In the meantime, there's a hundred other items of infinitely more value that could be examined. My personal favorite right now is why the fuck did Biden eagerly deal a blow to the Democratic party when the biggest opportunity for shifting the political leanings of blue collar workers landed right in his lap? Even as a despised neo-Liberal, he still has to recognize that he just threw away a huge opportunity for the party. This is exactly the sort of thing to cut through the noise of GOP propaganda getting blasted at blue collar workers and finally get them to realize the GOP exists to work directly against their interests.
Instead, Biden just threw them under the bus so they can continue going "welp, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans". And the DNC in general has utterly failed working people here, it's just disgusting what they've wasted in terms of both improving people's lives and gaining political capital. Real fucking sick of old selfish rich fuckers running this shit.
Because this not how it works and not how it has ever worked. The hardhats in American labor are not going to magically stop being socially conservative because of labor policy, and this has served to undercut labor's political power over the past several decades.
Both of the last presidential elections had reporting on a disconnect/struggles/etc between union leadership and the rank-and-file membership because the rank-and-file liked Trump. Or, at least, liked Trump much more.
this is why i pretty much have ignored all the wailing and teeth gnashing around the current topic. The RLA was always the backstop, and i don't believe that the folks complaining were "pro-democrat" in aggregate to begin with...
I was not pro-Democrat, but I still voted Democrat on a lesser evil basis, including in 2020 for Biden, and 2022 for Pingree in the House. Neither will receive my vote in 2024 due to this decision. Not solely due to this decision, but this is what pushed me over that line. And I've heard the same sentiment from others. Enough for the party to care about? Maybe not, I have no figures. Ignore our wailing if you wish, but in return, don't wail at socialists when they don't support your party in 2024.
edit - that said, I think the DSA might end up being harmed more by this vote than either mainsteream party
So, you think that'll get you a better result? Like all up, do you think the concrete outcome of that approach, in aggregate across a population, is going to work out better? I don't mean better in a vacuum, I mean better in the circumstances and infrastructure that currently exist.
Those numbers are obviously too reductive, since something like the NEA will probably be 75-25 for Dems while police unions at least the opposite. Even among the railway unions it's probably pretty variable. Like the engineers who average six figures are probably prototypical Republican voters demographically.
EDIT: Which means it'd be really interesting to see how they voted either way.
This is true, I'd love to see sectoral breakdowns, but I dunno if that data is available.
As part of an informal research project I was working on last summer with some other communists, I tried to find detailed data on unionization rates, and was surprised to find out how little data actually exists. Like, let's say you wanted to know how what percentage of a particular industry is unionized in your state. Too bad! The Bureau of Labor Statistics had no idea, the state Labor Departments have no idea, the info doesn't exist. And that's something I'd have thought would be pretty basic! I blame the US government for poor data collection.
In the meantime, there's a hundred other items of infinitely more value that could be examined. My personal favorite right now is why the fuck did Biden eagerly deal a blow to the Democratic party when the biggest opportunity for shifting the political leanings of blue collar workers landed right in his lap? Even as a despised neo-Liberal, he still has to recognize that he just threw away a huge opportunity for the party. This is exactly the sort of thing to cut through the noise of GOP propaganda getting blasted at blue collar workers and finally get them to realize the GOP exists to work directly against their interests.
Instead, Biden just threw them under the bus so they can continue going "welp, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans". And the DNC in general has utterly failed working people here, it's just disgusting what they've wasted in terms of both improving people's lives and gaining political capital. Real fucking sick of old selfish rich fuckers running this shit.
Because this not how it works and not how it has ever worked. The hardhats in American labor are not going to magically stop being socially conservative because of labor policy, and this has served to undercut labor's political power over the past several decades.
Both of the last presidential elections had reporting on a disconnect/struggles/etc between union leadership and the rank-and-file membership because the rank-and-file liked Trump. Or, at least, liked Trump much more.
this is why i pretty much have ignored all the wailing and teeth gnashing around the current topic. The RLA was always the backstop, and i don't believe that the folks complaining were "pro-democrat" in aggregate to begin with...
I was not pro-Democrat, but I still voted Democrat on a lesser evil basis, including in 2020 for Biden, and 2022 for Pingree in the House. Neither will receive my vote in 2024 due to this decision. Not solely due to this decision, but this is what pushed me over that line. And I've heard the same sentiment from others. Enough for the party to care about? Maybe not, I have no figures. Ignore our wailing if you wish, but in return, don't wail at socialists when they don't support your party in 2024.
edit - that said, I think the DSA might end up being harmed more by this vote than either mainsteream party
So, you think that'll get you a better result? Like all up, do you think the concrete outcome of that approach, in aggregate across a population, is going to work out better? I don't mean better in a vacuum, I mean better in the circumstances and infrastructure that currently exist.
In the long term, yes, I think socialists and communists breaking all ties with the Democrats and forming a socialist party based on organized workers is more likely to lead to a good outcome than continued involvement with the Democratic Party.
Doesn't mean I think a good outcome is likely. But since the current path leads to doom, I will accept a small chance of success over no chance.
In the meantime, there's a hundred other items of infinitely more value that could be examined. My personal favorite right now is why the fuck did Biden eagerly deal a blow to the Democratic party when the biggest opportunity for shifting the political leanings of blue collar workers landed right in his lap? Even as a despised neo-Liberal, he still has to recognize that he just threw away a huge opportunity for the party. This is exactly the sort of thing to cut through the noise of GOP propaganda getting blasted at blue collar workers and finally get them to realize the GOP exists to work directly against their interests.
Instead, Biden just threw them under the bus so they can continue going "welp, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans". And the DNC in general has utterly failed working people here, it's just disgusting what they've wasted in terms of both improving people's lives and gaining political capital. Real fucking sick of old selfish rich fuckers running this shit.
Because this not how it works and not how it has ever worked. The hardhats in American labor are not going to magically stop being socially conservative because of labor policy, and this has served to undercut labor's political power over the past several decades.
