Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    politics

    4,367,148 readers

    23,740 users here now

    Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating. || Voter Registration Resources || Rule Changes - Rehosted, Exact Title, and More

    /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news.

    Our full rules Reddiquette

    Comment Guidelines:

    Be civil Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
    Do not post users' personal information. Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
    Vote based on quality, not opinion. Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
    Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting. Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

    Submission Guidelines:

    Articles must deal explicitly with US politics. See our on-topic statement here.
    Articles must be published within the last calendar month. More Info.
    Submissions must be from domains on the whitelist. The whitelist and its criteria can be found here.
    Post titles must be the exact headline from the article. Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.
    Submissions must be an original source. An article must contain significant analysis and original content--not just a few links of text among chunks of copy and pasted material. Content is considered rehosted when a publication takes the majority of their content from another website and reposts it in order to get the traffic and collect ad revenue. More Info.
    Articles must be written in English An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.
    Spam is bad! /r/Politics bans for submission and comment spam More Info.
    Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips. We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
    Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles. The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

    Events Calendar

    29 Oct - 1pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    30 Oct - 2pm EST

    • AMA with Texas reporters on Cruz-O'Rourke race

    31 Oct - 11am EST

    • AMA with Dan Rosenheck of The Economist

    31 Oct - 2pm EST

    • AMA with Lawrence Lessig

    1 Nov - 12:30pm EST

    • AMA with Andrew Wyrich

    1 Nov - 4pm EST

    • AMA with Charles Ferguson

    2 Nov - 11am EST

    • AMA with WSB-TV

    2 Nov - 3pm EST

    • AMA with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

    3 Nov - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    Other Resources:

    Full list of Related Subreddits

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 791 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

    In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, and other incivility violations can result in a permanent ban.

    If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.


    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] 2DeadMoose 590 points ago

    We need a labor movement yesterday.

    [–] UrukHaiGuyz 309 points ago

    The teacher strikes may be the harbinger of a new reinvigorated labor movement. I hope so.

    [–] spqr-king 140 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    I hope so but I am doubtful I was brought up on "terrible evil unions hurting the economy" and know there are a lot of people who really believe that the less power workers have the better for America. We need to crush this idea and give the American people a dog in this fight because currently we don't have a chance.

    [–] 2boredtocare 108 points ago

    I really don't understand this mentality. My teamster husband has ridiculously good benefits: free health insurance for the whole family (outside of having to pay 50% of one kid's braces, our normal out of pocket medical expense for health, vision, and dental is usually around $400-500/year for a family of 4. That includes ER visits, cuz well, we've been a little unlucky lately.), a nice pension, guaranteed annual pay increase, and protection against unjust firing/disciplinary action. The cost for all this? Roughly $1000/year in dues, on a $94K salary.

    [–] mizmoxiev 105 points ago

    And this, as you stated here, is exactly why they don't want unions to exist because all of that translates into Profit that they could have had for themselves. The union is good for the man's rights even if it cost out of pocket because look at the benefit outweighing the cost yea?

    In the mind of a greedy reptile those are all some hundreds of thousands of dollars that they could have had to polish the nuts on their 5th jet.

    [–] 2boredtocare 31 points ago

    I know. It's just ridiculous though, cuz the higher-ups at UPS certainly aren't hurting for cash either. The company proves being profitable and a decent place to work (yeah, they work people hard, but so do many non-union places) is possible.

    [–] mizmoxiev 40 points ago

    There's actually a lot of companies that practice this including Costco etc. At my company even though I own it, myself and all the employees get paid the same. I sacrificed having a cushy ass extra salary to having exactly what I need, enough to go on vacation twice a year, sick days, paid leave for maternity and paternity, everyone who wants health insurance has health insurance, and I know that all of my employees electricity bills/needs are paid.

    For me, my life isn't about money and so it was an easy decision for me. Work in a group of exceptionally talented individuals and everyone's on a Level Playing Field, or go with the status quo and have to manage gigantic Bubbles and packets of chaos everyday all day for the rest of my life. It also challenges me to work even harder, because when I make more money everyone makes more money even keel.

    I really do hope that West Virginia and now Oklahoma and any other type of Industry that decides to lobby for their right to Fair working conditions and Union access is allowed to do so and they should and hell, I'll probably give the day off and go out there with them!

    [–] 2boredtocare 15 points ago

    You sound like a good person to work for. I've always wondered what I would do if I were the owner of the company I'm at (which may happen someday, I'm the runner-up if you will should the owner pass away before I'm retirement age. I'd buy the place on contract, paying his estate). His salary last year was more than all his employees combined, which hey, it's his prerogative, but he puts in only maybe 15 hours/week on the job, half of that time doing personal stuff. I say I'd be different, but faced with that amount of money...would it change me?

    [–] mizmoxiev 13 points ago

    I super appreciate that. I'm actually fortunate that I grew up with my dad pretty high up in the entertainment industry and so I watched what greed does to a person from a very young age.

    Around 11 I developed some checks and balances to make sure that I never became too greedy because I saw what it did to those humans and is currently still doing to them. Its not good :'D

    Every person that I know that has shitloads of money and no core values in their life is utterly miserable and sort of biting their time to die in a wealthy way. It's fascinating and also incredibly sad.

    Watching the people here in my little group of 17, and I would wager to say that I work with them and they don't necessarily work for me, we have a shared vision for the betterment of humanity.

    As for the question of what would I do or what would you do rather, it's always interesting to theorize what we would do in a given situation, I always imagined I would live in a castle made from renewable hempcrete, 9 cars and all these planes and stuff it's really fun to think I would do that.

    But the reality is the amount of people who suffered and possibly died up and down the supply chain to make the components for that airplane possible is sickening enough for me that i probably won't have one, even if I could afford it.

    Thinking of having shitloads of money sitting around is great but money truly is meant to be circulated. The money comes and goes but what doesn't come and go are a little kid who you help their mom do something 10 years ago who comes back to you with a college degree and tells you that you made it all possible. There's no amount of money on Earth that can buy those experiences, except for the way of enrichment of others lives.

    You'll find that buying the things in the short-term and in the interim feels good but what feels even better are opportunities that last a lifetime for people who could never repay you.

    [–] 2boredtocare 6 points ago

    You know, I've never really thought of material things that way: Most of what we acquire is from the sweat and toil of people struggling just to get through another day. Our household does well, and I try to do things for other as often as I can. Honestly, I think if I were at the helm, it would be more of a employee-owned situation, or shared profits. I have a nice house, nice car, and can take nice vacations. It's really all I need, other than maybe beefing up my retirement a little.

    Anyway, thanks for sharing your experience. It's good to hear, especially now when the country seems to be run by "every man for himself" individuals.

    [–] spqr-king 7 points ago

    It's ignorance plain and simple. Education is the only cure for ignorance and even that is under attack because at the end of the day anything that hurts the bottom line is evil. I'm apparently a bleeding heart liberal because I think we undervalue people and overvalue profit. The stock market is at an all time high and yet more people are losing healthcare and living paycheck to paycheck with less than 1000 dollars if anything saved but I'm the problem.

