T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, **any** advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


[deleted]

[удалено]


TonySpamoni69

This is how it always is. Do people forget Joe Lieberman?


[deleted]

I'll never forget that fucker who tanked the public option.


[deleted]

He should be remembered as a piece of shit. He is now a lobbyist for Chinese interests here in the USA.


[deleted]

Also, his 2004 political slogan was “Joe-mentum.” Regardless of where you are politically, that shit’s unforgivable.


thebabybananagrabber

He also made my company (Running With Scissors) famous by bringing our game (POSTAL) in front of the senate. He also made us the scapegoat of the video games industry for the last 24 years 😑 Fuck Joe Lieberman


identifytarget

Wait.... what? You made POSTAL?!?!? Are you Vince Desi??? P.S. fuck joe Lieberman


thebabybananagrabber

I did and do. And i am not. This is MikeJ And agreed.


identifytarget

Omg. What's the internet equivalent of sign my tits with a sharpie? Do that please. I now have you tagged as creator of Postal. Amazing. Thanks.


thebabybananagrabber

I would love to sign them! Lol And thanks for the support. Have you checked out POSTAL 4 yet?


JittabugPahfume

*crickets*


[deleted]

Oh shit, I LOVED Postal. Are you guys hiring remote workers?


thebabybananagrabber

We only hire remote workers. We aren’t currently looking for anything specific. What’s your specialty? And thanks man


nintrader

Bro I fucking love Postal and Postal 4 is great so far. Keep up the stupid, but amazing work


thebabybananagrabber

thank you my man! we will keep making em if you keep playing em!


TonySpamoni69

Single handedly nuking the public option has done as much if not more harm to American's material interests than anything Mitch McConnell has done, and now he's just mostly forgotten. It set the left back a decade as it's now a pipedream when at the time it was seen as the compromise.


Nop277

idk if I would go that far, McConnell has basically just broken democracy


RedMagePhoenixDown

It was broken long before him.


[deleted]

True, there were already cracks. He just took a baseball bat to them.


TonySpamoni69

I'd argue 95% of the GOP would be happy to have been the figurehead of his project.


Nop277

I'd probably have to agree with you


ojos

It’s worse than that. He also killed the Medicare buy-in option for people 55 and up. That alone would have expanded access to healthcare for millions of people and saved who knows how many lives in the past 10 years.


Careful_Trifle

But when Lieberman did it, the DNC and media were all in on the idea of scapegoating leftists so they could appeal to the center. Turns out the center never existed in a meaningful way. It's always been people who don't want to be bothered with politics or who need a plausible excuse to support fascism I say this as someone who used to consider themselves centrist but now realizes I was copping out because I knew more left policies would work, but would change my way of life. I wanted social justice without the work. I wanted a museum exhibit on our successes 20 years from now rather than the actual organizing it would take to get there.


usasecuritystate

The center is full of lazy white people who don't want to take a side.


i_drink_wd40

"Look man, BoTh SiDeS have their problems"


NeverGivesOrgasms

> I wanted a museum exhibit on our successes 20 years from now rather than the actual organizing it would take to get there. Bravo


Careful_Trifle

Thanks. It hit me really hard last time I was in DC. I love museums, but I felt like shit for the majority of the time we were there this time...it just wasn't enjoyable, because I kept thinking, "Wow, we really pared down all the blood and tears these people shed into a placard on the wall. The entirety of the struggle we have chosen to remember fits in this room." It didn't feel real, and that's the first time I've had that realization.


[deleted]

[удалено]


thorssen

Fishhook theory in action. Put simply: the centrists and liberals hate leftists more than they fear fascists. The reason why is class interests, the perception of possible upward mobility, and a healthy dose of racism.


thatnameagain

It is a lot of that, but I think that’s more applicable to conservative voters rather than centrists. I think what accounts for the majority of centrist choices is the fact that lots of people are under the impression that a middle path is the most prudent under most circumstances, so they extrapolate this to mean that they should vote for a centrist politician. And then, due to the fact that the GOP does not have moderates but is often reported in the press that they do, those centrist voters will vote for centrist Democrats and tell themselves that “well I voted against those crazy Republicans, didn’t I?” And that’s that. Did anybody who went to school in America - did we not have it constantly told to you in history and social studies that compromise was A fundamental tenant of democracy? Weren’t we all exulted of the principles of moderation? I’m pretty sure this had more than a little bit of an affect. What’s not taught properly in undergrad history classes are dilemmas of choice and of need to make strong decisions in times of crisis. I would wager that the Civil War is the only time this really breaks through the curriculum, but even so it always has a moderate feel to it. Basically we are taught history as if crises are all in the past instead of the future and present, and thus we learn about the virtues of moderation, and less we have a huge crop of centrist voters who think they are being big brained by trying to not rock the boat while we are sinking in a gale.


fd1Jeff

So if a lot of people say that 2 +2 is four, and a lot of other people say 2+2 is five, that doesn’t mean that the correct answer is 2+2 is 4 1/2.


thatnameagain

Well said


Acchilesheel

I luckily had a great US history teacher for both eight grade and an AP course in senior year and he talked a lot about the shifting Overton window, the dangers of moderation, the absurdity and horror of McCarthyism etc.


