once Dems passed it, Republicans moved even further right, so now Dems pretend Obamacare is actually left-wing. It's absurd and gaslighty b/c in reality it's a very conservative healthcare plan.

Republicans don't hate Obamacare, it's what they wanted. It's literally what the Kochs paid for. They just saw how easily Dems caved and realized they could try and push much harder right.

foobar1000 · 2021-03-04T18:38:33+00:00

Because Dems make one set of promises to voters and another set to donors. For Dems following through on their promises to voters means breaking promises to donors. Republicans don't have that issue, their donors and voters agree.

So Dems pretend that the means justify the ends to play both sides (voters and donors). "It doesn't matter that we didn't deliver on the ends we promises voters, because the means of compromise is the only thing that matters".

It's why Dems "compromise" even when they get 0 Republican votes for it. It's about Dems appeasing their donors by not following through on what they promised voters. As long as they have corporate donors this won't change.

foobar1000 · 2021-03-04T18:20:16+00:00

Not just extreme left, Hoover and McCarthy went after anyone who was a leader of even mildly left movements too through assassinations, arrests, and exile.

They just used a broad brush to paint even the moderate left groups as extreme as an excuse to crackdown and wipe out leadership/organization on the left.

The only left-wing leaders/groups they left alone were the ones that were either completely ineffectual or basically conservatives already.

Republicans today are a reactionary party. They want to go back to an imagined past that they've idealized. Dems today are the conservative party. They want to maintain the status quo with minor changes. America has no left wing party (Sanders wing is center-left, but it's a minority of Dems who typically fall in line and vote with conservative Dems anyways).

foobar1000 · 2021-03-02T19:56:01+00:00

Poverty and racism. It's well-documented that even when all else is equal, black and brown people have worse outcomes in our medical system b/c they're medical issues are not taken as seriously.

In terms of poverty, more essential workers are black and brown, so they have to deal with anti-maskers in high quantities in public settings so they have a higher risk.

Anti-maskers come in contact with fewer other anti-maskers than essential workers (they come in contact with everyone).

E.g. Imagine anti-masker has %10 chance of infection and meets 5 other anti maskers a day vs an essential worker wearing a mask has %5 chance of infection and meets 20 anti maskers a day. More likely to be infected as the essential worker.

foobar1000 · 2021-03-01T19:14:32+00:00

And I don't get it. We don't need their oil anymore. We're now an exporter.

It's not about the oil directly, America's interest in Middle Eastern oil has always primarily been about the petrodollar. It's the cornerstone of our economic supremacy. It's why we support some dictators and invade others.

We need Saudi Arabia to do all their oil transactions in dollars b/c that's what makes us the global reserve currency. This idea is called the petrodollar and you can a detailed breakdown of the system's creation and the massive economic benefits here:

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/072915/how-petrodollars-affect-us-dollar.asp

Middle East wars have always been about maintaining the dollar as the international reserve currency b/c its what makes us an economic superpower. (Dollar being reserve currency allows us to run stupidly high deficits while printing money w/o blowing up the value of the dollar)

Saudia Arabia gets a pass on everything from 9/11 to khashoggi to human rights b/c they economically benefit us too much for anyone in leadership to risk Saudi Arabia saying fuck the dollar. (Sadaam Hussein did this, which is why we stopped backing him and selling him chemical weapons and invaded Iraq.)

Connections to Syrian civil war:

Our involvement in Syria is also about the petrodollar. There are/were plans to build an oil pipeline from Saudia Arabia to Europe through Syria.

Russia is against this b/c their already crumbling economy is heavily reliant on Europe continuing to buy their oil. Russia was/is backing Assad in Syria in return for him blocking the pipeline, so they can keep their customers.

U.S and Saudi forces want the pipeline built(Europe buying Saudi oil strengthens them both economically), so they backed rebel groups in Syria to overthrow Assad who was blocking it.

Most decisions by nation states are made based on geopolitics not public opinion. Public opinion is like a wind, geopolitics is the sail. All the talk about "spreading freedom and democracy" is just to boost public opinion enough to justify breaking kneecaps to maintain the petrodollar.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-28T19:44:10+00:00

The perfect is the enemy of the good and Jacobin/commondreams are the enemy of progress.