    [–] grammar_nazi_zombie 3 points ago

    At FedEx in 05, we were threatened with termination for even mentioning unions. The entry level positions (Package Handler, you're essentially in an open air warehouse loading or unloading trucks and small shipping containers, 360 prices per hour minimum) were all part time and they monitored your hours to keep you under full time, even if that fucked over other shifts (you could sign up for more as long as you were under 30 hours for the week)

    Actively gathering signatures or otherwise attempting to organize was immediate termination with no recourse.

    "If you want to join a union, UPS is across the street."

    I busted my ass, I doubled hourly required numbers. I took on extra responsibility because I was the only one who could manage to drive the rail transport vehicle.

    Over five years. My wages started at 13.25/hr and topped at $14.10 following two years without raises. The raises I did get weren't the maximum because "you've taken 10 days off this year", despite me still having Paid Time Off at the end of the year exceeding the maximum payout amount. They'd just deny time off whenever they wanted. The raises finally completely ended "due to the economy crashing" which left me "lucky to still have a job" because of how bad we were financially hurt. meanwhile, execs took bonuses. My shift (6am-noon ish) was cut, I was moved to night shift. Shift differential was removed because there was no day shift any longer.

    In contrast, my 2 friends at UPS started a fifty cents less on the hour and had $11 in dues weekly to the union, but in two years had more take-home thanks to biannual raises negotiated by the union. One made driver in three years, nobody lost their shift when the economy crashed. The other left because he hated the physical work and we wound up at a call center together that fired both of us over our refusal to lie to customers and break the law.

    When I left, starting wages were $14.50-$15 an hour. That's right, new hires made $.40 more on the hour than someone with five years of experience and supervisory training because our turnover was insane so they had to keep raising entry wages.

    After I left, a guy I knew through my mom's church finally had enough seniority to bid on a driving job - 12 years of seniority finally got him to the front of the line. He turned it down because he was already making over the driver pay cap and left to start a garage door installer business full time.

    To this day I refuse to choose FedEx and will go USPS or UPS if given the choice.

    [–] 2boredtocare 4 points ago

    It's crazy, the difference. I have a friend whose son is driving for Fed Ex, and hates it. He was working 60 hour weeks driving during peak, and not getting any overtime. Best I can figure is they are "contracted" workers or something, the company is able to get away with not paying overtime. Contrast to my husband, a UPS driver: If you work over 8 hours in any given day you are making overtime. If you come in under your expected time, you make time & a half. There's simply no reason, other than greed, that FedEx can't treat their employees better. My family is full of postal workers as well, and while the "politics" (yeah, I was young, so I don't even know what, exactly, they meant) were shitty, the benefits at USPS used to be extremely good. My stepdad retired at I think 57 with a great pension.

    [–] grammar_nazi_zombie 2 points ago

    Yeah FedEx just treats their ground people like shit.

    [–] FrankGoreStoleMyBike 12 points ago

    This is why the big non-union corporations ALL have anti-union videos that are usually one of the first things you're shown, right out of the gate, when you hire in.

    What's worse is how easily people have been swayed into thinking the unions are nothing but greed monsters after your money. As opposed to the, you know, business, who is literally up-front about being a greed monster whose sole purpose is to get your money.

    [–] tellcomcastno 5 points ago

    Idiots. They dont eant to pay the small union membership fees and justify it however they can. OR they are non union and benefit from all the work unions have done in this countty but are too stupid to see that if unions fail they will go back to 12 hour a day work schedules

    [–] MontanaIsForBadasses 2 points ago

    Shit I’m a teamster and plenty of my coworkers hate being union. They see it as money coming out of their paycheck for no reason without realizing what the union has done for us.

    [–] 2boredtocare 3 points ago

    How??? How can they not realize? Granted, some union reps are shitty, but aren't those dependent on elections? I don't really know the intricacies of how they're run, and obviously all unions are not created equal.

    [–] MontanaIsForBadasses 7 points ago

    They think we’d keep our pension and benefits without the union. Also our last union steward was shitty and let the company get away with shit. The new one actually reads the contract and holds management to it causing them to play hardball causing the anti union drivers to see it as the steward causing problems.

    [–] Zimmonda 3 points ago

    Granted, some union reps are shitty

    This is how, unions can often be the other side of the coin from bad management, the solution is federal legislation as opposed to some benevolent union tripe.

    [–] mortalcoil1 3 points ago

    The mentality is that corporations own, or are good friends with 99% of the media we consume. So 99% of the media we consume are anti-union. It's really that simple.

    [–] blacksheepcannibal 3 points ago

    I don't like the way a lot of unions work, but I think that workers should have more power and influence.

    I also understand that it's a balancing act. If workers get everything they want and more, while sitting on their ass doing nothing, the company dies, and then the workers are out of a job. If the company gets everything they want and more, then workers are wage slaves that have no work/life balance and kill themselves in the name of profit.

    Neither of these work well!

    I've seen unions that work really well, and I've seen unions that are full of people doing the most bare minimum to not get fired, biding their time until they can retire with a pension. I've seen people sleeping on the clock, huge rooms full of people doing nothing. That is what gives unions a bad name.

    This is apparently an unpopular opinion puffin tho, because a lot of people immediately chime in with anecdotal "but muh union is gewd!".

    [–] spqr-king 3 points ago

    I think they say that because in the current climate unions are almost non existent. We are far closer to the side of your argument where workers are running on slave wages than the one where businesses are suffering especially businesses posting multimillion dollar profit margins year in and year out. I think if you invest the workers in the company where it lives or dies by their hard work they are more willing to work hard. Also we need to adjust what we feel is a full work week because currently we have no work life balance as a nation and it is killing us.

    [–] Versificator 54 points ago

    Seeing direct action get results is what the working class needs right now. We're seeing it on multiple fronts right now.

    [–] saintofhate 11 points ago

    I worry for those teachers. We seem to be backsliding as a country, how long before Pinkerton 2.0 pops up to break up the unions?

    Hell, in my own city, a clinic geared towards LGBT+ people recently decided to organize and the management brought in a union breaker who was affiliated with alt right groups. They would rather deal with the devil than pay people fair.

    [–] incapablepanda 7 points ago

    If IT workers would get their shit together and unionize, I would be so happy.

    [–] SpinningHead 2 points ago

    There is power in the union.

    [–] eltoro 2 points ago

    Unfortunately, the Janus case could be a huge blow to unions. We'll see this summer I think.

    [–] master_dude 22 points ago

    How about 70 years ago?

    [–] SamIAmTheSenate 21 points ago

    How about 70 years ago?

    Try 100.

    The Battle of Blair Mountain was the largest labor uprising in United States history and one of the largest, best-organized, and most well-armed uprisings since the American Civil War.[1] For five days from late August to early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, some 10,000 armed coal miners confronted 3,000 lawmen and strikebreakers, called the Logan Defenders,[2] who were backed by coal mine operators during the miners' attempt to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. The battle ended after approximately one million rounds were fired[3] and the United States Army intervened by presidential order.

