politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
If you're confused why Joe Biden is doing this, you don't understand the American form of government, how no one party can achieve anything on it's own without consensus, and that the hyper partisan fuck it all Republicans must be wooed, and have their balls cupped, in order to be soothed and tricked into thinking they really don't need to be so destructive, and that is what Joe Biden does, then you don't know much, and you don't know Joe Biden. He's been doing exactly this for the last 5 decades in elected office, and he's really really really fucking good at it.
This. He's not nearly as progressive as I'd like, but he accomplished much more in his first 2 years than I thought he could get done in 2 terms. The railroad strike thing was a massive letdown, but I understand that a major focus in that moment was the state of the economy, and it was very much getting back on track and an industry-wide strike would've resulted in more supply chain shit, more inflation, and damning criticisms that he failed to solve economic woes because he's too weak. He was looking at the bigger picture. A decent person would've supported the strikes, but Jimmy Carter proved that a decent person doesn't make for a very good president. Sometimes, you have to make tough decisions that conflict with your personal beliefs for the good of the entire country.
As an armchair quarterback who doesn't really know the nitty gritty details, I think I would've looked into nationalizing the rail industry entirely. If it's so important to national security that the workers are barred from striking and the companies are running the industry so poorly that even with unions they are skeleton crews with shit benefits and pay with an awful safety record, then those companies have lost the privilege of privatization.
Jimmy Carter would also not have allowed rail workers to illegally strike, in violation of their contract, and in such a way that thousands of people would literally die. That is why their contract forbids striking.
Like Biden, Carter would have sought to continue to address issues regardless of the strike not materializing.
https://www.ibew.org/media-center/Articles/23Daily/2306/230620_IBEWandPaid
Then maybe we shouldn't have allowed the railway companies to try and fuck them over into suicide schedules for profit.
Or, and I'm just spitballing here, if the rail companies are that important then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to be run for profit. If they're that critical, maybe they should be GASP nationalized.
Maybe you should be angry at the financiers that bought the companies and forced the workers to run suicide schedules for forcing the workers into a position where they started to feel like they had to strike to have normal human lives.
You're blaming the victims here.
Vote for Congresspeople who will change the law.
I do not appreciate Presidents changing laws on a whim. That's Trumpian horseshit.
I haven't blamed anyone for anything - I've simply explained the end result that occurred, because of Biden, after you stopped paying attention.
If you'd cared enough to continue following the story, I wouldn't need to explain any of these things to you. I knew what to look for because I did care enough to continue following the story.
We've had an imperial presidency since at least bush. If you'd cared enough to pay attention recently, you'd know that legal precedent has already occurred to give the president almost any power they want.
Calling that Trumpian either shows your age, or how long you've cared about this.
Incrementalism is an intentional tactic used by liberals to explain why they can't undo the things the right wing does, and to explain why they can't change things themselves when they are in power.
Liberalism is a fucking disease.
EDIT: Congress sure as shit wasn't required to fuck over all the air traffic controllers. Funny that. Congress is never required to fuck over workers, but it is always an excuse as to why we can't do things for the workers.
"imperial presidency" is not a phrase with any meaning. Imperialism isn't "shit I don't like."
In this case, Congress is literally the authoring body of the contract's binding legislation.
https://www.npr.org/2022/11/30/1139876084/congress-house-railroad-strike-bill
Consider knowing what you're talking about before getting mad about it.
The precedent had been set that the US president can assassinate US Citizens without trial or judicial overview, right?
You know who set that precedent, right? That it wasn't Trump, and there was no talk of impeaching the president that set that precedent, right?
We have a fucking imperialist presidency for the same reason people hated Trump (not a fan, or a right winger, before you accuse me of that.) People hated Trump for violating the norms of the office. Most of the powers Presidents have now are based on executive orders and precedent from previous presidents, not, you know, by actual laws. I am exaggerating for effect here somewhat, but not a lot. But violating norms is not a crime, especially when you don't have clear laws delineating what a president can and can't do. And it apparently isn't a broken norm to assassinate US citizens without a trial. I don't know how you don't consider that an imperial presidency. Or, you're just younger then 40 and haven't been paying attention.
If norms are all that define a position, and you have one side breaking the norms, and the other side following them and whining to a non-existent hall monitor that the other side is breaking, not the rules but the norms, then you get what we have now.
Justifying Democratic presidents not using power they absolutely have because of subsection 6 of paragraph 5 is just a self righteous way to justify why they didn't fight for you when the time came.
A drone strike against a terrorist group is both legal and not an assassination. They didn't isolate that one guy. He was killed while doing terrorist shit with a terrorist group, and the entire group was killed.
