this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
310 points (98.7% liked)

politics

18791 readers
4272 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A lawyer for the union says the company is aligning itself with right-wing ideologues who want to destroy the regulatory state.

Trader Joe’s is facing a litany of union-busting charges before the National Labor Relations Board. The agency’s prosecutors have accused the company of illegally retaliating against workers, firing a union supporter and spreading false information in an effort to chill an organizing campaign.

But in a hearing last Tuesday, the grocer’s attorney briefly summarized a sweeping defense it intends to mount against the charges: The labor board itself, which was created during the New Deal and has refereed private-sector collective bargaining for nearly 90 years, is “unconstitutional.”

The argument would appear to fit inside a broader conservative effort to dismantle the regulatory state, which has taken aim at agencies tasked with enforcing laws to protect workers, consumers and the environment.

The exchange, a transcript of which HuffPost obtained through a public records request, came at the start of a trial to determine whether Trader Joe’s violated workers’ rights. Trader Joe’s’ attorney, Christopher Murphy of the law firm Morgan Lewis, informed the judge, Charles Muhl, that there was “one final thing” the grocery chain wanted to add to its defense before proceedings began.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid 95 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Republicans won't be happy until the only regulations are on who you can love, what you can read, where you can (and are required to) worship and how you can dress.

[–] Boddhisatva 48 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Republicans won’t be happy until the only regulations are on ~~who you can love, what you can read, where you can (and are required to) worship and how you can dress.~~ liberals, minorities, and poor people.

The rest of that is just smoke screens and wedge issues. All they really want is for the rich white people to be in charge and able to do anything they want while being served by everyone else.

[–] FlyingSquid 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Oh I don't know about that, they would be very happy to see every LGBT+ person in the country marched into the gas chambers.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

A law that says LGBT+ people are to be executed is a law on a minority.

[–] Veedem 24 points 7 months ago (5 children)

It’s astounding. The original GOP was about small government and personal freedoms. Now, they want government involved in restricting those personal freedoms and have added a new layer of corporate protectionism.

[–] AbouBenAdhem 24 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The original GOP was about ending slavery and was allied to Karl Marx. Its brief flirtation with libertarianism in the 70s died with Goldwater.

[–] Eldritch 11 points 7 months ago

And even then, Goldwater was a right wing neolibertarian. Only concerned with his freedom from the influence of others. Ie his privilege. Completely unconcerned with the ability and freedom of others to do things. Not a true libertarian or good person.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago

I don’t think the politicians ever actually believed what they were saying. It’s dog whistles and straight up lies all the way down….

Some regular Joe’s on the street might “believe” in the ideals of small government but it’s far easier to say things like family values and small government, words that without policy don’t actually mean anything.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The original GOP was about small government and personal freedoms.

Was it?

Wikipedia says

While both parties adopted pro-business policies in the 19th century, the early GOP was distinguished by its support for the national banking system, the gold standard, railroads, and high tariffs. The party opposed the expansion of slavery before 1861 and led the fight to destroy the Confederate States of America (1861–1865).

Or did you mean small government in that they opposed the new deal?

[–] homesweethomeMrL 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The original GOP was a lie. A putrid clown car of ridiculous evil just waiting for an enormous shit-smelling rapist fraud slathered in greasy orange paint to lead them.

Seriously though, whatever reasonable arguments they may have claimed were rendered moot forty+ years ago.

[–] Eldritch 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The wall street putch insists you push That date back another 3 or 4 decades.

[–] Eldritch 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The Republican party was never about that. Or at least there's no evidence of that. It was great Republicans punitively freed the slaves as retaliation to the Confederacy. But it is important to understand that they were also fine with allowing the slave states to continue to exist. Only opposed to new slave states. Specifically because it would dilute their power. Which is something. But not champions of freedom or small government. I mean Lincoln was literally about big government and oppressing rights many at the time perceived they had. The rights of states and individuals to own people. Looking back we may agree with the outcome. But it wasn't what it's often portrayed as.

Also, personal freedom is just codewords for privilege. If everyone isn't able to do something, it's a privilege not a freedom. No freedom is "personal"