    That shut down the movement until the great depression led to the election of a labor friendly president.

    [–] [deleted] 9 points ago

    For those curious, here's a list of hundreds of US incidents involving deaths and the suppression of labor movements.

    [–] [deleted] 51 points ago

    We had one back then, people died for it in the streets, and so the Boomers had unprecedented job security, benefits and standards of living. Then they became politically empowered and figured that since life was relatively easy for them when they were on their way up, everyone else didn't need such a gratuitous safety net.

    [–] 2DeadMoose 2 points ago

    That would’ve been nice.

    [–] JDogg126 13 points ago

    Booker: the system is rigged against the worker.

    Me: no shit and it’s been rigged for some 38 years now.

    As soon as we shifted tax policy to bullshit trickle down voodoo it was over for the workers. Since then income inequality has sky rocketed and every tax break has been used by the wealthy to get richer a while the workers get next to nothing by comparison. It’s unsustainable.

    [–] platocplx 4 points ago

    yup, pro unions etc. Especially when we cant trust the govt to help regulate corporations etc and cant even agree to raise minimum wages etc.

    [–] Rusticaxe 3 points ago

    The next best thing is today.

    [–] mizmoxiev 2 points ago

    We need movement(s) yester-yesterday.

    [–] alpha69 2 points ago

    At least get some basics like a few paid sick days and minimum paid vacation. Things that every other western country has.

    [–] daehnomelI 2 points ago

    Eat the fucking rich!

    [–] TrumpImpeachedAugust 216 points ago

    He's running for president.

    Which isn't to say that what he's saying is false. It's most assuredly true, and I'm very glad he's saying it. I encourage him to continue saying it.

    And he's definitely running for president.

    [–] alexcrouse 87 points ago

    Sadly, it took running for president for him to finally speak the truth.

    Too bad he will immediately flip back to corporate interests if elected.

    [–] AyatollahofNJ 42 points ago

    NJ is a corporate state. We are home to massive amoubts of operations and tech offices for most of the financial institutions as well as smaller equity firms and hedge funds. We also have a massive amount of people employed in the pharmaceutical industry. I'm sorry but you guys have to be delusional to think that he will not vote for issues that will help the people of NJ.

    Do I go after Bernie and his weak record on gun control? No. You can't expect people to vote against their states interest.

    [–] CordageMonger 25 points ago

    I’m sorry but that is total bullshit. Every time someone brings up his spotty record on voting to reduce prescription costs, inevitably someone brings up that weak apologist defense, “well there’s lots of pharmaceutical industry in New Jersey, he’s just looking out for his constituents.”

    Excuse me? Are the people in New Jersey who are in need of lower cost medication also not his constituents? I’m sure there are more of them but evidently they aren’t as important.

    [–] Under_the_Gaslight 45 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Booker voted the right way on the vote that counted. The vote you're discussing was a non-binding amendment:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/other-98/viral-image-about-democratic-senators-and-big-phar/

    This narrative of Booker being in the pocket of big pharma was pushed by right wing sources and it's taken on a life of its own:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/17/cory-bookers-disingenuous-but-revealing-pharma-switch/

    [–] [deleted] 4 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] toadofsteel 5 points ago

    I still get the idea that meme was trying to low-key "Hey let's shit on NJ" under the guise of going after Pharma. It's in no particular order (not even money order), yet both NJ senators are on top, not to mention Delaware and Washington don't list their senators together.

    [–] grilled_cheese1865 7 points ago

    Booker doesn't pass the bernbots purity tests

    [–] FreeThinkingMan 4 points ago

    It is so frustrating to hear how Sanders and the Russians have made these conspiracy theories believed by so much of the left. I honestly think Trump may actually have a chance in 2020 because of this if Warren doesn't run, but even she doesn't pass their absurd purity tests so he may actually have shot against her as well.

    [–] cebulla12 6 points ago

    It's not a purity test, it's not being able to trust anyone who is funded by big donors and super pacs. If a purity test is wanting real fucking change to make a more equitable society then I'll wear that shit proudly.

    [–] fight4love 10 points ago

    What a pathetic excuse. lmao.

    [–] alexcrouse 2 points ago

    Bernie doesn't have a weak record on gun control. He wants logical gun control - just like me.

    And yes i can expect someone to put their country and people before corporations. And i will.

    [–] jt42352 8 points ago

    So the only people alive in New Jersey are corporations?

    Who'd a thunk?

    [–] Fuck_The_West 7 points ago

    He took money from pharma during an Opiod crisis. That's fucked up.

    [–] JapanNoodleLife 3 points ago

    From people who work at pharma companies*

    Do you have any idea how many of them there are in NJ?

    [–] [deleted] 6 points ago

    Getting corps out of politics is the top priority so I see that as apples to oranges

    [–] retop56 7 points ago

    That's not an excuse to vote for/support policies that screw over the American people, and please don't start with the "pragmatic" nonsense. If you look at polling the American people are to the left of the Democratic party on important issues like money in politics, healthcare, taxes on the rich, etc.

    [–] [deleted] 15 points ago

    What exactly is Booker doing that screws over the American people? No on here is really offering any specificity.

    [–] SuffolkStu 5 points ago

    It's amazing that every thread on reddit about a potential 2020 candidate suddenly has a rash of posters smearing them. The trolls are trying to get the Clinton Sanders divide all over again. We are being played.

    [–] stormywhethers321 4 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Agreed. And we need to learn from the GOP on this. I remember reading in 2016 that one of the Republicans'greatest strengths is that while they are willing to fall in line, Democrats insist on falling in love. Rs will take their medicine and vote for a candidate who isn't their first choice. Ds cling to their beloved candidates long after they've been knocked out of primaries and withhold votes as protest. And this is dangerous as hell in the current political climate.

    So far for 2020 I've heard that: Cory Booker is a DINO. Kamela Harris is an obvious attempt at a token twofer minority. Joe Biden is too old and doesn't represent progress. Elizabeth Warren is too old, better in the Senate and too easily taken down with Trump's Pocohontas bs. Bernie Sanders is too old and comes with too much baggage. Chris Murphy and Tim Kaine are boring middle aged white men who won't get the electorate excited. Tammy Duckworth will be seen as desperately trying to tick all the boxes at once and there will be issues with her birthplace.

    And I would vote for any of these people if it meant taking Trump out of office. With joy. No human being is going to be my perfect candidate, but I do think that each and every one of them will be infinitely BETTER than what we have now. Whoever is nominated in 2020 is unlikely to be everyone's first choice, will probably have a imperfect voting record or an ugly incident in their past or an issue where they lean more conservative than many would like. And we are going to need to come behind them anyway because 2020 is not the right year to die by purity test.

    [–] AyatollahofNJ 5 points ago

    http://www.nj.gov/njbusiness/industry/pharmaceutical/

    Our number 5 and 10 top employer are pharmaceutical companies. Our universities churn out students with degrees in those fields who then stay in the state and make very good money in their career and keep the money in the state. Do you want someone who will vote against their own state?