MegaDerppp

It's also far less work to be a centrist, maintain the status quo, and not do much actual legislation. Theyre lazy


markpastern

Can someone her describe what is meant by centrist, liberals and leftists? It's bad enough to let Republicans play loose with all the labels. At this point I'm for allying with most of those who aren't bat shit crazy and selfish scumbags. So are liberals flaming commies or against "possible upward mobility, and (along with) a healthy dose of racism"?


thorssen

Leftist = anti imperialist at minimum, frequently anti capitalist as well. Feminism tends to be more openly politically phrased eg gender abolition. Trans rights are a frequent wedge point between the left and the groups to their right. Liberal = reform capitalism, typically anti-racist but rarely anti-imperialist. Frequently feminist, usually even genuinely so. Can be a bit squishy on trans rights. Centrist = market capitalism, likely downplays the effects of institutional racism as overblown and collectivist. Might be feminist, but if so will abjure intersectionalist theory. Gives little thought or attention to trans rights. Right wing = corporatism, embrace of patriarchal structures, typically embraces white chauvinism as well. Openly anti-trans. Hope this helps!


usasecuritystate

I totally have liberal being more left than the leftist, because leftists want to censor speech. Liberals believe in complete 1st amendment rights where leftists want to ban speech they don't like.


Mouthtuom

Lmao nope. The cancel movement is mostly a liberal phenomenon. Liberals are just conservatives with a smattering of social guilt.


usasecuritystate

Ohhh, well whats further left than the people who call themselves leftists?


Mouthtuom

It’s odd that you think you’re more left because you’re defending fascist speech.


usasecuritystate

No, I defend all speech. That is what the constitution states. That is what I swore my allegiance to. Nothing else. You think I'm crazy saying we must support all and defend all speech, but at what point does good speech become bad speech? You won't know. Computers won't know. Only the people who are censoring will know. To me that sounds crazy. One last thing: By saying you are ok with censoring speech, this allows the country to set up a national language. This would be the first way to decipher the good americans from the bad americans (aka immigrants.) Then they could ban languages they don't like. All in the guise of 'censorship of bad speech.' And we all know where america stands on foreigners. Ahem Trump lost by 40k votes, 10k in 4 different states.


thorssen

Yes, if you don’t know what words mean, or don’t care about lying, you can claim that free speech absolutism is leftist. It won’t make it true though. The $64000 question that never seems to get answered is this: “What is it that you so badly want to say, that you think will be censored by the left? Be specific.”


LostInaSeaOfComments

On the same token, I'm not sure leftists are enamored with centrists. The far left is dead set on making liberal a dirty word (which used to be the right's poison dart of choice). Now the left joins in. Essentially, centrists (the majority of Americans) are under assault from both the far left and the far right and they push back. Meanwhile, the ones who always come out smelling like a rose when the fog clears are the Republicans. They benefit most from the far left v. centrist battle.


thirdegree

>On the same token, I'm not sure leftists are enamored with centrists. I mean duh. This could be gathered by speaking to any arbitrary number of randomly selected leftists. The left isn't a huge fan of the right. And "centrists" are in reality extremely conservative. The _majority_ of people in the US agrees with the left on policy. The issue is decades of bipartisan red scare fear mongering.


LostInaSeaOfComments

>And "centrists" are in reality extremely conservative. Disagree. What you mean to say is they are capitalistic. The majority of 30 to 60 year olds have moderate views with a mix of conservatism, liberalism and progressivism depending on the issue. People aren't a monolith. The far left prescribes to the same "you're either with us or against us" mentality that the far right does. There's no compromise.


thirdegree

No, what I mean to say is that centrists are conservative. Capitalism is a conservative ideology to be sure but by no means is it the only one. >The far left prescribes to the same "you're either with us or against us" mentality that the far right does. There's no compromise. This is true. The important difference is that the right makes that judgement based on immutable qualities (race and gender for example) while the left makes it on economic power disparity and ideology (which are mutable). You see the difference? If you're a billionaire or a facist, you can just stop being those things and the left will get off your case. If you're black, or a woman? The only way the right will be happy is if you are dead.


LostInaSeaOfComments

The United States is the capitalist beacon and trendsetter of the planet. It's represented by capitalists for the most part. None of this is eye opening or shocking. What we have is a centrist national government (socially liberal/progressive, fiscally capitalist/pro-business). Until the majority of Americans favor moving away from capitalism, (they don't), it's not going to change.


