Did the person who made this consciously fuck up the grammar? It's so bad it's hard to believe otherwise. The idiocy required for any of those options is disgusting.
Would be nice if they actually wanted to do it, instead of finding procedural excuses and rotating villains so it can't be done.
Or maybe those are actually obstructions getting in the way of the majority of the party that actively pushes for that stuff consistently?
You're alleging a party leadership conspiracy that would necessarily be of a size surpassing when a conspiracy will naturally collapse and be outed by its own members trying to save their own skin.
This isn't apologism, it's a mathematically proven fact of how conspiracies and secret keeping work.
Occam's razer, a big tent coalition party is naturally going to have at least one or two contrarian assholes and as a result needs to overperform winning mere simple majorities to be able to achieve the most points of their agenda.
We could turn around and call the Squad rotating villains for some of their symbolic votes against party policy, but we don't because those votes were rendered symbolic by there being a wide enough margin for those bills to pass anyways.
The passivity of regular folks is what allows fake grassroots interests to dominate the conversation on the Democratic side. Progressive people exist in the Democratic party, they aren't all Feinsteins. It's time to get the butts of people who are trying to enact change into seats of power, and let the ones who don't retire.
"let them retire"? Biden will never step down. Trump will never stop trying to be dictator. SCOTUS judges rule for life. Nobody with that level of power voluntarily retires. They need to be forced out of office. "let them retire" is the definition of passivity. Even if this is just about democrats, they're no less power hungry than republicans. No Democrat in a position of power would voluntarily retire unless they got caught in a big enough scandal, and even then probably not
The minimum wage was last raised by a Dem House, Senate, and President, all of which were arguably less progressive than the current incarnations. Why wouldn't they do it again if they had the votes?
Because then the "BOTHSIDES" narrative falls apart.
They had enough seats. There were democrats that voted against the damn thing, and I dont just mean Manchin and Sinema.
Yet somehow when 100% of Republicans voted against they are held blameless as they are expected to be fully servile to the corporate class, and only Democrats have the obligation to pass laws.
I have no power over what republicans do because I don't vote for them and never have. There is no reason for them to acknowledge me. Therefore I can scream to the high heavens about them sucking, and they won't change a thing. Democrats I've voted for before, they actually have reason to listen to what I want to happen because it can net or cost them a vote.
Ill tell you what, you go yell at republicans and see how much progress you make, and I'll continue to raise my concerns to those that have reason to listen to them.
That's because Republicans aren't people, and they aren't really pretending to be with any particular effort. Democrats are claiming to be the good guys
Even so, it'd still require 2/3, because sole Republican shill would just filibuster it.
I dunno, for me this is more about the candidate that wants to stop the world from burning vs the one that's actively wants the world to burn for profit.
The one who follows the science versus the one who lets millions of people die because it might hurt his political image to acknowledge that he is incompetent.
Too bad biden wants to expand the oil industry and refuses to step down then. It'd very be cool if one of the two big candidates wasn't straight evil rather than one who's guilty of less evil, you should tell Biden to let an actually viable candidate run instead
? He killed the
nordKeystone XL pipeline and revoked several permits for operating oil refineries and oil wells. He has done the most work towards curbing climate change of any president in US history. Are you trolling, misinformed, or a tankie?Edit:looked at your post history, you are all three. Congrats, you should run for third party. I hear brain worms are in right now.
[email protected] is leaking
people should just pick themselves up by the bootstraps and work 18 hours a day to afford rent
18 hours each in three jobs
This is election
Sparta
who is this is?
Vote for that bag feels like too funny of a campaign line for the DNC to actually go through with it.
Sir, this is a Culver's
This election is about the easier to revolt against of two evils
When the majority gets more money companies raise prices and you feel poor anyway. Mass wage increase sounds nice in the short term but leads to all the inflation articles you've read recently. Money feeds up. This can be prevented by reduced demand for goods and services. As in, when you obtain disposable income you... Don't dispose of it.
Energy, living costs it can't be done. Necesities. But a lot of areas you can make real change by voting with your dollar. For example, if you don't think the new iphone should cost 2 grand because that's absurd then don't validate the company's plan by buying it. Reduced demand causes reduced price until we find a balance. That's how this horrible evil capitalism is supposed to work.
One of the problems is we as consumers suck at voting. We want the new iphone. So a majority of us buy it anyway. On credit. And Apple raises the price next year becase "it worked last time"
Believes this argument, stagnates wages for decades
Prices go up anyway because corporate greed and infinite growth are the actual driving forces of inflation
Corporate greed is part of what I laid out. Inflation is complex and happens regardless. Certain things can have a larger impact on the rate of inflation. Introducing monetary supply in the form of wages or stimulus is one of those things. I'm all for higher wages. What I am trying to get across is that we also need to recognize the impact we have. Corporate greed exists. People want money. It makes sense. It is further driven by us having the money to take in the first place. If the product or service doesn't get purchased the price lowers until it does and/or the business fails. All I am saying is we as consumers could do a better job being mindful of this. We don't have very much control in this system, but we do have some. Of course we're not united in this so it probably doesn't matter. If you don't buy the 2k phone your neighbor probably will.
Employees who live with rich parents are not part of the working class.
Retail and fast food jobs should be automated out of existence. The employees who remain should get paid $30 per hour and have three day work weeks, but they should have expectations to match and be on call to come in within a few hours at any time.
A retail employee who makes $15 per hour makes over $2,000 per month after deductions. If they live with their parents, all of that is disposable income.
This certainly is one of the takes of all time
If you work (actual work, not having dinner with other companies' CEO) you are working class.
Even if you earn money through your salary, you are working class, even if that salary is 200k. There are people out there with literal billions of $. You already know the difference between a million and a billion, now watch the difference between a billion and 200k.
The problem is not your surgeon or boss or whatever, they all work 9-5 like you do, the problem is the yatch owners.