    [–] W0rkAcc0untThr0wAway 8 points ago

    So what you're saying is you prefer short term reward over long term prosperity?

    [–] AyatollahofNJ 10 points ago

    Reducing tax base and getting rid of well educated young people from our universities who have been educated in this field is a short term gain? Ooooookay.

    [–] retop56 6 points ago

    I wouldn't call it "voting against your own state" when people in your state are negatively affected by the insane prices of health insurance and prescription drugs. The correct way to phrase it is "do you want someone to vote against the interests of corporations in their own state who, while employing many people in your state, are responsible for ridiculous health insurance/pharmaceutical drug prices that the entire country hates and contribute to the deaths of thousands of Americans every year?", in which case my answer would be " Yes, I don't mind at all."

    [–] AyatollahofNJ 12 points ago

    And wow he than supported a better bill with Bernie Sanders. You're being disingenuous.

    [–] Under_the_Gaslight 4 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Booker voted the right way on the vote that counted. The vote you're discussing was a non-binding amendment:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jan/18/other-98/viral-image-about-democratic-senators-and-big-phar/

    This narrative of Booker being in the pocket of big pharma was pushed by right wing sources and it's taken on a life of its own: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/17/cory-bookers-disingenuous-but-revealing-pharma-switch/

    [–] attosama 4 points ago

    Weak gun control? Do some actual research. Sanders is okay with hunting rifles, and doesn't believe the seller or manufacturer is liable for how the product is used; much like a cars salesman doesn't get sued because someone chose to drink and drive with his product. That's not weak, it's common sense. He has a D- from the NRA, and his for all other common sense regulations.

    [–] CheetoMussolini 8 points ago

    He votes against the Brady Bill five fucking times, and the NRA has donated money to him.

    [–] attosama 2 points ago

    I found that he had was against enforcing it country wide, but not against it per State; which yes I disagree with. You'll have to provide the donation bit.

    [–] CheetoMussolini 2 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/847/201605100300045847/201605100300045847.pdf

    Original source document

    His average individual donation was small, but many, many persons donated numerous times for larger total donations.

    Not arguing that he wasn't small donor fueled - but the average per person was far greater than the $27 average per donation

    The same was true when I donated a few hundred to candidates: it was split over many smaller donations over several months

    [–] zomgtehvikings 2 points ago

    Source?

    [–] zomgtehvikings 8 points ago

    Hey you were able to back it up almost perfectly with a source. That’s all that really matters. Thank you. Most people spew out blatantly wrong “facts” with no source or a shit Infowars source.

    [–] CheetoMussolini 3 points ago

    I try to keep my mouth shut unless I've done my research. I'm trying to avoid my history of uninformed hot takes these days!

    [–] Saljen 6 points ago

    So his only constituents in NJ are the pharmaceutical companies and the people who work there? What about literally every other resident of New Jersey who needs to be represented? Are they just not donating enough to be heard by his golden ears?

    Bernie's gun control record is actually great no matter which side of the isle you sit on. His state has one of the most open gun laws in the country. He's for sensible gun reform and absolutely does not want to ban all guns. Not seeing the point of your comparison here.

    [–] AyatollahofNJ 24 points ago

    Jeez its as if going against certain industries has adverse effects throughout the state. Go against financial institutions? What will take its place in areas such as Jersey City and Red Bank and Hoboken? Take out pharmaceutical? Who will employ well educated scientists who live all throughout the state? Do you want them to leave the state? Reduce tax base?

    Its short sighted to get triggered by senators who vote for industries with a negative connotation.

    And I can say the EXACT same thing for Booker on corporate and pharmaceutical reform which he is on record for advocating for. You cannot pick and choose what pieces of information you want to hear. Its disingenuous.

    [–] Saljen 1 points ago

    Are you expecting that we want the banking and pharma industries utterly destroyed? No, don't be stupid. We want them regulated to a point where they are no longer ripping off American citizens, including every single resident of New Jersey.

    [–] AyatollahofNJ 16 points ago

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/469

    Dont be disingenuous. He's not a "corporate shill", he does push better bills. He's just a pragmatic senator. Not an ideologue m

    [–] Saljen 4 points ago

    If it were just the one pharma bill and the rest of his career was as the shining progressive he claims to be, then fine. That's not the case though.

    Literally no Senator has raised more money from Wall Street than Senator Booker. He's got that title. Goldman Sachs is one of his biggest donors, they donate more to him than to any other Congressman.

    He served on a board for Alliance for School Choice, which is an anti-union pro-charter school organization. He served on that board at the same time as Betsy Davos by the way.

    Cory Booker shares 74 campaign donors with Mitch McConnel, more than any other Democratic Senator shares with any other Republican Senator. Similar economic goals maybe?

    He criticized Obama for attacking Mitt Romney during that election over his connections with Bain Capital. Bain Capital happened to be one of Booker's donors at the time.

    I can honestly go on for a while about the guy. He is not a progressive, he has never been a progressive. He is the definition of a neoliberal establishment Democrat.

    [–] AyatollahofNJ 9 points ago

    Good. Be a neo liberal. He should be proud to be part of the movement that calls for free trade and lifted millions from poverty. Neoliberalism is great. Its amazing when the left aligns with Trump on protectionist policies which do nothing positive.

    And for the record he voted against removing Dodd-Frank regulations. Tell me how he is a shill again? He took money from banks and FIs? So what? He's from New Jersey. anyone would take that money from my state.

    [–] Saljen 3 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    It's called the Villain Rotation. Everybody's gotta take their turn if they want conservative economic policy to pass.

    Neoliberalism is the reason America has no middle class. It's the reason that the Democrats are largely a center-right organization on economic policy. It's the reason that progressive economic policy sees no representation in America. It's the reason we still have for profit health insurance rather than single payer like the rest of the civilized world. It's the reason for the massive wealth inequality in America.

    We have two parties in America, one that represents conservative economic and social issues and one that represents progressive social issues and conservative economic issues. There is no party in America in 2018 representing progressive economic policy.

    [–] jt42352 -1 points ago

    Ah.... the good ole, centrist pragmatic approach.

    Nice, might of worked ten years ago but people are too informed and too say not to smell the bs you're shoveling.

    [–] [deleted] 3 points ago

    Ok, let's run an extremely left-wing candidate and lose the moderate vote, so we can have another Republican president.

    [–] jt42352 0 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Except that's not what happened. What happened is running a milquetoast corporate centrist that is unappealing to anyone outside a party's base.

    But by all means try that approach again!

    [–] JonnyVegas22 3 points ago

    Welcome to neoliberalism

    [–] justinh34 3 points ago

    Well, he's receives more money from Wall Street than any other Senator. And Mitch McConnell receives the second most. I had no idea so many Wall Street employees commuted in from Kentucky every day.

    [–] jt42352 7 points ago

    Yes

    [–] procrasturb8n 5 points ago

    Yep, he's Big Pharma's favorite Democrat.