Both of the last presidential elections had reporting on a disconnect/struggles/etc between union leadership and the rank-and-file membership because the rank-and-file liked Trump. Or, at least, liked Trump much more.
They liked Trump more than the Democrat, you mean? Or are you just saying that the rank and file was less anti-Trump than the leadership? The latter is true, I'm sure.
This only lists "union household," not individual member. But by that metric:
Union households preferred Biden over Trump 56-40
Non-union households were basically evenly split, 50-49.
So, the idea that organized workers are conservatives and that the Democrats shouldn't care about their support (as jmc seemed to imply in his response to shrykes post) is false, they were noticeably more favorable to Democrats than people who aren't in unions. Losing support in this demographic could easily cost the party the election in 2024.
It's more important to look at these numbers relative to one another. Trump outperformed among union households in 2016. Best showing since the 80s or something. Less so in 2020. But it's also extremely variable by state. (eg - Ohio is a state where there seems to have been a huge swing in these numbers from 2012 to 2016 to 2020) And also between unions themselves in ways that will muddy the numbers. (eg - teachers vs construction workers for instance)
Unions themselves have been talking about this if you look for articles. They've worried about their internal polling for both Trump elections and working on trying to sway their members.
In the meantime, there's a hundred other items of infinitely more value that could be examined. My personal favorite right now is why the fuck did Biden eagerly deal a blow to the Democratic party when the biggest opportunity for shifting the political leanings of blue collar workers landed right in his lap? Even as a despised neo-Liberal, he still has to recognize that he just threw away a huge opportunity for the party. This is exactly the sort of thing to cut through the noise of GOP propaganda getting blasted at blue collar workers and finally get them to realize the GOP exists to work directly against their interests.
Instead, Biden just threw them under the bus so they can continue going "welp, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans". And the DNC in general has utterly failed working people here, it's just disgusting what they've wasted in terms of both improving people's lives and gaining political capital. Real fucking sick of old selfish rich fuckers running this shit.
Because this not how it works and not how it has ever worked. The hardhats in American labor are not going to magically stop being socially conservative because of labor policy, and this has served to undercut labor's political power over the past several decades.
Both of the last presidential elections had reporting on a disconnect/struggles/etc between union leadership and the rank-and-file membership because the rank-and-file liked Trump. Or, at least, liked Trump much more.
this is why i pretty much have ignored all the wailing and teeth gnashing around the current topic. The RLA was always the backstop, and i don't believe that the folks complaining were "pro-democrat" in aggregate to begin with...
I was not pro-Democrat, but I still voted Democrat on a lesser evil basis, including in 2020 for Biden, and 2022 for Pingree in the House. Neither will receive my vote in 2024 due to this decision. Not solely due to this decision, but this is what pushed me over that line. And I've heard the same sentiment from others. Enough for the party to care about? Maybe not, I have no figures. Ignore our wailing if you wish, but in return, don't wail at socialists when they don't support your party in 2024.
edit - that said, I think the DSA might end up being harmed more by this vote than either mainsteream party
So, you think that'll get you a better result? Like all up, do you think the concrete outcome of that approach, in aggregate across a population, is going to work out better? I don't mean better in a vacuum, I mean better in the circumstances and infrastructure that currently exist.
In the long term, yes, I think socialists and communists breaking all ties with the Democrats and forming a socialist party based on organized workers is more likely to lead to a good outcome than continued involvement with the Democratic Party.
Doesn't mean I think a good outcome is likely. But since the current path leads to doom, I will accept a small chance of success over no chance.
You have an unexpected definition of doom.
Also, I did say "under current existing circumstances and infrastructure", that being things like a calcified/settled FPTP electoral system, etc, etc. Not "someday, if these other things happen". I mean right now, like. 2 years, 5 years, 10 years; does this make it better now, not "hopefully someday".
Eh. Not overly topical I suppose, but not wildly off-topic enough to delete yet.
There are in fact other issues than labor, though. If I vote for Democrats maybe they win, and they aren't interested in making bills that send parents to prison for life for approving gender-affirming care or fire teachers for admitting gay people exist, while if I vote for a Socialist party they won't win and Republicans will do those things, so I'll vote for them even when they fail labor in pathetic ways.
So yeah, Democrats are stupid and immoral for screwing over labor and probably will lose votes and turnout as a result, and they're accountable for that.
But single-issue voters doing dumb shit don't get a pass on the consequences of their choices just because I agree with their issue.
Especially since the greatest strength of labor is non-electoral--what percent of workers do you really need on board with a general strike to bring Democrats to heel? 15%? A lot less than you need to replace them as the left-er party.
+2
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
In the meantime, there's a hundred other items of infinitely more value that could be examined. My personal favorite right now is why the fuck did Biden eagerly deal a blow to the Democratic party when the biggest opportunity for shifting the political leanings of blue collar workers landed right in his lap? Even as a despised neo-Liberal, he still has to recognize that he just threw away a huge opportunity for the party. This is exactly the sort of thing to cut through the noise of GOP propaganda getting blasted at blue collar workers and finally get them to realize the GOP exists to work directly against their interests.
Instead, Biden just threw them under the bus so they can continue going "welp, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans". And the DNC in general has utterly failed working people here, it's just disgusting what they've wasted in terms of both improving people's lives and gaining political capital. Real fucking sick of old selfish rich fuckers running this shit.
Because this not how it works and not how it has ever worked. The hardhats in American labor are not going to magically stop being socially conservative because of labor policy, and this has served to undercut labor's political power over the past several decades.
Both of the last presidential elections had reporting on a disconnect/struggles/etc between union leadership and the rank-and-file membership because the rank-and-file liked Trump. Or, at least, liked Trump much more.
this is why i pretty much have ignored all the wailing and teeth gnashing around the current topic. The RLA was always the backstop, and i don't believe that the folks complaining were "pro-democrat" in aggregate to begin with...