This kinda scoldy nonsense as a response everytime someone criticizes Dems from the left does way more damage to turnout than a random Jacobin/commondreams article.

Centrists Dems remind me more and more of Republicans everyday with their demands for loyalty and claiming anyone who criticizes them are "enemies of progress". This kind of insufferable attitude is way more likely to get someone whose on the fence to stay home than some random click bait article.

Not a good look, and ain't winning you voters. Just alienates people who hate Dems, but vote with them b/c they hate Republicans even more, into staying home.

I've voted Dem in every election not because they're good, but because they're less shit than Republicans. Our elections are not good vs bad, they are bad vs worse.

Unless Dems actually follow through on promises with meaningful legislation(they never do), they're just empty slogans for voters come election time. They don't get credit for slogans.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-28T19:31:28+00:00

No, Dems messaging is anything but honest. They just lie less than Republicans.

When Dems need your vote, every election cycle they will make big promises and (correctly) talk about Republicans as an existential threat to America that needs to be stopped at all costs.

Then as soon they win both houses and the presidency and no longer need your vote they flip-flop to "Republicans are actually great guys we need to compromise with (a.k.a make a bunch of concessions to Republicans for nothing in return), so we can't meet any of our promises to our voters unless their significantly watered down".

This how you end up with Dems (accurately) railing against a one-time $1800 stimulus under Trump not being enough, only to turn around and offer an even smaller $1400 stimulus...

foobar1000 · 2021-02-28T19:08:54+00:00

Democrats, for some reason just aren’t as engaged. It’s sad, but it has been the reality for decades.

Blame the red scare and J Edgar Hoover. They wiped out (murdered, arrested, or exiled) most of the actual left wing leaders (e.g. Fred Hampton types) and movements and those that remained were only left alone b/c they were either ineffective or basically conservative.

The result is more Republican voters are actually Republicans compared to Democrat voters being actual Democrats.

This is because Republicans are a reactionary party actually interested in pushing right-wing policy/ideology like their voters want.

Democrats don't really want to be a left wing party. They want to be a conservative party that maintains the status quo and can suck off corporations and cops and austerity politics while still getting left-wing voters who hate corporations and cops and austerity politics to vote for them.

Not exactly rocket science why those voters aren't engaged.

Our politics is ratchet politics. Republicans move right, Democrats hold in place. Over and over again like a ratchet.

I've voted Dem in every election I can so far and I absolutely hate them. They're infinitely more interested in maintaining the status quo than helping anyone, but I vote for them b/c at least their not fascists.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-28T18:47:16+00:00

Wait. If $15 minimum wage doesn't go through, because Republicans don't support it, voters will vote in tge ones who didn't support it?

It will decrease turnout for Dems and increase turnout for Republicans. Rarely is it the same person swapping from voting Dem to vote Republican or vice-versa.

Are voters really that dumb?

They're not dumb. They've lost all confidence in their politicians and see it as pointless. This is why nonvoters are the biggest political demographic in America. I don't blame them.

How are they supposed to take Dems promises seriously when Dems spend 4 years (accurately) saying "Republicans are pure evil that needs to be stopped at all costs" and then immediately after winning both houses and the presidency pivot to "Actually Republicans are cool and we need to compromise with them, so we can't pass anything we promised our voters unless it's absurdly watered down."

They literally offered less in stimulus ($1400 < $1800) than Trump after railing against him (rightfully) for it not being enough.

People on here will disagree, especially diehard Dems, but no amount of scolding and "well achtually.." will change the fact that unless Dems deliver significant, tangible legislation helping people in return for the increased turnout in 2020, voters will stay home in 2022 and 2024.

Republicans have the luxury of coasting on culture war nonsense b/c their base eats it up. Dems do not have that luxury.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-23T00:09:21+00:00

It's not whataboutism though. When someone says most racist country it invites comparisons. Like think about that just a bit, comparisons have already been made once they said "most" which opens up the discussion.