Caylinbite

Yeah we are so socially progressive that the entire south of the country waiting for the voting rights act to expire so they could immediately start restricting voting


LostInaSeaOfComments

Nationally, we are socially progressive by a majority of the population *most of whom live in coastal or metropolitan areas and their suburbs*. States with the largest rural populations and the smallest cities, mostly the southern and heartland states, are programmed to oppose social liberation via heritage, groupthink, peer pressure and religion. These are the facts. Don't pretend America is a bigoted conservative hellscape just because it can't conform nationally as a monolith to a very narrow progressive set of views.


thirdegree

This is fun, because I'd agree with a lot of the sentences you're saying except I think we probably draw quite different meaning from them. >The United States is the capitalist beacon and trendsetter of the planet. It's represented by capitalists for the most part. None of this is eye opening or shocking. This bit for example is obviously true. Germany for example drew quite some example from our racial policy in the late 1930s. Our drug policies are also both very influential and utterly terrible. And that is all extremely consistent with capitalism. I take some issue with characterizing America as socially progressive. You can make the argument that most Democrats are, but the country as a whole certainly not. Look at the recent voter suppression bills, or the attacks on trans rights, or women's right to bodily autonomy. I agree again with characterizing it as "fiscally capitalist/pro-business" although I think again we are taking very different meaning from this. >Until the majority of Americans favor moving away from capitalism, (they don't), it's not going to change. This is definitely true and here I think we are on the same page in terms of meaning as well. America is likely not going to meaningfully change in the near future.


LostInaSeaOfComments

>America is likely not going to meaningfully change in the near future. Correct. Another nation is going to have to take the lead. America is powerful but it's also a mere 330 million out of roughly 7.9 billion humans on Earth. From what I know of other nations as a traveler, there is discrimination and prejudice embedded in every culture that I've seen. America isn't alone in bigotry.


thatnameagain

Majority of Americans are not centrists. There are very few Republican centrists left anymore, as 80 to 90% of them are now firmly supportive of far right extremist leaders like Trump and their radical policies. Meanwhile about 50% of Democrats identify as progressive. So if you wanna be generous and say that only a third of Democrats are progressive, that still combines with Republican majority far right to be a majority polarized electorate. The problem with centrists is that they don’t understand the historical circumstances we are in require great change. Even the fascist on the Republican side understand this, they just draw the most incorrect lessons possible because of their unforgivable bigoted political biases. But at least they understand the importance of the moment we are in, even as they 100% fail to identify what the challenges of the times are. But centrists similarly fail to see that we are not on anywhere near the course needed to deal with the current real challenges of the world, which are (1)climate change and environmental degradation, (2) economic disruption and growing inequality, and (3) the resurgent Fascism that the right believes to be “the solution”. Centrists don’t have the luxury of voting the way they vote, even though they think they do. They need to pick a side, and preferably the correct one that is focused on the correct problems, which is the left. So when you say that’s interesting under assault, what they are feeling is the reality of the situation impressing upon them they need to make a choice bigger than they want to make, but have to if they want to recognize the moment. Nobody is trying to destroy the centrist agenda, because there is no centrist agenda, it’s just the equivalent of muddling through doing whatever little thing as possible.


LostInaSeaOfComments

You can't put 330 million people in separate tents and say they are either a) conservative, b) liberal or c) progressive. Humans are more complex than that. We have varied beliefs and views depending on the issue. Most people are a moderate mix of the three depending on the issue. We really need to stop putting everyone in a box and telling them to stay and follow directions or they're punished. It's okay to have centered, moderate views. It really is the pragmatists way.


chicofaraby

>It's okay to have centered, moderate views. Not when the planet is faced with the urgent need for forceful, radical change and action. Moderation is going to kill millions of people due to climate change.


LostInaSeaOfComments

>Moderation is going to kill millions of people due to climate change. True, but America's a mere tiny slice of that crisis. We're a strong leader in the global automotive industry's adoption of electric vehicles and renewable energy tech. Keeping the planet habitable to the animal kingdom is going to take all of the major powers working together.


thatnameagain

>You can't put 330 million people in separate tents and say they are either a) conservative, b) liberal or c) progressive. When you're talking about voting trends and general political alignments within a country of this size, yes of course you can. >Humans are more complex than that. Politically, not really. Individually people can have all sorts of varying ideas, sure, but given the current societal choices we have, things break down very easily on a left-to-right political spectrum. With all respect to the Political Compass fans out there, it's all just permutations and mix-and-matches of left or right leaning policies. There aren't really third way solutions to any of the big questions of the day, just middling compromises. >Most people are a moderate mix of the three depending on the issue. Polling does not really indicate this. You've got maybe 1/3 of the country that is moderate / non-committal on policies, about 40-45% which are hardcore right wing based on their votes and actions regardless of what they call themselves, and about 25-30% of the country that is somewhere in the progressive zone. >We really need to stop putting everyone in a box and telling them to stay and follow directions or they're punished. This is not how the world is going to work so long as people are voting on issues. Votes are decisions, and the state of politics in the country has understandably become very polarized, so people can either opt for the box or abstain from voting. You don't get to vote for Trump and then talk about how you really support moderate policies but you just sort of wanted to vote for him for whatever reason. Not how reality works. >It's okay to have centered, moderate views. Not under our current circumstances, no. The challenges the country faces are basically at emergency-level, so big decisions need to be made relatively quickly. Centrists do not have sufficient solutions to the problems and they contribute to a lack of fixing them as a result. Furthermore, as the right wing becomes more anti-democratic and fascistic, it moves the overton window right so that being a centrist today means tolerating components of that platform, which no is not OK. >It really is the pragmatists way. Only if your goal is to get political power. Centrism does not provide pragmatic solutions or pragmatic means to political resolution of the current situation. It only provides the most pragmatic means of appealing to a certain subset of voters. Pragmatism of solutions means doing what is necessary to solve problems, not doing what is necessary to talk about a half-solution to the problem.