I was not pro-Democrat, but I still voted Democrat on a lesser evil basis, including in 2020 for Biden, and 2022 for Pingree in the House. Neither will receive my vote in 2024 due to this decision. Not solely due to this decision, but this is what pushed me over that line. And I've heard the same sentiment from others. Enough for the party to care about? Maybe not, I have no figures. Ignore our wailing if you wish, but in return, don't wail at socialists when they don't support your party in 2024.
edit - that said, I think the DSA might end up being harmed more by this vote than either mainsteream party
So, you think that'll get you a better result? Like all up, do you think the concrete outcome of that approach, in aggregate across a population, is going to work out better? I don't mean better in a vacuum, I mean better in the circumstances and infrastructure that currently exist.
In the long term, yes, I think socialists and communists breaking all ties with the Democrats and forming a socialist party based on organized workers is more likely to lead to a good outcome than continued involvement with the Democratic Party.
Doesn't mean I think a good outcome is likely. But since the current path leads to doom, I will accept a small chance of success over no chance.
There won't be a long term if Republicans manage unified government even once. That is doom. That is a democracy ending crisis, and probably contributes to an extinction level crisis as well. We will end up in Gilead, the right to vote will be abolished, undesirables will face purges, and a bunch of moronic fascists will ineptly run the government while undermining any chance of averting climate change.
We simply do not have time for realignment.
Push one of the existing parties more towards your political philosophy, push for ranked choice voting (slowly gaining acceptance) to allow third parties a chance in our political system, push for expanded access at the polls to expand the franchise, but in the end withholding your vote directly leads to ending your ability to vote forever and enables permanent Republican rule.
Like I said upthread, it's possible neither Democrats or Republicans are good enough for labor in this country. But, if all things are functionally equal in this regard, there's still a million other things to judge the two parties against, and one is the clear winner. It's unfortunate we don't get to live in a country with a strong labor movement or labor protections, but unless you're willing to act outside the election system, this is the best we can do right now.
It's possible this is leading to the incrementalism vs accelerationism discussion we've had a million times before, as well as the "voting for the least bad option is the most responsible" vs. "I want to vote for something and parties need to earn my vote" discussion, so I'm going to stop here.
E: It's possible you don't view Republicans as one single victory away from ending the country, so that might be the point of contention?
In the meantime, there's a hundred other items of infinitely more value that could be examined. My personal favorite right now is why the fuck did Biden eagerly deal a blow to the Democratic party when the biggest opportunity for shifting the political leanings of blue collar workers landed right in his lap? Even as a despised neo-Liberal, he still has to recognize that he just threw away a huge opportunity for the party. This is exactly the sort of thing to cut through the noise of GOP propaganda getting blasted at blue collar workers and finally get them to realize the GOP exists to work directly against their interests.
Instead, Biden just threw them under the bus so they can continue going "welp, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans". And the DNC in general has utterly failed working people here, it's just disgusting what they've wasted in terms of both improving people's lives and gaining political capital. Real fucking sick of old selfish rich fuckers running this shit.
Because this not how it works and not how it has ever worked. The hardhats in American labor are not going to magically stop being socially conservative because of labor policy, and this has served to undercut labor's political power over the past several decades.
Both of the last presidential elections had reporting on a disconnect/struggles/etc between union leadership and the rank-and-file membership because the rank-and-file liked Trump. Or, at least, liked Trump much more.
this is why i pretty much have ignored all the wailing and teeth gnashing around the current topic. The RLA was always the backstop, and i don't believe that the folks complaining were "pro-democrat" in aggregate to begin with...
I was not pro-Democrat, but I still voted Democrat on a lesser evil basis, including in 2020 for Biden, and 2022 for Pingree in the House. Neither will receive my vote in 2024 due to this decision. Not solely due to this decision, but this is what pushed me over that line. And I've heard the same sentiment from others. Enough for the party to care about? Maybe not, I have no figures. Ignore our wailing if you wish, but in return, don't wail at socialists when they don't support your party in 2024.
edit - that said, I think the DSA might end up being harmed more by this vote than either mainsteream party
So, you think that'll get you a better result? Like all up, do you think the concrete outcome of that approach, in aggregate across a population, is going to work out better? I don't mean better in a vacuum, I mean better in the circumstances and infrastructure that currently exist.
In the long term, yes, I think socialists and communists breaking all ties with the Democrats and forming a socialist party based on organized workers is more likely to lead to a good outcome than continued involvement with the Democratic Party.
Doesn't mean I think a good outcome is likely. But since the current path leads to doom, I will accept a small chance of success over no chance.
There won't be a long term if Republicans manage unified government even once.That is doom. That is a democracy ending crisis, and probably contributes to an extinction level crisis as well. We will end up in Gilead, the right to vote will be abolished, undesirables will face purges, and a bunch of moronic fascists will ineptly run the government while undermining any chance of averting climate change.
We simply do not have time for realignment.
Push one of the existing parties more towards your political philosophy, push for ranked choice voting (slowly gaining acceptance) to allow third parties a chance in our political system, push for expanded access at the polls to expand the franchise, but in the end withholding your vote directly leads to ending your ability to vote forever and enables permanent Republican rule.
Like I said upthread, it's possible neither Democrats or Republicans are good enough for labor in this country. But, if all things are functionally equal in this regard, there's still a million other things to judge the two parties against, and one is the clear winner. It's unfortunate we don't get to live in a country with a strong labor movement or labor protections, but unless you're willing to act outside the election system, this is the best we can do right now.
It's possible this is leading to the incrementalism vs accelerationism discussion we've had a million times before, as well as the "voting for the least bad option is the most responsible" vs. "I want to vote for something and parties need to earn my vote" discussion, so I'm going to stop here.
E: It's possible you don't view Republicans as one single victory away from ending the country, so that might be the point of contention?
We've had more unified Republican governments this century than unified Democratic governments.