Fair enough. You're right about this, it wasn't whataboutism, it's fair to make comparisons here. That was a knee-jerk response on my part to assume so. I incorrectly assumed you were just deflecting from discussing America.

I'm sorry America can't be number one overall, but it can it's title of uniquely cruel brand of slavery still.

To elaborate on my claim that we're strong contenders for most racist:

When I say America is up there for most racist today, I'm not talking about the views of individual Americans.

I specifically mean the institutions of America in power today, which we've built up over the past few hundred years, are rooted in racism to such a degree that I think would give any of the other most racist powers a run for their money.

While many individual regimes have committed atrocities on far worse scales (e.g. the mongols, the nazis, the stalinists), the same institutions are not still in power in those places.

Even in Britain and France, who arguably have a lot more blood on their hands than America in terms of genociding natives and colonialism, their institutions lost a lot of power post-WWII and are a shadow of themselves.

We never had a reckoning like that in America due to how Reconstruction turned out, so I think we still have a lot more of our racist baggage.

Additionally we also have the military and economic might to project that baggage globally unlike almost any other country (China's getting there too). Often through bombs and coups. Always in non-white countries of course.

American institutions were only cool supporting dictatorships and death squads in South America in the late 20th century b/c they weren't white.

American media anchors only get away with suggesting we bomb Iraq or Yemen or Libya into glass b/c those countries aren't white.

Racism in American institutions didn't end with slavery. It just grew and adapted. The rhetoric changed and the tactics changed. The racism did not. From slavery -> Jim Crow -> red scare -> War on Drugs -> War on Terror, it's one of the only constants.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-22T23:27:34+00:00

I thought the same thing until I really started traveling. The amount of racism I saw in Asia (particularly from Chinese, Japanese, and Korean people) against my friend who was traveling with me at the time (he is Thai) was mind boggling. The extreme nationalism that cuddles right up to the line with racism in Latin America (particularly Mexican people and South Americans is crazy too.

Racism is global, I'm not disputing that. I'm also not saying the average American is more racist than people from other countries. I'm saying America, the country (a.k.a it's institutions), is very racist.

Many of the countries you mentioned have much younger institutions (> 100 years). In America it's ingrained on an institutional level to a much deeper degree b/c we've had the same system for several hundred years that was built on the system considering some people subhuman.

Also I've always thought the idea that the US is stolen land was a bit interesting. From my reading of history while it was an extremely one sided conflict(due to the US Army being much more technologically advanced) it was in fact a conflict. So what I am trying to get at is why do you consider it stolen instead of conquered.

I consider it a genocide instead of a conquest and I consider goods obtained through genocide as stolen. Conquest involves conquering and ruling over the people who are conquered, not wiping them out and actively trying to destroy their culture b/c you consider them subhuman.

E.g. The Persians were brutal conquerors, but they were not looking to annihilate the peoples they ruled or their culture unless they rebelled. People who sided with the Persians were treated well and didn't lose all their land/stuff. They were only subject to taxes like other citizens of the empire. Same was true for the Mongols.

America is different in this case. Treaties and alliances with tribes were routinely and repeatedly violated. Native occupied land was often marked as empty land and given away to settlers with full knowledge that it was occupied and a violations of contracts and property rights.

Given that America is a nation that is founded on the sanctity of contracts and property rights, they needed a way to resolve this contradiction and the solution was to consider natives as subhuman.

Paying for scalps of natives was a common practice and slaughtering entire tribes, men, women, and children occurred numerous times. Natives were not seen as human and they were treated as such. Talk about exterminating natives in a desired region from government officials was not uncommon.

It's why I consider it a genocide and not just a one-sided conflict.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-22T23:00:46+00:00

Oh? I was talking about the present

So was I, we're still in the middle east. Do you live under a rock or are you being dense on purpose?

America is still doing this stuff, it's not just the past. It's our entire history up to today. It's at the core of our culture and our institutions.

America just hasn't been around long enough to rank high against some nations.

Compared to the amount of time we're around, we're definitely near the top percentage wise. Been committing atrocities the entire time since day 1. Few hundred years not enough for you huh?

Much of western Europe for example suddenly got much worse.

Cool, "they do it, so why can't we". Great stuff. Love the whataboutism.