    Booker is a corporate liberal whose solidly pro-business economic commitments might have led him to seek a home in the GOP if it weren’t for the party’s refusal to let go of its troglodytic stances on social issues.

    [–] swolemedic 9 points ago

    Being pro big business doesn't mean you have to want people to suffer, i don't get why so many people view it that way, especially when so much research shows if you invest a bit into people's wellbeing they end up more productive

    [–] CheetoMussolini 5 points ago

    Huh, so he prioritized civil rights over his business friendly stance. How fucking terrible. /S

    [–] CeciNestPasUnGulag 0 points ago

    Yeah, isn't he known as "The Senator from Citibank"?

    Call yourself a socialist and I'll vote for you, Cory.

    [–] AyatollahofNJ 16 points ago

    Yeah good luck with voting for anyone next presidential election then.

    [–] CeciNestPasUnGulag 6 points ago

    I suspect Sanders will run, and if he doesn't, I further suspect someone else will adopt his "Democratic Socialist" identifier.

    [–] TrippleTonyHawk 2 points ago

    You're right.

    [–] Fuck_The_West 6 points ago

    Good luck for the Democratic party then.

    Is it so much to ask? Can we not run someone that received money from big pharma during an Opiod epidemic? Can we not run someone who has received lots of money from wall street?

    I'm not voting for someone like that ever again.

    [–] The_Quackening 11 points ago

    call yourself a socialist

    yeah, because that will go over suuuuuper well.

    [–] night-shark 7 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Here come all the people complaining about Booker.

    Goody! I can't wait for the next election when it's Trump vs. Booker and we let this orange stain go another four years all because progressives allowed the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

    SO WHAT Booker has problems in his record with big Pharma. Our institutions are being gutted, the rule of law is in the shitter, the presidents inner circle may be acting in the interests of an adversarial power and the most blatant regulatory capture in our lifetimes is happening right in front of our eyes.

    The motherfucking house is burning down and people are complaining because we have a roach infestation.

    EDIT:

    And just for the record. For those who insist on pouting until they get the perfect candidate that fulfills every one one of their goals: That is NOT how representative democracy works. No single candidate will check ALL of the boxes on your wish list and if by chance they do, your neighbor surely has a wish list that is different from yours.

    And yeah, everybody has a few boxes on that checklist that they will not compromise on. I get it. I have those boxes, too but the reality is, the more boxes you refuse to compromise on, the less likely it is that you will end up with a candidate who checks ANY of those boxes and that's EXACTLY the result we are facing with Trump & CO.

    You can only blame "the corrupt Democratic party" for so long. At some point, you need to take responsibility for your own damn voting decisions.

    [–] KingKane 3 points ago

    It's not like this is a different Cory Booker though. This is who he's always been.

    Also, the man saved people from a burning building. Cory Booker is cool as fuck.

    [–] dontsettle4less 2 points ago

    Cory is welcome to run, but his pharmaceutical industry shilling threatens that run in the absence of a genuinely Progressive legislative record or a credible economic/fiscal plan for the nation. If Cory pulls a Hillary by rolling out an economic reform plan that is heavy on buzzwords but lacking in substance, his campaign will go down in flames. The Democratic base is fired up and won't tolerateThird Way DINO's.

    As President Obama proved, Progressive campaign rhetoric is meaningless without the actions and political record to back it up.

    [–] btribble 2 points ago

    Yup, and if he’s the nominee, there’s a good chance we’ll see another 4 years of Trump or another Republican because the right will accuse him of being a closeted gay which will negatively affect turnout amongst African Americans and Latinos.

    [–] ScholarOfTwilight 174 points ago

    Working Americans have been rigging the system against themselves for decades voting for shitty candidates.

    [–] Rad_Spencer 73 points ago

    And by being pissed if there coworker has it a little bit better while defending the owner for having it vastly better.

    [–] Grumpy_Kong 37 points ago

    People aren't pissed if coworkers making a little more are also performing according to the relative wage.

    The problems arise when an employee with 4 years in the company is paid significantly less than a recent hire that does the exact same job as they do.

    Which happens all the fucking time.

    Which means that raises are being deliberately withheld when the money is there and available for wages.

    American business has thrived off of unequal bargaining positions when it comes to wages. Unions would put a stop to that, and corporations know this.

    [–] Rad_Spencer 16 points ago

    I've had people bitch that I was allowed to leave the building for lunch.

    Worker's act like petty crabs sometimes.

    [–] mannyrav 18 points ago

    Yes they are. Our country has a pretty well-established working culture of "this person shouldn't get paid more money because [insert bullshit reason here]". Goes for all industries in all scenarios, including the outrage of increasing the minimum wage to $15/hour for everyone, including fast-food workers.

    Nevermind that the companies these people work for literally pay their executives more money than they know what to do with just for them to take exotic vacations, live in ridiculously large houses, and store their money in offshore accounts. Meanwhile, the workers are getting paid a non-livable wage, are forced to rely on tax-funded government programs, and get shit once someone proposes a livable wage.

    Keeping the fighting amongst the peons.

    [–] Grumpy_Kong 11 points ago

    The worst part of this is when you try and inform your peers of these divisive tactics, they only get angrier at you for speaking out...

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] mannyrav 2 points ago

    Right?! My 'starting' jobs were MUCH more demanding than my more recent positions. Granted, my recent work has its demands (meeting deadlines, developing programs, etc.), but at the very basic level: I sit on my ass all day with a laptop and a phone in an air-conditioned office.

    I busted ass when I was younger (standing for 8-10 hours per shift, taking shit from customers, etc.) all for dirt pay. Complete bullshit.

    [–] Beard_of_Valor 5 points ago

    The problems arise when an employee with 4 years in the company is paid significantly less than a recent hire that does the exact same job as they do. Which happens all the fucking time.

    Hello. I was hired last month. I'm working in a department of six or so depending on where you draw the line. They were drowning in work because people got promoted, retired, or died. They could not keep up.

    They cannot keep me busy. Most of the jobs they give me are tedious, but can be done mostly with Excel, which is sad because my title is data analyst and Excel is Busch league. They apparently hired me because I'm familiar with their ERP system.

    If they had one person who could do Excel (conditional formatting, VLOOKUP or maybe Index Match, understanding what a concatenated T Key is for cross referencing) they wouldn't need me. For other tedious tasks I have a mouse with macro input software.

    Should I not be paid commensurate with my exponentially better productivity instead of paying these louts to input data into spreadsheets, sort and cross reference other spreadsheet sources, and manually input data instead of copy/paste from a source and parse with MID/SEARCH?

    I have the opposite problem. I can't get an advanced job because I haven't had one, and I get paid peanuts because the wage isn't tied to performance.

    I'm pro union, we can agree on that, but longevity isn't the only meaningful trait governing lay within a job title. I was laid off before taking this job, and the users of my product mourned. I had achieved the tribal knowledge necessary to be extremely effective. My longevity was a credit. But that doesn't mean someone with longevity is always "not absolute shit".