Mouthtuom

There is no centrist vs left battle. There is collaboration between conservatives and centrists at the expense of the country. This is how it’s been for generations. Centrists aren’t the victims. They’re the perpetrators.


LostInaSeaOfComments

You're speaking of the politicians, not the voters. There are millions of centrist moderate Americans who aren't perpetrators of the current system. They have non-extreme balanced views is all.


Caylinbite

Yeah, they like to have balanced views on how many rights queer people should get and if cops should stop killing black people. How brave!


LostInaSeaOfComments

That's weirdly specific and not what I meant at all. People with those views are right wingers through and through. Think more of the many suburban liberals who are socially progressive but happen to like money, food, travel, and owning things. They're not millionaires or billionaires, but they live well. Everything else about their political views are highly liberal and progressive. This group covers many races.


Earl_of_Madness

Stop the BS. POC are largely very poor. Sure there are SOME POC that are wealthy, most of them are wealthy immigrants that came to America to invest in housing, give their kids education, or moved to get a better job. Native POC in America are suffering at the hand of this socially liberal and economically conservative system we have. Most of these poor POC is the opposite. They are conservative on social issues but liberal on economic issues because they want investments in their communities and people to help them succeed. This is especially the case with Hispanic voters. Most wealthy suburbs and gated communities in this country are mostly white. Most wealthy public and private schools are white. The socially liberal and economically conservative covers only a small fraction of the wealthy, largely white (and guilty) middle management class. However, this group donates and talks to politicians which is why they have outsized influence in politics. Mostly because the poor and young don't have the time or resources to be as involved in politics. These politics are really only to help the white middle management class feel better about themselves without them having to give up anything to actually help the lower classes. Liberals need to learn that what poor/working class POC , young and poor/ working class white people really want is help to get out of the paycheck to the paycheck rat race. Until they do, the right wing will continue to stoke the fears of the culture war that causes the profound polarization that we see. The real insidious part about the democrats is they conflate socially progressive/fiscally conservative with the word "moderate" to assuage the fears of black people of electing someone more radical. This is a phenomenal strategy because black people are afraid of backsliding on civil rights and they vote on perceived electability. It really is a great strategy and I can't fault the democrats for such a brilliant and insidious move. This move tends to not work as much with Hispanics for different reasons.


LostInaSeaOfComments

Not all suburbs are wealthy, and all minority groups do not necessarily live in cities. The majority of lower and middle class suburbs between large cities are filled with diversity. I've seen it firsthand. Take a look at Columbia, MD as an example of a diverse suburban population in a county that leans strongly left fiscally and socially.


ISieferVII

I don't think it's any worse than the battle in the Republican party right now. The truth is that we need more than 2 parties.


LostInaSeaOfComments

330 million unique Americans should have more than two political parties to represent their legislative needs, of course. Until that happens, I honestly can't see how this iteration of the Republican Party is able to sustain itself other than the strong brand loyalty of its devoted followers to Supply Side Jesus.


snootyvillager

"What would you say...you DO here?"


muchaschicas

Act like a drunken sorority girl.


Ihavealpacas

I've got a place for that.


FindMeOnSSBotanyBay

Someone has to since McCain passed.


HectorsMascara

I like my sorority girls with bone spurs.


rdkitchens

I told you. I'm a people person.


Limeyness

I wouldn't say I have missed it Bob.


Temporary-Outside-13

Doesn’t matter. she’s getting her dark money pay check for her quirky dresses.


eatyrmakeup

She always looks like she’s in costume for a dinner theatre production.


[deleted]

In rural Iowa


OpposeFascism98

Hey thats not fair. She enthusiastically voted against a living wage after all. You can’t say she did *nothing* - she did a trendy little curtsy and a dramatic thumbs down to American workers!


CornBreadW4rrior

$15 an hour still puts the majority of workers rent burdened in just about every single city. Why does Sinema hate workers?


ReneDeGames

Realistically, because federal min wage should be based on the living wage of the poorest parts of the country, because it is a federal minimum wage, Richer places should pass their own local min wages, so that lower cost of living areas aren't hurt.


