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.
- 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.
- 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
So basically you'll never vote for anyone because no politician will ever agree with absolutely everything you do. For that matter, no person will. There are always occasions where you accept something that's better than nothing than accepting nothing out of moral grandstanding.
I don't accept ~~strikebreakers or scabs~~ any anti-labor moves that wind up suppressing the right to withhold one's 'essential labor', since we want to play the semantics game now. So much bad faith out of you liberals; and you wonder why I have no time, patience, or consideration for you 'people'.
Well you should at least learn the meanings of those words, because they aren't those. They did not go to work for rail companies to undermine the strike.
I get you want to be idiologically pure and everything. Personally, I want whatever is best for the workers. I know from the outside I was mad about it, but I can't say it definitely was not what was best for the workers. They were not going to be allowed to strike for long, if at all. The fact they are getting some of the things they asked for in the demands is enough to show that it wasn't just caving the the rail companies.
Being angry is a lot easier than being realistic.
(Go protest. That's great. But elected officials don't have the liberty to be idealistically pure.)
Then maybe your system is shit, deserves to cave in, and you shouldn't be surprised when distrust and contempt are fostered by anyone who upholds it. If I can only trust a politician to run their mouth in public and then act total opposite, what am I supporting them for? What am I propping them up for? What am I upholding that isn't my own people getting fucked by the moneyed?
They can't be idealistically pure because they should be doing what's best. What don't you get about this? Ideals are good as a measuring stick, but they aren't useful if they can't be adjusted when doing something good is possible.
Let's take the trolly problem as a hypothetical. The trolly is going down a track that will kill 100 people, but I can negotiate with the trolly company to take another track that will kill none instead. Should I negotiate even though it means doing business with an entity I don't ideologically agree with? Any reasonable person will say yes. You're saving 100 people for a minor idealistic failing.
The end goal should be to help the workers, which probably in the end means limiting the influence of (or destroying) the rail companies. That's not going to happen today though, so in the meantime out elected officials should do what's best within their abilities. Protestors should do what's best in their abilities. Go fuck up the rail company's day.
Sitting around and saying the politicians who are pretty much as close to your ideals as possible, whole still being electable, are bad is useless. Keep them elected to do their work there, then you do your work where you can. If your ideals aren't based on outcomes, what good are they?
I would love Santa Clause to be real, but me being idealistic about it won't make it happen. I need to adjust to having the best outcome possible, and maybe accept that helping people have a good holiday season through other means is a realistic option.
You might want to look into what happened a little bit more. A minority of the unions were trying to hold the negotiations hostage. It's not as black and white as you're painting it.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/congress-votes-to-avert-rail-strike-amid-dire-warnings
It was only 4 unions, but representing 60k out of 115k workers. PLUS, the unions all agreed that if anyone went on strike, they would all strike together. They did this so they would all be stronger in negotiations.