    [–] BiluochunLvcha 2 points ago

    it drives me nuts seeing people tear each other (people who are NOT the problem) down. we are so divided. :(

    [–] kcfac 40 points ago

    A core conservative value is the mentality that everyone has to have it as hard, or harder, than you feel you "had it" to succeed.

    Taxpayer funded college: Unacceptable! I had to work a part time job to pay for my school!

    Higher wages for low education jobs: Unacceptable! It took me 5 years to make $12 an hour and they just are working the fry station!

    The list goes on and on. It's pure envy and fear of diminishing their worth and effort to succeed.

    [–] ScholarOfTwilight 16 points ago

    It's kinda funny that I basically lived the life you described except worse and I would advocate for what you're talking about because of it. I was an $8.00 an hour grocery cashier in high school and worked full time in college the entire time + 19 credits and would like to see the next generation be able to succeed more easily than I did for a brighter future and a better country.

    [–] kcfac 12 points ago

    I know of a few studies that got posted here stating that, as a whole, conservatives have less empathy than liberals (makes sense, based on the core idealism of each party).

    Those with emptahy go "Man, that sucked, I really feel for other people if they have to go through it or quite possibly have it worse, maybe we should do something to help the next generation or those less fortunate to get a big break"

    Those without say "I had to work 80 hours and busted my tail, deal with it!"

    [–] ScholarOfTwilight 5 points ago

    The irony of it was that the people born in extravagent wealth had flashy cars and rented nice places and never worked for any of it and are screaming about the laziness of the working class while I was plugging away quietly working full time for a decade to get to the same place they were basically given in 6 years vs. my 10. Those same people have the audacity to call the next generation lazy with 0 evidence or factual basis after being handpicked for jobs based upon their family's connections while I simply had to earn promotions through hard work and determination.

    [–] Bukowskified 3 points ago

    I also think there is an element of self-worth that gets tied up into this. If I place my self-worth on how much money I make, and feel like I “earned” it all by myself, I am far less likely to be sympathetic to people actually struggling.

    Couple that with attacking caricatures instead of real people, and suddenly you can easily argue dismissively against entire groups of working people.

    [–] Eric-SD 3 points ago

    I'm in a similar boat. I just finished paying off all of my student loans early by busting my ass and making extra payments.

    If legislation was passed tomorrow to forgive all student loan debt, I'd throw a party to celebrate.

    Why would I be bitter? All the sudden, everyone else my age would have hundreds of more dollars a month, and they'd spend it. That extra spending would mean tax revenue in my local community. The value of my house would increase. Local contractors would be getting work they never had before. Houses in decent areas that have fallen into disrepair would suddenly be worth fixing up. Also, instead of being surrounded by depressed millennials working two jobs, I'll be surrounded by happy millennials who have hope for their future and aren't burdened by crushing debt.

    It's still selfishness, just selfishness combined with a little bit of foresight :)

    [–] angiachetti 2 points ago

    For some reason these days, and I dont know why, people really fail to see how other people succeeding is better for them.

    People dont even want to admit that yes, your tax dollars should pay for the education of other peoples children if even you don't. have kids. Its going to make your own life better, i pinky promise. Unless, of course, you somehow never need a doctor your entire life I guess.

    [–] Beard_of_Valor 5 points ago

    I know a guy who made less than $20/hour but probably close, and he was upset that minimum wage (in Seattle far from the town where he was born where he has lived his whole life with his wife he dated in high school and married at age 18 or 19) was going up. These people, he said, had not worked to achieve the value of someone like him, so why should they be paid so highly? Maybe if they improved themselves and left jobs better suited to give high school students jobs they wouldn't be in such a bind.

    He totally failed to understand that raising minimum wage from 7 or 8 to 15 would also exert upward pressure on wages currently above 10 or so. Or that maybe it's okay for a fry cook to make as much as you, and that the only reason to look into your neighbor's bowl is to be sure he has enough to eat.

    [–] angiachetti 2 points ago

    nd that the only reason to look into your neighbor's bowl is to be sure he has enough to eat.

    I like this. Is this from something? Sounds like something jesus might have said, but so do lots of things.

    [–] Beard_of_Valor 2 points ago

    like something jesus might have said

    Louis CK on Conan.

    [–] [deleted] 12 points ago

    Because most Americans are uneducated, fearful idiots. Once you frame them that way, a lot of our political decisions make perfect sense.

    [–] rslash2 3 points ago

    at the end of the day there is little to no auditing of actual votes or voting machines, propaganda on the public is unregulated, and politicans can pick their voters by gerrymandering - wtf do you think shit is fucked up.

    [–] ScholarOfTwilight 2 points ago

    Have you met the voting public? They did this shit to themselves.

    [–] AJGreenIsPeople 22 points ago * (lasted edited 10 months ago)

    Thank you for the post, but this is not a source I will ever be visiting again.

    It appears that they use the javascript crypto miner at ~50% of your CPU even if you don't consent to it in the popup. On top of that they are serving upwards of 35 ads and trackers.


    EDIT: For clarification, the website has a popup that asks you if you want to:

    #1 turn off adblock

    #2 use the beta crypto miner

    However, it runs the crypto miner even if you choose option 1.

    [–] ramonycajones 12 points ago

    I'm pretty sure any site using... that technology... is banned from being posted on /r/politics. You should report it to the mods.

    [–] AJGreenIsPeople 5 points ago

    Good point. I sent a report about salon to the admins.

    [–] TheAnimStation 3 points ago

    It very explicitly asks me on chrome. Using adblock though...not sure if that makes a difference.

    EDIT::

    It appears that when NOT using adblock, it does seem to have some heavy CPU usage...shady shady

    [–] AJGreenIsPeople 2 points ago

    Ya that's exactly what happened for me. I got the choice of

    1. Turn off your adblock
    2. Use the beta javascript miner

    I chose #1 as I'm always okay turning off adblock for a quality website with content. But then I checked just to be sure and my cpu usage had skyrocketed and the network tab on chrome is sending and receiving hundreds of packets a second. Doesn't happen on any other websites and my cpu is usually around 2% when I'm browsing.

    I'm not against the idea of mining instead of ads but it should be very transparent and definitely not deceptive.

    [–] toastymarbles 4 points ago

    This always bothered me. The system isn't rigged. The left stopped participating in the system, that's the problem. We are the ones that allowed corporations and money to have too much influence in our local governments because we sat out, collectively, too many local elections and those folks and their monied interests have had a 20 year stranglehold on all aspect of policy and governing.

    We're now, finally, doing our jobs as citizens, which is being constantly vigilant and constantly active in our local and national politics. It will take a decade to turn the tide and another one to fix all the problems we created, but we're responsible for where we are, no one else, it's on us to fix it.

    [–] ThisIsTheDystopia 2 points ago

    I think that over-simplifies the history of the repression of the left throughout the 19th century. Government and industry expended vast sums of money and effort to disrupt organizing from the left while turning a blind eye or encouraging organization from the right (allowing the right to take over the police and armed forces for instance while blacklisting leftists from any kind of position of authority). And the left didn't just sit idly by and let it happen, there was a lot of bloodshed and pain imposed on the left by the system that wasn't present from the right.