In other words, legal. Don't join Al Qaeda if you don't want to be hit by a drone.
Imperialism isn't "violating the norms of office" any more than it is "shit you personally don't like," and the above is not a violation of the norms of office, but rather something the President was given power to do by Congress, twice by that point.
I'm not sure what you wanted Biden to do here when he accomplished his goal without overstepping the bounds of his office, per the union that asked for help.
I wasn't talking about him, I was talking about his two children. Whom were absolutely not members of Al-Qaeda.
Remember, under Obama, the definition of being a terrorist was that you were male, over 14, and you were killed by the U.S.
Being a civilian in the Afghan/Yemen war was a privilege only women were afforded.
Finally, it wasn't Al-Qaeda. I will excuse this one, because you wouldn't know it based on US reporting unless you specifically interested in the Yemeni conflict. The genocide we assisted in perpetrating in Yemen against the people of Yemen who would not/did not ally themselves, and never would with Al-Qaeda for religious reasons. The US did what it did in Yemen under the auspices of the AUMF. Which has, as the one limiting factor, that force be used against countries with an Al-Qaeda presence. Nevermind that they were the ones we were arming and backing in Syria. Nevermind that they didn't REALLY exist in Yemen, and the few that did were imported by 'us' (Saudi Arabia, not the US), and the houthi did fight quite hard against them, and certainly not in the area this individual was killed. Nevermind that the Yemeni 'Government' that was forced in by Saudi Arabia was not accepted as the legit government of the majority of the Yemeni people (hence the reason for the 'civil war'. We had to say they did to give the assistance that Saudi Arabia was demanding. The Yemeni 'government' was literally of puppet of Saudi Arabia that any sane person wouldn't listen to. They accused everyone of being Al-Qaeda because, as puppets of Saudi Arabia, they had explicit instructions on what to say to allow the US to continue supporting their puppet regime. You won't find this in the wikipedia article, by the by, this actually required some thought, analysis, and paying attention to the situation when it was happening.
And no, it was not approved twice by congress. Unless you are again counting the AUMF. which seems a pretty big stretch. That law wasn't written addressing the assassination of US citizens, does not explicitly state anywhere that it can be used for those purposes. Instead, Obama used the law in a way it was written to do something he wanted to do. I.E. he used powers not explicitly given to him to accomplish his goals. Huh. Imagine if his goals were to help workers.
Give me a definition of imperial that we don't fit then. I'm sure I'll enjoy the internal inconsistencies in the definition you give.
I want Biden to use power to help the people, and not the financier owners of the rail companies that exist to siphon of America's productivity like parasites. Because, frankly, there are far less bounds of the office than you are implying. This appeal to notional bounds is what Democrats always do to justify their feckless helplessness when it comes to helping their constituency.
Fuck, you're the definition of 'Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.'
If you hadn't been wrong almost immediately I may have taken the time to respond to the entire post, but I did catch the end and our conversation is only happening in response to a post in which I showed, with citations, that Biden did use his power to help the people, and that the union in question directly credits him for it.
Anyway here's a page about AQY (AL-Qaeda in Yemen)
https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/al-qaeda-yemen#:~:text=Executive%20Summary%20Al%20Qaeda%20in,the%20Arabian%20Peninsula%20(AQAP).
But then, if you knew things, you wouldn't be dumb enough to think "Lib" is an insult.
Edit: since I already know you won't click the link:
Surely you're not deadnaming AQY by pretending they aren't who they identify as.
If you knew things, you'd know that people of the left also think liberal (not lib) is an insult, coming from a completely different place. Look up the ‘Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds.' origin if you actually want to learn something.
You'd also know that every Sunni fundamentalist group during that time period between 1990-2003 had to claim that. You'd also know that those Foreign Nationals were basically all Saudi Arabian, functioning as a first wave to try and claim the territory for Saudi Arabia, because a large chunk of Saudi Arabia was scheduled to be given back to Yemen from a 99 year lease. You'd also know that the Saudi Arabians had, in the early part of that time period just commited a pogrom against the Shia in Najran who were very excited about the prospect of rejoining a Shia majority country. And that the vast majority of the people of Yemen are Shia. You'd also know that the civil war came about specifically because the Saudis took over the government in Sanaa to, at least in part, keep the land and the people of Yemen were extremely unhappy about this.
Fuck man, the Houthi fought against the few groups of AQAP that did still exist harder than the US did.
I did click on that link. It's the same standard bullshit written by people who have never been to Yemen. I also looked at the citations used. That was written by people who have never been there, mostly to retroactively justify Americas fucked up foreign policy.
I'm done responding to someone that unquestioningly justifies the intentional bombing of a 16 year old and an 8 year old US citizens. Because it was legal (It wasn't.)