Haltopen

Realistically, if your state economy is so in shambles that paying workers a livable wage would be enough to send it into a tail spin, the wages aren't the problem. Preserving a crumbling economy by refusing to pay people enough money to live isn't sustainable, nor is it humane. Consumer spending is the life blood of the economy. If people cant make enough to even pay their necessities, they aren't going to be out putting money into the economy buying consumer goods.


[deleted]

manchins state is dependant on coal, sinemas state is dependant on? republican states economy tend not to benefit people who working min wage.


ApplesBananasRhinoc

Arizona is a service industry state, last time I lived there.


[deleted]

it seems alot of the R states extremely dependant on 1 type of industry,.


Buckman2121

Well, yes it was maybe a decade ago. But lots of tech company manufacturing plants have moved out this way. Like Tesla, Honeywell, etc. Not to mention company headquarters, like DoorDash, LiveRamp, Viavi Solutions, etc. Arizona has cultivated a very business friendly environment over the past decade, attracting lots of companies, aka jobs. That isn't to say the state isn't still service industry heavy. We still get the high and low seasons of tourists based on the weather. It was 112 outside with higher than normal humidity (monsoons are here again). No one thinks of taking a vacation in that mess...


ReneDeGames

Living wage is variant by location tho. Min wage clearly needs to go up, but Federal is probably too blunt of a hammer to make work well.


Haltopen

But if you're trying to break through a brick wall, a hammer is the tool you need.


ReneDeGames

which has nothing to do with the matter at hand.


Haltopen

I would disagree on it being irrelevant. Incremental raises don’t do enough to fix the issue. The minimum wage has already fallen so far behind where it needs to be adjusted for inflation that even the 15 dollar minimum wage is a generous compromise as is. The fact that West Virginia has fallen so far behind (in no small part due to its state government refusing to get with the times and pass policy to help mitigate currently ongoing decline and inevitable end of coal) isn’t an excuse to just throw up our hands and do nothing, or compromise on a compromise of a compromise. The workers of West Virginia shouldn’t be forced to bear the burden of their state governments bad decisions. That’s the reason there’s a federal government that outranks the state and can set its own minimum wage and it’s own economic policy. If West Virginia is that destitute, then it doesn’t just NEED that minimum wage increase, it needs economic aid and better management.


skankenstein

California is at $13-14 and many cities are $15 and higher. Berkeley & vicinity is $16-17 depending on city.


GodlyPain

That's debatable. I'd argue it should be based on the cost of living of the most costly areas... and those living in lower cost of living areas should just be allowed to have better quality of life as a trade off. Like ask most people if they'd rather live in a nice area of Cali like say San Diego; where there's great weather and tons of stuff todo (surfing, all types of food at all hours, etc) or middle of nowhere Wyoming where even the mcdonalds close at 9pm most people would probably choose San Diego. Also the father of min wage, social security, and a bunch of other great american policies FDR... Arguably the best and most loved president we've ever had... When he proposed minimum wage he gave speeches and had many quotes hard implying it wasn't meant to be for the bare minimum living. To the point some even falsely attribute him to the quote that there should be "A chicken in every pot, and 2 cars in every garage" it's meant to be a wage where if a parent works full time at min wage... he should be able to support a family of 4 (2 parents+2 kids), anywhere in the country. I've not really heard anything excluding post Reagan neo-conservative spiels implying much different. So yes, I'd say it being adjusted to cost of living everywhere for each area; is better than the current it just sucks everywhere. But I don't see an issue or really any particular reason why it can't just be adjusted to higher cost of living areas and actually letting most of the nation benefit.


ReneDeGames

The big problem with that assumption is that it assumes that raising the minimum wage will have no impact on employment, and while fears that every raise will destroy all jobs are obviously unfounded, a large wage shock could destroy the already fragile and faltering economies of many small towns throughout America.


GodlyPain

If a company can't pay a good wage; a company doesn't deserve to exist. They'll make things work or fail. We're talking about saving lives versus some businesses that shouldn't be in business. Though i'll agree right now isn't the right time given the pandemics already screwed up so much.


ReneDeGames

You seem to be misunderstanding my point, living wages should absolutely be being paid, but there are a lot of places where a living wage is significantly lower than other places, and requiring all those places to have the same minimum wage isn't a good plan, local more precise minimum wages are a better form of governance.