Also "the republicans are one single victory away from ending the country" isn't a thing you can keep saying every election while also advocating to maintain the system in question. Either the system needs a massive overhaul since it's on the verge of collapse or you're fear mongering for political gain.
In the meantime, there's a hundred other items of infinitely more value that could be examined. My personal favorite right now is why the fuck did Biden eagerly deal a blow to the Democratic party when the biggest opportunity for shifting the political leanings of blue collar workers landed right in his lap? Even as a despised neo-Liberal, he still has to recognize that he just threw away a huge opportunity for the party. This is exactly the sort of thing to cut through the noise of GOP propaganda getting blasted at blue collar workers and finally get them to realize the GOP exists to work directly against their interests.
Instead, Biden just threw them under the bus so they can continue going "welp, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans". And the DNC in general has utterly failed working people here, it's just disgusting what they've wasted in terms of both improving people's lives and gaining political capital. Real fucking sick of old selfish rich fuckers running this shit.
Because this not how it works and not how it has ever worked. The hardhats in American labor are not going to magically stop being socially conservative because of labor policy, and this has served to undercut labor's political power over the past several decades.
Both of the last presidential elections had reporting on a disconnect/struggles/etc between union leadership and the rank-and-file membership because the rank-and-file liked Trump. Or, at least, liked Trump much more.
this is why i pretty much have ignored all the wailing and teeth gnashing around the current topic. The RLA was always the backstop, and i don't believe that the folks complaining were "pro-democrat" in aggregate to begin with...
I was not pro-Democrat, but I still voted Democrat on a lesser evil basis, including in 2020 for Biden, and 2022 for Pingree in the House. Neither will receive my vote in 2024 due to this decision. Not solely due to this decision, but this is what pushed me over that line. And I've heard the same sentiment from others. Enough for the party to care about? Maybe not, I have no figures. Ignore our wailing if you wish, but in return, don't wail at socialists when they don't support your party in 2024.
edit - that said, I think the DSA might end up being harmed more by this vote than either mainsteream party
So, you think that'll get you a better result? Like all up, do you think the concrete outcome of that approach, in aggregate across a population, is going to work out better? I don't mean better in a vacuum, I mean better in the circumstances and infrastructure that currently exist.
In the long term, yes, I think socialists and communists breaking all ties with the Democrats and forming a socialist party based on organized workers is more likely to lead to a good outcome than continued involvement with the Democratic Party.
Doesn't mean I think a good outcome is likely. But since the current path leads to doom, I will accept a small chance of success over no chance.
There won't be a long term if Republicans manage unified government even once.That is doom. That is a democracy ending crisis, and probably contributes to an extinction level crisis as well. We will end up in Gilead, the right to vote will be abolished, undesirables will face purges, and a bunch of moronic fascists will ineptly run the government while undermining any chance of averting climate change.
We simply do not have time for realignment.
Push one of the existing parties more towards your political philosophy, push for ranked choice voting (slowly gaining acceptance) to allow third parties a chance in our political system, push for expanded access at the polls to expand the franchise, but in the end withholding your vote directly leads to ending your ability to vote forever and enables permanent Republican rule.
Like I said upthread, it's possible neither Democrats or Republicans are good enough for labor in this country. But, if all things are functionally equal in this regard, there's still a million other things to judge the two parties against, and one is the clear winner. It's unfortunate we don't get to live in a country with a strong labor movement or labor protections, but unless you're willing to act outside the election system, this is the best we can do right now.
It's possible this is leading to the incrementalism vs accelerationism discussion we've had a million times before, as well as the "voting for the least bad option is the most responsible" vs. "I want to vote for something and parties need to earn my vote" discussion, so I'm going to stop here.
E: It's possible you don't view Republicans as one single victory away from ending the country, so that might be the point of contention?
We've had more unified Republican governments this century than unified Democratic governments.
Also "the republicans are one single victory away from ending the country" isn't a thing you can keep saying every election while also advocating to maintain the system in question. Either the system needs a massive overhaul since it's on the verge of collapse or you're fear mongering for political gain.
Republicans hadn't committed armed insurrection to capture and execute members of Congress when they had unified government previously. Things have decayed massively since Bush v. Gore.
E: Which is not to say the system doesn't need a massive overhaul. But it is on the verge of collapse, and withholding support will lead to its collapse.
silence1186 on
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I mean... the last Republican president tried to pull a coup, and the only reason it failed is because of the half-assed level of planning that went into it. I'm not saying it'd be game over, but I'm definitely not going to declare that it wouldn't be game over.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I mean... the last Republican president tried to pull a coup, and the only reason it failed is because of the half-assed level of planning that went into it. I'm not saying it'd be game over, but I'm definitely not going to declare that it wouldn't be game over.
It failed by a hair's breadth. There was one guard who managed to distract and lead the mob away from an unsecured chamber full of Congress critters. It could have been a bloodbath.
+8
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Until America has ranked choice voting, it’s kind of an insurmountable issue. Unfortunately both parties know ranked choice voting would weaken their strangleholds on major offices, so neither one will let it happen. Kind of a catch-22 arrangement.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
+5
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
I mean... the last Republican president tried to pull a coup, and the only reason it failed is because of the half-assed level of planning that went into it. I'm not saying it'd be game over, but I'm definitely not going to declare that it wouldn't be game over.
It failed by a hair's breadth. There was one guard who managed to distract and lead the mob away from an unsecured chamber full of Congress critters. It could have been a bloodbath.
That'd be the half-assed planning.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
I mean... the last Republican president tried to pull a coup, and the only reason it failed is because of the half-assed level of planning that went into it. I'm not saying it'd be game over, but I'm definitely not going to declare that it wouldn't be game over.
It failed by a hair's breadth. There was one guard who managed to distract and lead the mob away from an unsecured chamber full of Congress critters. It could have been a bloodbath.
Also, a lot of the fight seemed to drain out of the traitors after security were forced to use their firearms.
