politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It's simple, really. You can't get an economic downturn without human misery. And the big money people can't consolidate their holdings and acquire profitable companies at bargain basement prices if the economy is doing well. They don't want some messy financial crisis or pandemic creating unexpected problems. They want a predictable downturn that only affects the poors and a few unlucky upper middle class types. Then they can keep the funding they want and have a large and desperate labor pool to staff their newly acquired holdings. Win-win, at least for the people that matter.
You know. Not us
~~It's not that "both sides are the same". It's just that enough on all sides are bought and paid for that it doesn't matter if a few actually are trying to do good. Personally I don't see a reality where Schumer is not bought and paid for. And any efforts to circumvent the powers that be will be a nonstarter while the compromised ones hold power~~
Edit: While the last part is still something I believe, I posted this late at night and started rambling. It's not relevant to the OP and can be picked up in a more appropriate conversation another time
So Schumer trying to end the shutdown without sacrificing affordable healthcare is him being "bought and paid for" how exactly?
Oh. Yeah. I really shouldn't post late at night after drinking. Although I was surprisingly coherent despite my brain not fully working.
Schumer's efforts during the shutdown aren't really connected to the last paragraph. I was rambling and the two thoughts aren't connected. Philosophically I have strong doubts that anyone in his position wouldn't be swayed by special interest money, but that is a conversation for a different place. I'll edit my original post when I'm a little more awake