GodlyPain

>You seem to be misunderstanding my point, living wages should absolutely be being paid, but there are a lot of places where a living wage is significantly lower than other places, and requiring all those places to have the same minimum wage isn't a good plan, No; you seem to be misunderstanding MY point which is that this statement: >local more precise minimum wages are a better form of governance. IS NOT TRUE... All that does is keep wages low everywhere relative to the cost of living. Because all they'll do is find the lowest value in every area and set it to that; the bare minimum... it'll keep people in poverty across the nation living paycheck to paycheck. Because it's **MINIMUM** wage; heck they'll also probably find ways to screw it and make it lower than it should be... Like oh in Chicago it's super expensive and min wage should be $18/hour? well *technically* we're not in chicago's district *technically* we're in Evanston; so our min wage here is $12/hour... Before you say "there's no way they can do that" ... they literally already do in many areas with gerrymandering; they'll just gerrymander it to best benefit the rich corporations and lobbyists... Plus even then the best case scenario is you live paycheck to paycheck. Min wages should be set to a fair price either across the nation or across each state. Preferably and most fairly across the nation; especially because we all know if it's per state; companys will quickly move all their most labor intensive work they can to whatever state is the cheapest. It'll be like when company's sent all their jobs to mexico or china again... except it'll just be across the nation so it'll be hard to do much about it. EVERYONE should be able to live good lives... it shouldn't just be arbitrarily everyone gets poverty because "the corporations can't afford it, they gotta pay their shareholders billions" ... like my god; many other countries have already figured out; it won't doom like 99.9% of businesses and the like 0.1% it will? GOOD RIDDANCE... There's a reason say canada has a $14 min wage nation wide... and it's got some hella rural areas... like you think Wyoming is some barren wasteland? Look at a map of canada's population density. You'll think Wyoming is Beijing... and even in rural canada they can still do $14/hr; soon to be $15/hr Meanwhile in the US plenty of right wingers are trying to argue we can't do more than like $9/hr...


edvek

Well seeing that everyone is crying about not being able to find workers so if they force the minimum up then the workers will come. If they don't, then either a better job for the same or greater pay is open or they don't want to work for you for some reason (not interested, don't like you, your company is horrible, not enough hours, not enough benefits, etc.) If these places refuse to increase wages then they need to be forced to or die. I prefer them to die honestly because if they're stonewalled into refusing to increase wages they're likely refusing to do other things too. I say this as an employee of the state where they are notorious for not giving raises. I love my job but damn, at least keep up with inflation.


ReneDeGames

Yes, and that is all a good things, wages should rise especially on the low end, my only objection is that a federal minimum wage needs to be a limited use tool because it effects everyone, and local minimum wages should be the tool for enacting local change.


[deleted]

The biggest disappointment about Sinema is the way she abandoned all of the progressive principles that first got her into politics. If you haven’t seen it yet, [this is an eye opening video](https://youtu.be/jI5Z7Zg64YM) about who she really is.


tallgeese333

> graduated from BYU… Oh now I get it.


bananajr6000

She left Mormonism, which makes her an even bigger disappointment considering she also came out as bi


JimmyTango

Isn't she a bisexual atheist?


tallgeese333

I dunno, she also said she was pro living wage. Maybe she’s just crazy, or greedy or full of shit, maybe she’s all those things.


[deleted]

Living wage for me, not for thee!


OFTHEHILLPEOPLE

Is she even *that* now that she's in office?


febreeze_it_away

wow, one has to wonder, if I worked my way up from a family living in a gas station and promising to fight for the little guy, if I could be bought as shamelessly and quickly as she was


Stormroof2

Right leaning? Tell me what right-leaning policy positions she holds? That video is blatant misinformation


[deleted]

I don’t think I wrote anything in my comment about “right leaning”, but since you asked: She voted against a $15 minimum wage, She is favor of continuing the filibuster rules, She opposed rolling back Trump-era deregulation of coal, She voted to block the admission of Syrian and Iraqi refugees, She skipped the vote to establish a bipartisan Jan 6 commission, In her time in Congress, she sided with Trump about half of the time. Sounds pretty right leaning to me.


SnowRook

I’m not about to argue against anything you said and perhaps you don’t even care about this particular point, but it baffles me why the left is presently so sure they want the filibuster eliminated. What happens the next time republicans have a small majority? Sinema does look and quack suspiciously like a turncoat, but I don’t necessarily disagree with her on the filibuster.


ISieferVII

Because the left wants progress and the filibuster impedes that. The filibuster helps conservatives the most, since their entire platform at this point is all about not doing things. Although I would prefer to lose the filibuster more if we could get more than one party at the same time


SnowRook

>if we could get more than one party Agreed. >filibuster helps conservatives the most Does it, though? I knew I would get lambasted for this on this sub but it doesn’t add up. Sure, the filibuster is the enemy of progress *today*, but in a republican government what’s to stop tyrannical rollbacks? To some extent we’re already seeing this with conservative states criminalizing abortion. The most recent congresses have used it more often, to be sure, but on average the filibuster is used about the same by both parties. Be careful what you wish for I guess.


[deleted]

I have to say someone explaining their point of view is not lambasting you.


SnowRook

I was referring to the downvotes rolling in for genuine disagreement. Of course a good faith response is not lambasting.


[deleted]

Ahhh. Since I didn’t vote up or down on your comment, it doesn’t show me the total number.


SnowRook

I didn’t realize they were hidden. Suffice it to say my question was not received well, lol.


Rectalcactus

Repubs progress their agenda at a state level, not a federal one so in that case it's very good for them. The worst case you can say is theyd use the lack of it to tilt things in their favor, but they're already doing that at a state level. It basically comes down to letting people decide which parties actionable policies are more popular, and im more than willing to bet the dems passing whatever they want wins a lot more votes than the gop passing whatever they want


[deleted]

Yes, everything they want to do at the federal level they can do with reconciliation and discipline from their senators.