I mean... the last Republican president tried to pull a coup, and the only reason it failed is because of the half-assed level of planning that went into it. I'm not saying it'd be game over, but I'm definitely not going to declare that it wouldn't be game over.
It failed by a hair's breadth. There was one guard who managed to distract and lead the mob away from an unsecured chamber full of Congress critters. It could have been a bloodbath.
It failed because there was no real plan. Even in that worst case scenario it wouldn’t change any of the processes of government. It's not like it would have been necessary for Trump to follow the usual coup playbook if he was capable of doing so and anyone would have followed him.
And a Repuican government is inevitable, sooner or later. Is there some plan for having it be not apocalyptic as you suggest if you hold it off for another couple terms?
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
There's a legal incentive not to (provably) whole-ass an insurrection which involves potassium chloride, so we may not have just "gotten lucky this time." Line-blurring mindless chaos might be the new norm of the era where mass clandestine organizations can't resist publicizing on social media
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
I mean... the last Republican president tried to pull a coup, and the only reason it failed is because of the half-assed level of planning that went into it. I'm not saying it'd be game over, but I'm definitely not going to declare that it wouldn't be game over.
It failed by a hair's breadth. There was one guard who managed to distract and lead the mob away from an unsecured chamber full of Congress critters. It could have been a bloodbath.
It failed because there was no real plan. Even in that worst case scenario it wouldn’t change any of the processes of government. It's not like it would have been necessary for Trump to follow the usual coup playbook if he was capable of doing so and anyone would have followed him.
And a Repuican government is inevitable, sooner or later. Is there some plan for having it be not apocalyptic as you suggest if you hold it off for another couple terms?
For one thing, eventually Trump won't be capable of running for office anymore, which should hopefully undercut the rising fascist movement. Ideally demographic shifts happen and a more diverse and tolerant younger generation takes over, but that seems overly hopeful.
That said, if someone takes up the mantle and fascism continues, the options are roll over and die, or struggle to the end. I don't know the specific answer here.
I mean... the last Republican president tried to pull a coup, and the only reason it failed is because of the half-assed level of planning that went into it. I'm not saying it'd be game over, but I'm definitely not going to declare that it wouldn't be game over.
Bush successfully pulled off a coup with the help of the Supreme Court and then started several illegal wars, so I guess the Republicans have gotten less competent since then.
So even if I agreed with everyone here, what happens when the government shoves this down rail workers throats, and it is still a shitty job that exhausts and burns people out, so they start looking for new jobs, retire as soon as possible, or bail as soon as they get that bonus check? We likely won't have people to replace anyone who leaves because this is no longer seen as the glamours good job it once was (as someone who lives in an area with a lot of rail workers)
So even if I agreed with everyone here, what happens when the government shoves this down rail workers throats, and it is still a shitty job that exhausts and burns people out, so they start looking for new jobs, retire as soon as possible, or bail as soon as they get that bonus check? We likely won't have people to replace anyone who leaves because this is no longer seen as the glamours good job it once was (as someone who lives in an area with a lot of rail workers)
Railroad owners get more money so everything is a win. Profits of the owners over the short term are the only thing that matters. You are worried about later and that is someone elses problem.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
I mean... the last Republican president tried to pull a coup, and the only reason it failed is because of the half-assed level of planning that went into it. I'm not saying it'd be game over, but I'm definitely not going to declare that it wouldn't be game over.
Bush successfully pulled off a coup with the help of the Supreme Court and then started several illegal wars, so I guess the Republicans have gotten less competent since then.
Nixon did a literal treason to get elected. Reagan then went and pulled the same move. I think George HW did something similar but it was a little less cut and dry.
This new stuff is showy watered down bullshit.
I mean... the last Republican president tried to pull a coup, and the only reason it failed is because of the half-assed level of planning that went into it. I'm not saying it'd be game over, but I'm definitely not going to declare that it wouldn't be game over.
Bush successfully pulled off a coup with the help of the Supreme Court and then started several illegal wars, so I guess the Republicans have gotten less competent since then.
Nixon did a literal treason to get elected. Reagan then went and pulled the same move. I think George HW did something similar but it was a little less cut and dry.
This new stuff is showy watered down bullshit.
I mean... the last Republican president tried to pull a coup, and the only reason it failed is because of the half-assed level of planning that went into it. I'm not saying it'd be game over, but I'm definitely not going to declare that it wouldn't be game over.
Bush successfully pulled off a coup with the help of the Supreme Court and then started several illegal wars, so I guess the Republicans have gotten less competent since then.
Nixon did a literal treason to get elected. Reagan then went and pulled the same move. I think George HW did something similar but it was a little less cut and dry.
This new stuff is showy watered down bullshit.
HW's big corruption in / getting into office was pardoning the Iran Contra felons.
Which was dirty as shit! Not as bad as Nixon or Reagan's literal treason though.
It probably was comparable in corruption to Trump's pardons of Stone, Bannon, and Manafort which for the Trump and his administration's level of corruption was just another Tuesday.
So even if I agreed with everyone here, what happens when the government shoves this down rail workers throats, and it is still a shitty job that exhausts and burns people out, so they start looking for new jobs, retire as soon as possible, or bail as soon as they get that bonus check? We likely won't have people to replace anyone who leaves because this is no longer seen as the glamours good job it once was (as someone who lives in an area with a lot of rail workers)
The old-timers can't quit because if they resign they lose their pensions.
But once they hit retirement they are done, and ain't gonna be enough people lining up to fill the gaps under these working conditions.
So even if I agreed with everyone here, what happens when the government shoves this down rail workers throats, and it is still a shitty job that exhausts and burns people out, so they start looking for new jobs, retire as soon as possible, or bail as soon as they get that bonus check? We likely won't have people to replace anyone who leaves because this is no longer seen as the glamours good job it once was (as someone who lives in an area with a lot of rail workers)
The old-timers can't quit because if they resign they lose their pensions.
But once they hit retirement they are done, and ain't gonna be enough people lining up to fill the gaps under these working conditions.