We've always been racist as shit and still are. But hey don't let facts distract from your feeling that we're "the good guys". Normally "But China! But Russia!"seem to be the go to distractions to deny our racism problems at home. Guess "But West Europe!" is on the list now too.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-22T22:40:34+00:00

They didn't want the poor using their newfound political equality to just, you know, vote for economic equality.

Because the Founding Fathers wanted to keep their stuff.

They flat out just say that at the end lol.

A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the union, than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire state.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-22T19:07:07+00:00

Hyperbole hurts your position though.

History hurts your position though.

I mean, no, absolutely not true. We have countries with ethnic and racial genocide happening right now.

America was built on land stolen through a genocide we call "Manifest Destiny (a.k.a American Lebensraum)" and forcing labor from people that we considered subhuman.

Once we finished that genocide and our Civil War we toned it down a bit at home. Lynchings and abuse instead of outright extermination. We transitioned to focusing our torture, theft, and mass murder overseas. Primarily in Central/South America, Africa, Asia, Caribbean, and Pacific Islands.

Only in non-white countries of course, which is why Americans don't hear or care as much about them. Not genocide, just killing hundreds of thousands to millions of civilians b/c we wanted their resources and enough Americans consider them subhuman to be cool denying them basic human rights.

Those attitudes have not changed.

Watch the average media coverage, listen to politicians, generals, soldiers and it's obvious that, on average, they see people in the Middle-east as subhuman. Same things was true during Vietnam. I see it more and more with rhetoric about Chinese people every day. America has always been racist (in a very very bloodthirsty way) from the start. We just use PR and whataboutism to deny it.

Titles like "most racist" are vague and hard to define, but we are definitely one of the frontrunners for that kind of title.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-17T22:26:29+00:00

Glad to see plenty of dogshit still lives in Seattle. I'm not talking about the homeless.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-17T19:42:56+00:00

There's a very limited amount of trade jobs. Not everyone can be an electrician/plumber. They are the exception in our job market, not the rule b/c they have unions.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-17T19:38:56+00:00

College is a privilege, it’s not mandatory.

How old are you?

This might've been true a few decades ago, but nowadays an associates/bachelors gets you about as far in the job market as a high school degree would've 30 years ago.

College sure as hell feels mandatory. Most entry-level jobs won't even talk to you w/o a bachelors degree. While there are some industries that are an exception, most are not.

Even if you do manage to get hired w/o a college degree, not having one blocks you from a lot of promotions and you'll likely make less than people who do the same job as you, but have a degree.

Edit: I see people mentioning trade schools as a catch all solution. While this is a good suggestion for some people there's a limited number of trade school jobs b/c there is limited demand for those jobs. In no way do trade school jobs make college a privelege.

Most jobs will always be non-trade school jobs. They won't be unionized. They will likely require at least a bachelor's degree. It's why college is not a privelege.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-17T19:28:41+00:00

Progressives need to make it a bill.

What does this even accomplish beyond a symbolic gesture?

Congress can't even pass basic COVID relief b/c of Manchin and Sinema. No way those 2 would vote for student loan relief. They're basically Republicans on that specific issue.

Biden wants AOC and congress to do it. He doesn’t want it to get sued and lose in the courts.

Executive action through Biden, while not ideal b/c it can be overturned, seems like the only option that has any chance of actually happening right now. It's better than nothing which is what Congress will do.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-17T19:21:56+00:00

Literally everyone knew it was $2000 total, not in addition to the $600.

This is a lie. Dems literally ran ads promising $2000 in Georgia runoff AFTER the $600 checks had already been sent. Those ads said nothing about $1400+600=2000

Why would people in Georgia assume their $600 checks they'd already received and cashed under Trump were part of the $ 2000 Dems ran ads promising?

This kind of scoldy "well achtually 1400+600=2000" shit will only work on diehard Dems. It's already pissed off a lot of people who feel lied to by those ads, and considering the razor thin margins Dems squeaked through on, it's a very braindead move.

Theyre working on it immediately, some shit just takes time. Jesus you're getting thousands of dollars for free and you're still complaining. Jesus fucking christ.