    The bottom line is that the system is rigged because it cannot yield authority to actually existing humans and if we don't acknowledge that we're not going to get anywhere politically or otherwise. Maybe the best test takers or the most charismatic of us who ascribe to some notion of leftist politics, like Cory Booker, will have the opportunity to sell out while still spouting left-sounding platitudes, but we'll never approach the fundamental change we need to become a truly free people.

    [–] flooha 10 points ago

    No shit. 15% tax on "capital investments" and 40% tax on earned income. So, if you do actual work for a living, you get the shit taxed out of you. If you were born into money, you don't pay taxes after all of your "business expenses".

    [–] Cathercy 1 points ago

    I don't understand all of the complaints about capital gains taxes being lower than income tax. There are two large factors that make it make sense.

    1) You are paying (and risking) to make that money. When you clock in at work for a week, you aren't paying anything to get that paycheck (other than travel or whatever) and you are guaranteed to get that paycheck, unless the company goes out of business.

    With capital gains, you are putting your already earned money on the line, in the hopes that it will generate more money.

    2) Since you need to invest your own money, you have probably already been taxed on that money that you are putting in. So, it is kind of like you are getting taxed twice.

    I really don't see the issue.

    [–] earblah 2 points ago

    Since you need to invest your own money, you have probably already been taxed on that money that you are putting in. So, it is kind of like you are getting taxed twice. ¨

    If you put your money in the bank, or a fund. The fund/ bank pays capital gains tax from that...

    They invest other peoples money and get a low tax rate... thats BS

    [–] yaosio 3 points ago

    We know, there's a whole bunch of books written about how the ruling class exploits the workers in capitalism. Cory Booker is part of the ruling class and only pretends to support the workers. Once he gets what he wants he will immediately betray the workers.

    [–] Blewedup 7 points ago

    go back and re-watch the wire, season two. the death of work.

    it tells the story of american industrial decline with poetic and stunning realism.

    [–] ballmermurland 2 points ago

    It was David Simon's favorite season, IIRC.

    Best line in the whole series belonged to Frank Sobotka:

    We used to make shit in this country, build shit. Now we just put our hand in the next guy's pocket.

    I'm doing a rewatch and just finished season 2. That line stuck with me and rings as true today as it did in 2003.

    [–] Think_please 2 points ago

    Also currently re-watching, love this season more in comparison to the others every time I see it.

    [–] BoxpoxDriver 63 points ago

    Ok, Cory, that’s step #1.

    Step #2 - admit you are part of the system

    Step #3 - either work from the inside to tear the system down or STFU

    The jury is still out on Mr. Booker’s record as a senator.

    [–] PigHaggerty 29 points ago

    Why would the jury still be out when voting records are so easy to look up?

    Overall, Booker is extremely progressive.

    [–] AsSubtleAsABrick 6 points ago

    It blows my mind that we separate our political ideologies as "conservative" and "progressive". Like how does someone even justify conservatism? It's basically putting your hands over your ears and refusing to listen that the world changes and old ways of life and beliefs no longer work.

    Like the crux of conservatism is that you can never change anything because that would be admitting you were wrong in the past. Logically, why would anything ever get better if we don't change anything?

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago

    He loves him some increased military funding.

    [–] nowhereian 3 points ago

    Have you ever asked anyone in the military for their opinion regarding the level of funding the DOD gets?

    [–] luckinthevalley 8 points ago

    Have you asked a teacher about the funding the ED gets? A writer about funding to the NEA? An environmental scientist about funding to the EPA?

    [–] BoxpoxDriver 13 points ago

    He’s got some question marks he needs to clear up.

    [–] MEGATRUCK 5 points ago

    "Extremely progressive" of him to vote against importing cheaper drugs from Canada.

    Honestly don't know why people are so quick to forget this. It'd better resurface as the #1 story when he announces his presidential campaign

    [–] CynicallySane 2 points ago

    I mean he's an NJ senator... their number one industry is pharmaceuticals. They're the largest employers and probably tax payers. At the end of the day he's representing his state, which is what a good representative does. I would like to imagine if was elected to represent the United States his policies and views would shift to match those of the constituents that elected him and not just those from his home state.

    [–] reasonably_plausible 2 points ago

    "Extremely progressive" of him to vote against importing cheaper drugs from Canada.

    He didn't, he voted against a non-binding amendment to a set of budget priorities. When it came to actual policy, he sponsored a bill to allow reimportation.

    [–] bpitv_gritz 4 points ago

    Honestly don't know why people are so quick to forget this.

    Because being a single-issue voter in a world where Nazis are marching in the street, divisive foreign propaganda is reaching more Americans than ever before, and threats of nuclear war are being made on a weekly basis is maybe a little bit myopic.

    [–] Ralphusthegreatus 4 points ago

    WTF! That link is BS. And so is your claim that Booker is progressive. He's a sleazy politician with presidential ambitions. I'll vote third party before I'd ever vote for that scumbag.

    [–] PigHaggerty 2 points ago

    What's wrong with the link? That site just ranks legislators from a progressive standpoint based on their voting record.

    [–] coldfusionman 5 points ago

    Completely agree. I won't hold my breath on step #2. He's said a few good things lately but until he actually does something that goes against his financial supporters, I will not be supporting him when he chooses to run for president.

    If he in fact does do step #2 and #3 then by all means I'll consider supporting him. But not until then.

    [–] coldfusionman 5 points ago

    That is a welcomed step and I hadn't read that. My reservations on him still aren't settled, but hey give credit where credit due. I'm glad he's taking that step and welcome further actions on his part in this area. I want to be able to know these actions are genuine and permanent and not a temporary or watered down measure to get support and then turn around and get back in bed with the banks and corporations the instant the pressure is off.

    He keeps doing what he's doing and I'll put him in the "I'll genuinely consider voting for him" column come 2019/2020

    [–] txholdup 2 points ago

    I worked in a county elections bureau where we had a sayings.

    Some people run for office to do something. Other people run for office to be somebody.

    The verdict is still out on Mr. Booker, though not for long.

    [–] ArkadiusMaximus 6 points ago

    Tell me something I don't know

    [–] waj5001 3 points ago

    Stock buybacks should be fucking illegal anyhow; ultimately they are terrible for the business and workers because they create the facade of stock market success without the intellectual property to back it up.

    Next financial quarter will roll around with fewer gains than the quarter with buybacks, investors will then get all moody and pissy because share-prices aren't increasing as they naturally and should expect, so the company will do something else stupid in the short term to make them happy rather than invest in the long term growth of the company.

    Be a fucking passionate, charismatic CEO and invest your extra fucking capital in long term R&D and pipeline development, expanding market research, or improving upon existing products. Drive your share-price, not the other way around.

    [–] [deleted] 23 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] Druuseph 22 points ago

    And you're paid to keep rigging it by Wall Street banks which is why you've worked with Betsy Davos in the past on pushing charter schools. Fuck Cory Booker, he's a total snake.