I thought if you resign you just lose any future gains on your pension. Vestments into the pension are usually on a schedule so they would only get 80% of their payout instead of 100%
So even if I agreed with everyone here, what happens when the government shoves this down rail workers throats, and it is still a shitty job that exhausts and burns people out, so they start looking for new jobs, retire as soon as possible, or bail as soon as they get that bonus check? We likely won't have people to replace anyone who leaves because this is no longer seen as the glamours good job it once was (as someone who lives in an area with a lot of rail workers)
The old-timers can't quit because if they resign they lose their pensions.
But once they hit retirement they are done, and ain't gonna be enough people lining up to fill the gaps under these working conditions.
I thought if you resign you just lose any future gains on your pension. Vestments into the pension are usually on a schedule so they would only get 80% of their payout instead of 100%
That would be the case for most pensions, but I wouldn’t be shocked to find out the rail companies had another creative way to fuck over their employees.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
I went to check and see if there were any news articles about potential wildcat railroad strikes, and to my surprise, there's a lot of articles about how a couple of investment firms are trying to get more vacation days on the ballot for this year's shareholder meeting. Which, I don't know if it's a publicity stunt or in good faith, but you know you done fucked up when the rich are on the side of your workforce.
0
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I went to check and see if there were any news articles about potential wildcat railroad strikes, and to my surprise, there's a lot of articles about how a couple of investment firms are trying to get more vacation days on the ballot for this year's shareholder meeting. Which, I don't know if it's a publicity stunt or in good faith, but you know you done fucked up when the rich are on the side of your workforce.
Weird. I wonder if it's tied to the unsustainable workforce problem described above
I went to check and see if there were any news articles about potential wildcat railroad strikes, and to my surprise, there's a lot of articles about how a couple of investment firms are trying to get more vacation days on the ballot for this year's shareholder meeting. Which, I don't know if it's a publicity stunt or in good faith, but you know you done fucked up when the rich are on the side of your workforce.
Weird. I wonder if it's tied to the unsustainable workforce problem described above
Yeah, I can't tell if that's irony.
There is a lot of room for long term large investors to want a more stable company to invest in, without it particularly caring at all about the lives of workers.
They're probably invested in all sorts of industry, and if they don't run too many hedge funds, a non-fucked larger economy is probably in their interest.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
+1
Options
Powerpuppiesdrinking coffee in themountain cabinRegistered Userregular
I went to check and see if there were any news articles about potential wildcat railroad strikes, and to my surprise, there's a lot of articles about how a couple of investment firms are trying to get more vacation days on the ballot for this year's shareholder meeting. Which, I don't know if it's a publicity stunt or in good faith, but you know you done fucked up when the rich are on the side of your workforce.
Weird. I wonder if it's tied to the unsustainable workforce problem described above
Yeah, I can't tell if that's irony.
There is a lot of room for long term large investors to want a more stable company to invest in, without it particularly caring at all about the lives of workers.
They're probably invested in all sorts of industry, and if they don't run too many hedge funds, a non-fucked larger economy is probably in their interest.
I'm genuinely surprised investment firms are trying to get more vacation days for workers, even unpaid ones. Like you, i thought it was unlikely they were acting generously. I can't think of many explanations for why they might do it but "exploiting the workers in this way will hurt the railroad companies longterm so let's not do it" is at least plausible
So even if I agreed with everyone here, what happens when the government shoves this down rail workers throats, and it is still a shitty job that exhausts and burns people out, so they start looking for new jobs, retire as soon as possible, or bail as soon as they get that bonus check? We likely won't have people to replace anyone who leaves because this is no longer seen as the glamours good job it once was (as someone who lives in an area with a lot of rail workers)
The old-timers can't quit because if they resign they lose their pensions.
But once they hit retirement they are done, and ain't gonna be enough people lining up to fill the gaps under these working conditions.
I thought if you resign you just lose any future gains on your pension. Vestments into the pension are usually on a schedule so they would only get 80% of their payout instead of 100%
That would be the case for most pensions, but I wouldn’t be shocked to find out the rail companies had another creative way to fuck over their employees.
Correct.
From the US Railroad Retirement Board website:
Voluntary Quit Without Good Cause - If you leave either your railroad job or nonrailroad work voluntarily and the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) determines you left without good cause, you will be disqualified for railroad unemployment benefits until you return to railroad work and earn wages sufficient to qualify for benefits again.
So even if I agreed with everyone here, what happens when the government shoves this down rail workers throats, and it is still a shitty job that exhausts and burns people out, so they start looking for new jobs, retire as soon as possible, or bail as soon as they get that bonus check? We likely won't have people to replace anyone who leaves because this is no longer seen as the glamours good job it once was (as someone who lives in an area with a lot of rail workers)
The old-timers can't quit because if they resign they lose their pensions.
But once they hit retirement they are done, and ain't gonna be enough people lining up to fill the gaps under these working conditions.
I thought if you resign you just lose any future gains on your pension. Vestments into the pension are usually on a schedule so they would only get 80% of their payout instead of 100%
That would be the case for most pensions, but I wouldn’t be shocked to find out the rail companies had another creative way to fuck over their employees.
Correct.
From the US Railroad Retirement Board website:
Voluntary Quit Without Good Cause - If you leave either your railroad job or nonrailroad work voluntarily and the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) determines you left without good cause, you will be disqualified for railroad unemployment benefits until you return to railroad work and earn wages sufficient to qualify for benefits again.
Pretty sure that's unemployment, like you've been layed off, insurance, not pension.
They have unemployment and retirement listed as different benefits. It's normal not to get unemployment when you quit a job.
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
+10
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
I went to check and see if there were any news articles about potential wildcat railroad strikes, and to my surprise, there's a lot of articles about how a couple of investment firms are trying to get more vacation days on the ballot for this year's shareholder meeting. Which, I don't know if it's a publicity stunt or in good faith, but you know you done fucked up when the rich are on the side of your workforce.