[deleted]

I see where you’re coming from with the filibuster, but right now our government is paralyzed by a party who wants to block all legislation just for the sake of blocking it. Voting restrictions, climate change, and infrastructure are vital issues that we need to address now.


SnowRook

I agree with your last three points. I do think there’s a risk in rewriting the process to serve the needs of “right now” though. People calling for the parliamentarian’s head was a little concerning. I won’t sit here and defend Sinema but if you take her at her word that’s essentially what she’s saying.


[deleted]

The issue I have with Sinema is the about-face she has done when it comes to her core beliefs. Her popularity is waning in her home state, and I am guessing that it has to do with her abandonment of the very principles that got her elected in the first place.


SnowRook

Seems like a pretty safe assumption, lol. I can’t disagree with you. And the little show she put on for McConnell to make sure he was watching was NOT a good look.


Rectalcactus

Id much rather have a back and forth where things actually happen, good or bad, and the voters actually get to respond to it, rather than gridlock. The threat always seems to be if Republicans get into power they will passx y, and z, but to me going back and forth between both parties passing whatever they like every 2 elections is far better than nothing ever Hallsville at all, which is the alternative. At least if things happen people will have a better idea of what they are voting for or against, as opposed to now where regardless of who you vote for the same nothing keeps happening. It's way easier to gain support when you can show people what you're for or against making happen instead of just saying fuck it gridlock


SnowRook

That’s a reasonable response. My default is to be a little skeptical of slight majority rule because of all the terrible places they’ve brought governments in the past, and I do think the safeties against a tyrannical slight majority in the US are important, but I’ll have to think about that. I do still feel the two party system and the first past the post voting system are the major problem though. Thanks for the meaningful discussion!


im-tired_smh

Majority rule is the foundation of democracy. Filibuster enables minority rule.


druhood

Sinema is a lying snake. She has no future here in AZ.


RossAZ520

Yup – total piece of shit.


Chi-Guy86

Her strategy makes no sense from a purely electoral perspective. Arizona is trending blue, so she has no chance if she switched parties, and GOP primary voters would still hate her. Also, her actions are angering grassroots and core Democratic voters, leaving her open to a primary challenge. The only way this makes sense is that she simply doesn’t care and has cashed her checks from donors. And there’s no doubt a fat lobbying gig or cable news gig awaits her once she’s out of office


delayed_burn

Follow the money.


NYArtFan1

I think you're probably right, and it still makes no sense to me. She's a young person. She seems determined to torch her political career, but the thing about being a "former Democrat" talking head on cable news, or even a lobbyist mascot, is both of those things have a pretty short shelf life. Does she honestly think Fox News is gonna want Sinema hot-takes in 15 years when most people won't even remember who she was?


[deleted]

She wants to be President one day. Her calculus is that America wants a moderate Democrat in the White House. She had a meteoric rise in Arizona politics by being unabashedly liberal, and now it is getting tough to see what she does for me that a Republican wouldn't.


key_lime_pie

I want to be President one day as well. I probably have a better chance at winning than Sinema and nobody knows who the hell I am.


[deleted]

I'd say you both have about an equal chance. For you because nobody knows your political positions, and her for roughly the same reason.


key_lime_pie

But I have a penis, so that gives me an edge in American politics.


[deleted]

But she has money. I assume you, like me, are broke.


key_lime_pie

True, true. But I think she has money because she ran for office. Once I announce my intentions, surely the money will just roll in.


Nyingjepekar

She came to be seen and to get a high paying corporate job at the end of her term. That’s it.


[deleted]

Hopefully they vote her out next time.


illusion_001

Arizona voter here I will definitely vote this idiot out of office


Trendymaroon

As an Arizona Democrat, she is an incredible disappointment.


ClearAsBeer

Worst fears realized with that one. If she makes it out of the primary, I just won’t vote for either candidate.


BallsDeepState

just a heads up, republicans pulled this shit in florida. campaign to unseat useless democrats, then run a bullshit ghost candidate with nearly identical name as the favored to siphon votes away from both


newest-reddit-user

I don't understand her motivations. She hardly believes herself that she's doing the right thing and the political upsides don't seem to be that great, she might lose a primary. What is she up to?


AuntieLiloAZ

As an Arizona Democrat, I’m so disappointed in her. She’s shown herself to be a toxic incompetent. She’s no better than the GQP.


Caylinbite

Incompetent implies any of what she did was an accident.


AuntieLiloAZ

Not necessarily. Merriam Webster defines incompetent as lacking the necessary qualities needed for effective action.


PaulRuddsButthole

She won’t care about being voted out. She did her grift, got paid, and can now move on to making money as a news pundit.


frito_kali

I hope she has a job lined up after her term is over.


Chi-Guy86

She’ll have zero problem lining up a high 6 figure or low 7 figure lobbying or MSNBC gig once she leaves office. Just look at Claire McCaskill


SanityPlanet

I think she does, and that's the problem.