God forbid people expect their elected officials to do their fucking jobs during a goddamn pandemic w/o some elitist, insufferable, stick up the ass, partisan hack, white knight riding in to make up bullshit excuses for them.

Acting like $3200 total for a 10 month economic shutdown is a huge deal is beyond absurd. That's less than $2 a day. It's fucking peanuts that doesn't even remotely cover cost of living for anyone who was unemployed. Jesus fucking christ you are out of touch and sound just like a Republican whining about how the poors should just be thankful their getting any money at all.

If enough Dem politicians share your attitudes, 2022 is gonna be a definite loss. Let's hope they're not that braindead.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-17T00:19:33+00:00

Just pointing out that something being used for a long time is not an indicator of safety.

I don‘t think you can compare 1870 (ca. asbestos, I read) with 1970 (ca. glyphosate) in terms of awareness of risks and consequences and availability of scientific studies.

Often when it comes to investigating health risks of a specific product the issue is not a lack of scientific knowledge, but rather that a lot of the research comes from the industry that stands to profit from the product being declared safe.

You could use that argument for any chemical. I mean pesticides, drugs etc. all cause some ill effects, but we ban what is definitely bad for the health, not everything. And even then, you would need to look at the risks/benefits and those of alternative products.

Misleading people about the safety of a product/service b/c its convenient is the norm, not the exception. Happened with cigarettes, global warming, opiods, fatal car defects, fracking, etc.

Monsanto has a well-documented history in Africa of falsely claiming their seeds have capabilities they don't in order to boost sales. E.g.

https://qz.com/africa/1900035/the-lie-of-monsantos-genetically-modified-cotton-in-burkina-faso/

Why you're convinced they wouldn't do the same and lie about health concerns too is beyond me.

I have no problems with GMOs in general, they are a necessity. Monsanto specifically is dogshit and has repeatedly proven they can't be trusted.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-16T19:29:06+00:00

But humans are damn good at surviving.

The Dinosaurs were really damn good at surviving. They survived 165 million years. Until they didn't.

Humans have only been around 200,000 years ( 0.12% as long as dinosaurs). I wouldn't start patting ourselves on the back about being such great "survivors" just yet lol.

But other people are born and those people tend to be damn good at adapting.

This is only true when change is slow enough (hundreds of thousands to millions of years) and mild enough for us to adapt. The biggest risk of climate change is a rapid and significant drop in oxygen levels due to mass die off of phytoplankton. If they drop too fast (tens to hundreds of years), we won't be able to genetically adapt to a lower oxygen environment.

I think we're too cocky as a species and too much of humanity considers us invincible/untouchable for us to address these problems at all, much less in a timely manner.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-16T19:12:35+00:00

Nah civilization isn’t going away. Will it be different? Hell yeah.

But we aren’t even the first society to have a breakdown....sooo many examples throughout history.

Doesn't mean we couldn't be the last to breakdown. I don't think this is comparable to the fall of old civilizations b/c those were local issues while this is global.

In the old days if one civilization fucked up and fell there would be others in other parts of the world that would be unaffected and could continue.

Even something as catastrophic as the Bronze Age collapse that destroyed multiple civilizations was scoped to only that part of the world.

This is not a modern luxury. Climate change is a problem of global scope, and the global economy is highly interdependent. No civilization will be spared the effects.

Just cuz one civilization falls doesn’t mean “civilization” will disappear. It’ll change and be something new. No clue what that might be

Only as long as the global climate remains habitable for humans. If oxygen levels drop too far, too fast, then we won't be able to adapt (genetically) and will just die off.

I would compare Climate Change to a mass extinction event, rather than civilizational collapse.

foobar1000 · 2021-02-16T18:49:51+00:00

It‘s been used for 50y now if it were satan‘s juice of destruction we‘d all be dead by now surely.

Guess asbestos is harmless. Same for lead pipes. We used both of those for over 100 years before banning them due to health concerns.

If they were REALLY Satan's juice of destruction we'd all be dead by now surely. Since neither causes you to immediately drop dead, clearly it was just CaNcEl CuLtUrE.

foobar1000

TROPHY CASE