Weird. I wonder if it's tied to the unsustainable workforce problem described above
Yeah, I can't tell if that's irony.
There is a lot of room for long term large investors to want a more stable company to invest in, without it particularly caring at all about the lives of workers.
They're probably invested in all sorts of industry, and if they don't run too many hedge funds, a non-fucked larger economy is probably in their interest.
I'm genuinely surprised investment firms are trying to get more vacation days for workers, even unpaid ones. Like you, i thought it was unlikely they were acting generously. I can't think of many explanations for why they might do it but "exploiting the workers in this way will hurt the railroad companies longterm so let's not do it" is at least plausible
There’s a lot of research that shows productivity increases with days off (go figure people aren’t as burned out). And there is a diminishing return associated with working long hours week after week.
So even if I agreed with everyone here, what happens when the government shoves this down rail workers throats, and it is still a shitty job that exhausts and burns people out, so they start looking for new jobs, retire as soon as possible, or bail as soon as they get that bonus check? We likely won't have people to replace anyone who leaves because this is no longer seen as the glamours good job it once was (as someone who lives in an area with a lot of rail workers)
The old-timers can't quit because if they resign they lose their pensions.
But once they hit retirement they are done, and ain't gonna be enough people lining up to fill the gaps under these working conditions.
I thought if you resign you just lose any future gains on your pension. Vestments into the pension are usually on a schedule so they would only get 80% of their payout instead of 100%
That would be the case for most pensions, but I wouldn’t be shocked to find out the rail companies had another creative way to fuck over their employees.
Correct.
From the US Railroad Retirement Board website:
Voluntary Quit Without Good Cause - If you leave either your railroad job or nonrailroad work voluntarily and the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) determines you left without good cause, you will be disqualified for railroad unemployment benefits until you return to railroad work and earn wages sufficient to qualify for benefits again.
Pretty sure that's unemployment, like you've been layed off, insurance, not pension.
They have unemployment and retirement listed as different benefits. It's normal not to get unemployment when you quit a job.
I was trying to find a primary source on it and might have been misserved from my Googling, but I definitely read about retirement pensions being able to be revoked if they resign in protest in an article somewhere...
So even if I agreed with everyone here, what happens when the government shoves this down rail workers throats, and it is still a shitty job that exhausts and burns people out, so they start looking for new jobs, retire as soon as possible, or bail as soon as they get that bonus check? We likely won't have people to replace anyone who leaves because this is no longer seen as the glamours good job it once was (as someone who lives in an area with a lot of rail workers)
The old-timers can't quit because if they resign they lose their pensions.
But once they hit retirement they are done, and ain't gonna be enough people lining up to fill the gaps under these working conditions.
I thought if you resign you just lose any future gains on your pension. Vestments into the pension are usually on a schedule so they would only get 80% of their payout instead of 100%
That would be the case for most pensions, but I wouldn’t be shocked to find out the rail companies had another creative way to fuck over their employees.
Correct.
From the US Railroad Retirement Board website:
Voluntary Quit Without Good Cause - If you leave either your railroad job or nonrailroad work voluntarily and the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) determines you left without good cause, you will be disqualified for railroad unemployment benefits until you return to railroad work and earn wages sufficient to qualify for benefits again.
Pretty sure that's unemployment, like you've been layed off, insurance, not pension.
They have unemployment and retirement listed as different benefits. It's normal not to get unemployment when you quit a job.
I was trying to find a primary source on it and might have been misserved from my Googling, but I definitely read about retirement pensions being able to be revoked if they resign in protest in an article somewhere...
You are definitely misreading basic unemployment against pension and retirement stuff here.
+2
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
Reminder:
The NYT union workers walk out strike started half an hour ago and they have asked for solidarity by staying off NYT websites for the day. This also means no recipes, no Wordle, no Wirecutter.
Don't cross the digital picket line, folks.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
+30
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Roughly looks like they count the number of months that you worked for a railroad, then do math with your age and salary to give you the monthly benefit number. I didn't scope the details too much, but it seems more like an upgraded Social Security level of benefits, with early retirement seemingly being available at age 60 or so. No idea if you could quit at 50, futz around and then apply for retirement benefits once you hit 60.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Posts
So, you think that'll get you a better result? Like all up, do you think the concrete outcome of that approach, in aggregate across a population, is going to work out better? I don't mean better in a vacuum, I mean better in the circumstances and infrastructure that currently exist.
As part of an informal research project I was working on last summer with some other communists, I tried to find detailed data on unionization rates, and was surprised to find out how little data actually exists. Like, let's say you wanted to know how what percentage of a particular industry is unionized in your state. Too bad! The Bureau of Labor Statistics had no idea, the state Labor Departments have no idea, the info doesn't exist. And that's something I'd have thought would be pretty basic! I blame the US government for poor data collection.
Doesn't mean I think a good outcome is likely. But since the current path leads to doom, I will accept a small chance of success over no chance.
It's more important to look at these numbers relative to one another. Trump outperformed among union households in 2016. Best showing since the 80s or something. Less so in 2020. But it's also extremely variable by state. (eg - Ohio is a state where there seems to have been a huge swing in these numbers from 2012 to 2016 to 2020) And also between unions themselves in ways that will muddy the numbers. (eg - teachers vs construction workers for instance)
Unions themselves have been talking about this if you look for articles. They've worried about their internal polling for both Trump elections and working on trying to sway their members.
You have an unexpected definition of doom.
Also, I did say "under current existing circumstances and infrastructure", that being things like a calcified/settled FPTP electoral system, etc, etc. Not "someday, if these other things happen". I mean right now, like. 2 years, 5 years, 10 years; does this make it better now, not "hopefully someday".
Eh. Not overly topical I suppose, but not wildly off-topic enough to delete yet.
So yeah, Democrats are stupid and immoral for screwing over labor and probably will lose votes and turnout as a result, and they're accountable for that.
