This is a subverse designed to encourage adult discussion spanning the entirety of the political spectrum. All are welcome, from Libertarians to Authoritarians, Democrats to Republicans, An Caps to Anarchists, Socialists to Fascists to Communists, Green, Blue, Black, White, Purple with Yellow Polka dots, whatever color, persuasion, or affiliation, this is a place for you to post your thoughts, articles, and engage in discussion meant to foster understanding.
Politics is best when we try to avoid personal attacks, limits on discussion, censorship, trolling, shilling, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, or any other forms of bigotry and malfeasance.
Election 2020 Politics Sticky
Politics 2017 Christmas Theme sticky
Nov 2016 sticky on new CSS
This subverse belongs to the community of users. Users are invited to post meta-threads about v/politics and I will gladly sticky them. @flyawayhigh
Use the "Report Spam" link to report spam and someone will review the report. J-mods have the ability to remove duplicate noncommercial spam.
v/politics is for all politics.
v/uspolitics is for US politics only.
v/worldpolitics is for international or non-US politics.
v/politicalnews is dedicated to virtually censor-free politics and news
v/news is for news around the world.
v/usnews is for domestic news only.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] flyawayhigh 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
All those mental gymnastics involving hypotheses and ideology -- but somehow,
the main point, labeled "most critically," was completely missed. :D
[–] reddfugee43 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Probably because it is a post hoc rationalization. Bernie is not taking the initiative. If $15/hr is the objective, morally right value to be placed on labor then do it. Coming up with excuses like "well, his proposed plan calls for it to be implemented at a certain time, under certain conditions.... he's having a really tough time with finances... etc. etc.." an advocate can always find a rationalization, its what the human brain excels at, and some argue developed explicitly to do (read Jonathan Haidt for some good research on this).
At any rate I'm not interested in advocacy for any candidate, I'm interested in signaling for future actions.
[–] flyawayhigh 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
So, let's take a look at your logic, Mr.Post Hoc Rationalization. :D
Bernie should be held to a special legal standard but others should not be held to it. The rules don't apply to everybody -- only to Bernie -- conveniently to the disadvantage both his campaign and the proposed rule itself.
Bernie = Bernie's legal standard
But then, Bernie should not be held to the very standard he supports -- a phased-in increase.
Bernie != Bernie's standard
These two positions cannot occupy the same space. They are mutually exclusive. Logic fails.