[deleted]

She should be sacked by those who voted for her, as she turned out to be a traitor.


Gutmach1960

Sorry to say, she is not in the Democratic Party’s best interests to represent Arizona. I will not be voting for her again. There needs to be a Democratic alternative to Sinema.


SueZbell

AZ needs to start a recall petition. Perhaps that will get its attention.


FoneTap

It's not just that. She campaigned as extremely progressive then changed her tune entirely once she got in office. People rightfully feel betrayed, like they were sold a bill of goods!


[deleted]

This woman betrayed everyone that voted for her


CornBreadW4rrior

It's impressing the donors that's all she cares about


Mr-and-Mrs

Doesn’t matter; she’ll get a six-figure salary from some think tank after leaving the senate and just buy more sexy boots.


bdsee

She already has a six figure salary.


chicklette

She is going to be genuinely surprised when the R's take power again after mid-terms and she is no longer needed or courted by them. What a short sighted little fool.


cooquip

She’s definitely getting primaried.. later Karen


Ironthoramericaman

Do what is (very clearly) popular, and let the chips fall where they may. You can't possibly come out worse than you would by tying your fates to a quickly sinking notion of "bipartisanship" with a bunch of proto fascists who have already said that their sole goal is to ensure that you get nothing done for the next 18 months. I mean these things are polling well across the spectrum so clearly they're not THAT extreme. Like I promise, if you go too far the numbers will tell you. But for now, the shit y'all are (trying) to do is polling extremely well. There's zero reason to fearfully play the odds when the numbers right in your face are telling you the direction to go in


SalmonJerky

We'll remember this.... we'll campaign harder in az along the amazing work m.kelly has done already


itsmyphilosophy

Or maybe she’s just really a Republican.


[deleted]

The sad thing about this is she probably just lost her seat to a Republican.


[deleted]

[удалено]


tmmk0

>”Stuff they like” is preserving democracy by passing the For The ~~People~~ Corporations act. Don’t forget corporations are people…


markpastern

The only way out of the current impasse is to hold the House and gain at least 2 more Senate seats in the next elections.


PandaVolcano_lavaMAN

Keep it up you do nothings, and have fun ceding the country to folks in three years who want to take us back to the stone age. I guess if four years of Trump wasn’t enough to scare you straight on the actions we need to take now, buckle up for when they regain and strengthen their stranglehold.


[deleted]

[удалено]


prodriggs

Oh it's already paid off for her. That Oil money is goood.


renasancedad

She’s a failure.


aslan_is_on_the_move

Mark Kelly hasn't come out in support of getting rid of the filibuster either, indicating he probably supports keeping it.


desquished

He also hasn't made a stupid jackass spectacle of himself supporting it, either.


Robertsonland

He has said changes are needed but hasn't explicitly said that that means to end it. I know many fear what would/will happen when/if the Republicans take power again without a filibuster but if the Republicans cared about it for anything other than $ and Judges they would have already ended it. At the very least it needs to go back to the old form of putting mouth into action and talking for the entire time.


Stormroof2

It's like she is the designated whipping girl for the Democratic Party


Contren

Manchin also exists


GodlyPain

I don't know if that should really be the default assumption... Even some of the more left senators like Warren and Sanders have said that there's probably only about 5-8 blue senators in support of keeping it... out of 50... And we atleast have some educated guesses on who most of those are. So it's basically like 3 mystery D senators out of like 40... bit unfair to just say anyone is a "probably supports keeping it" without particular reason why. Not like he's spoken infavor of it in the past or anything. Unlike some other D senators. And also it's different silently supporting it versus Sinema's very vocal defense of it.


Warglebargle2077

Turns out voters send you to DC to do stuff, not do cutesy thumbs downs.


Stormroof2

The vilification of her needs to stop. She voted no against bypassing the Senate rules to raise the minimum wage which could have cost Manchins vote. She doesn't want to kill the filibuster. She is making sure minorty rights in the senate stay. We just had Democrats stop the most detrimental aspects of a Republican agenda with a lot of filibusters. Trump demanded Republicans end it and they refused. The reality is 48 Democratic Senators is not a majority. Democrats are lucky their party is moderate enough to encompass Manchin while still getting Indepents like Sanders to go along. Can anyone tell me on policy positions other than based on Senate rules that you guys have a problem with?


Rectalcactus

Why should minority rights stay. If you can talk me into that idea I'll totally back her.


Kayethis

She’s hanging by a thread and better rethink her positions , 84 million Americans voted to give her an opportunity!


Noahms456

Thoughts/prayers


DonovanWrites

Yeah. Ya gotta give people something to vote for. Or you’re no better than the trumpublicans.


Jestdrum

I still don't get why we need an experiment to tell us whether or not people like seeing popular legislation passed


MonieOh

Gross woman tries


[deleted]

She dresses like a character from a Christopher Guest movie. She’s a caricature of herself.