But single-issue voters doing dumb shit don't get a pass on the consequences of their choices just because I agree with their issue.
Especially since the greatest strength of labor is non-electoral--what percent of workers do you really need on board with a general strike to bring Democrats to heel? 15%? A lot less than you need to replace them as the left-er party.
There won't be a long term if Republicans manage unified government even once. That is doom. That is a democracy ending crisis, and probably contributes to an extinction level crisis as well. We will end up in Gilead, the right to vote will be abolished, undesirables will face purges, and a bunch of moronic fascists will ineptly run the government while undermining any chance of averting climate change.
We simply do not have time for realignment.
Push one of the existing parties more towards your political philosophy, push for ranked choice voting (slowly gaining acceptance) to allow third parties a chance in our political system, push for expanded access at the polls to expand the franchise, but in the end withholding your vote directly leads to ending your ability to vote forever and enables permanent Republican rule.
Like I said upthread, it's possible neither Democrats or Republicans are good enough for labor in this country. But, if all things are functionally equal in this regard, there's still a million other things to judge the two parties against, and one is the clear winner. It's unfortunate we don't get to live in a country with a strong labor movement or labor protections, but unless you're willing to act outside the election system, this is the best we can do right now.
It's possible this is leading to the incrementalism vs accelerationism discussion we've had a million times before, as well as the "voting for the least bad option is the most responsible" vs. "I want to vote for something and parties need to earn my vote" discussion, so I'm going to stop here.
E: It's possible you don't view Republicans as one single victory away from ending the country, so that might be the point of contention?
We've had more unified Republican governments this century than unified Democratic governments.
Also "the republicans are one single victory away from ending the country" isn't a thing you can keep saying every election while also advocating to maintain the system in question. Either the system needs a massive overhaul since it's on the verge of collapse or you're fear mongering for political gain.
Republicans hadn't committed armed insurrection to capture and execute members of Congress when they had unified government previously. Things have decayed massively since Bush v. Gore.
E: Which is not to say the system doesn't need a massive overhaul. But it is on the verge of collapse, and withholding support will lead to its collapse.
If you cant win there, its a guarantee that the general election is out of reach, but it does encourage shifting the overton window.
MWO: Adamski
It failed by a hair's breadth. There was one guard who managed to distract and lead the mob away from an unsecured chamber full of Congress critters. It could have been a bloodbath.
That'd be the half-assed planning.
Also, a lot of the fight seemed to drain out of the traitors after security were forced to use their firearms.
It failed because there was no real plan. Even in that worst case scenario it wouldn’t change any of the processes of government. It's not like it would have been necessary for Trump to follow the usual coup playbook if he was capable of doing so and anyone would have followed him.
And a Repuican government is inevitable, sooner or later. Is there some plan for having it be not apocalyptic as you suggest if you hold it off for another couple terms?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
For one thing, eventually Trump won't be capable of running for office anymore, which should hopefully undercut the rising fascist movement. Ideally demographic shifts happen and a more diverse and tolerant younger generation takes over, but that seems overly hopeful.
That said, if someone takes up the mantle and fascism continues, the options are roll over and die, or struggle to the end. I don't know the specific answer here.
Bush successfully pulled off a coup with the help of the Supreme Court and then started several illegal wars, so I guess the Republicans have gotten less competent since then.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
Railroad owners get more money so everything is a win. Profits of the owners over the short term are the only thing that matters. You are worried about later and that is someone elses problem.
Nixon did a literal treason to get elected. Reagan then went and pulled the same move. I think George HW did something similar but it was a little less cut and dry.
This new stuff is showy watered down bullshit.
Less filling, same great corruption?
HW's big corruption in / getting into office was pardoning the Iran Contra felons.
Which was dirty as shit! Not as bad as Nixon or Reagan's literal treason though.
It probably was comparable in corruption to Trump's pardons of Stone, Bannon, and Manafort which for the Trump and his administration's level of corruption was just another Tuesday.
The old-timers can't quit because if they resign they lose their pensions.
But once they hit retirement they are done, and ain't gonna be enough people lining up to fill the gaps under these working conditions.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I thought if you resign you just lose any future gains on your pension. Vestments into the pension are usually on a schedule so they would only get 80% of their payout instead of 100%
That would be the case for most pensions, but I wouldn’t be shocked to find out the rail companies had another creative way to fuck over their employees.
Weird. I wonder if it's tied to the unsustainable workforce problem described above
Yeah, I can't tell if that's irony.
There is a lot of room for long term large investors to want a more stable company to invest in, without it particularly caring at all about the lives of workers.
They're probably invested in all sorts of industry, and if they don't run too many hedge funds, a non-fucked larger economy is probably in their interest.
I'm genuinely surprised investment firms are trying to get more vacation days for workers, even unpaid ones. Like you, i thought it was unlikely they were acting generously. I can't think of many explanations for why they might do it but "exploiting the workers in this way will hurt the railroad companies longterm so let's not do it" is at least plausible
Correct.
From the US Railroad Retirement Board website:
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Pretty sure that's unemployment, like you've been layed off, insurance, not pension.
They have unemployment and retirement listed as different benefits. It's normal not to get unemployment when you quit a job.
I was trying to find a primary source on it and might have been misserved from my Googling, but I definitely read about retirement pensions being able to be revoked if they resign in protest in an article somewhere...
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
You are definitely misreading basic unemployment against pension and retirement stuff here.
The NYT union workers walk out strike started half an hour ago and they have asked for solidarity by staying off NYT websites for the day. This also means no recipes, no Wordle, no Wirecutter.
Don't cross the digital picket line, folks.
Roughly looks like they count the number of months that you worked for a railroad, then do math with your age and salary to give you the monthly benefit number. I didn't scope the details too much, but it seems more like an upgraded Social Security level of benefits, with early retirement seemingly being available at age 60 or so. No idea if you could quit at 50, futz around and then apply for retirement benefits once you hit 60.