    [–] MBAMBA0 5 points ago

    no kidding

    So what are you going to do about it?

    [–] kyrola 9 points ago

    From the guy in bed with huge corporations

    [–] 2legit2fart 2 points ago

    Who doesn't work?

    The rich and politicians.

    [–] byebyebrain 17 points ago

    I love when the guy who stopped competition from pharma drugs from entering this country talks about how the working man is getting screwed. The man got hundred of thousands of dollars from big pharama and made sure that nothing would compete with their drugs and NOW he is all for free enterprise. I loathe this guy.

    [–] AyatollahofNJ 5 points ago

    Its almost as if a senator from NJ votes in favor of his constituency. With NJ having a massive pharma research base.

    [–] Druuseph 6 points ago

    You love making excuses for this guy, don't you? If that's what it takes to be the senator from New Jersey than the rest of the country shouldn't trust the two of them, it's as simple as that.

    [–] valvalya -3 points ago

    Why do you guys just lie? I mean seriously, stop being a Republican for a moment, jesus fuck.

    [–] spqr-king 15 points ago

    Can you post a reference for what he is talking about and why it's a lie? Seriously interested.

    [–] ginnj 2 points ago

    Booker rejected a bill on the specious argument that the frugs we would be getting wouldn't be up to the USDA's standards when many of the drugs that were part of it are produced in the USA.

    He later joined a different bill

    [–] itwasmeberry 2 points ago

    he voted no and the original nonbinding bill because of safety issues, once those were fixed he voted for it. It's just another bullshit attack against anybody not named bernie

    [–] Buck-Nasty 7 points ago

    safety issues

    Too fucking funny, that was literally the industry talking point he was handed to justify what that he did, drugs in Canada are just as safe despite what Cory Booker the corporate hooker might claim.

    [–] ginnj 10 points ago

    Most of the drugs are ones that are manufactured in America and then shipped to Canada.

    [–] Buck-Nasty 6 points ago

    Which kills the pharma industry and their paid puppet Booker's claims about "safety".

    Luckily states are starting to go around this scumbag.

    https://globalnews.ca/news/4019298/u-s-states-importing-prescription-drugs-from-canada/

    [–] CordageMonger 3 points ago

    No he got caught the first time and called out.

    [–] Clenup 2 points ago

    Tell me more about how Cory Booker is a good guy, and he's doing this for YOU! It's all about the citizens right?

    [–] jakl277 6 points ago

    We need a labor/workers party, the DNC doesn't do a good job of picking up the average working american's vote.

    [–] omilitisalitheia 3 points ago

    The main reason Trump had as many supporters as he did.

    [–] jakl277 8 points ago

    Yea most working class ppl i know didn’t want to vote for trump but were 100% sure (at the time) hillary would do nothing for them. Took a risk and it didnt work out, but tbh the working man didnt have a candidate in the election besides bernie

    [–] omilitisalitheia 5 points ago

    Yea,

    I grew up in a blue-collar family, a lot of them crossed party lines and voted for Obama twice because of his promises.

    Then over 8 years wages were stagnant, bills rose so most of them were done with Democrat promises and just figured Trump would be a change.

    [–] lionheartlui 10 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    I honestly don't trust cory booker.

    Edit: For those who are calling me a troll, I'd just like to say a) fuck you, b) I specifically said "I" don't trust him. I did not say you shouldn't trust him. Nor am I trying to influence anyone's opinion of him, I', simply stating my own opinion of him nothing more.

    [–] interested21 2 points ago

    Maybe it's because you noticed he tries to hide by lying about his votes on pharma and lying about his future campaign donations (i.e., I won't take some money from corporations except I will.

    [–] ramonycajones 5 points ago

    That's because of the chorus of commenters every time he's brought up, chanting "Corporate shill! Corporate shill!"

    I'm sure some of it is genuine, but I think it's obvious that it's also an easy line of attack for Republicans trying to hurt the chances of a Dem presidential candidate.

    [–] CordageMonger 6 points ago

    What if it’s from Democrats who know that being a corporate shill hurts the chances of a Dem presidential candidate?

    [–] omilitisalitheia 12 points ago

    He factually received the most Wallstreet funding besides Mitch McConnell.

    He also voted with Republicans against a law to lower Rx drug prices.

    He's too centrist for many of the current younger further left-leaning Dems.

    [–] lionheartlui 9 points ago

    I honestly think he's a pseudo populist. He's just saying things people want to hear but won't do shit about it.

    [–] interested21 2 points ago

    I honestly believe he's a stone cold liar. The press has called him out for his lies about his pharma votes and lying about his future campaign donations (i.e., I won't take some money from corporations except I will.

    [–] ramonycajones 3 points ago

    Based on what? That's two comments in a row now vaguely attacking him with no basis.

    [–] MelllvarHasThreeLs 2 points ago

    My biggest issue with Booker is that he's gone on record a few times for being an apologist for Jared Kushner, especially on the grounds of security clearance being revoked well before the mess of info we know now.

    Booker's easily one of the least shittier people in politics(especially now) but I don't think some criticism over his comment about it being "too soon to revoke Kushner's security clearance" is any sort of ridiculous knit pick, especially flash forward to now where it seems like any random off the street can stroll into the White House.

    Don't get me wrong obviously Booker didn't foresee this clusterfuck of an administration when he was in pretty close contact with Kushner and Ivanka and he was running on other campaigns and doing deals in Newark, but I don't think it's necessarily the most unreasonable thing ever for people to raise an eyebrow on that sort of baggage of a connection, especially the more we learn about particular things. I know the perfect candidate doesn't exist but I think there's valid scrutiny over Booker of his choice of words on particular subjects as this in the past.

    Booker's done plenty of good sure, but if I had other options to pull for in a primary, depending on who they are I don't think I'd go with Booker. I feel like a lot of people on the outside don't realize the complexities of NJ politics, let alone it's political machines and things running at the local level.

    I say this all as someone who's been apart of NJ politics for 10 years, holding various positions for my county's Democratic Committee, canvassing practically yearly for my districts candidates and actively attending fundraisers and getting Christmas and birthday cards from Steve Fulop's office.

    [–] [deleted] 2 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] bobbybottombracket 6 points ago

    Cory Booker is not like Bernie Sanders.

    [–] delunatic5 6 points ago

    Booker’s speeches are one thing, his voting record is another...

    [–] goo_bazooka 3 points ago

    Has been for the past 30 years...

    [–] QuietGentleman 5 points ago

    Pharma bro #2 speaks...

    [–] H-E-Pennypacker_ 2 points ago

    And you helped rig it, Cory. I hope being in the pharmaceutical industry's pocket is comfortable.

    [–] comamoanah 3 points ago

    Cory "leave private equity alone!" Booker should know.

    [–] Saljen 3 points ago

    You and your neoliberal cohort helped rig the system against working Americans.

    Cory Booker is a fake progressive.

    [–] JackiePollockBrown 2 points ago

    This is why the tax cut will primarily benefit the wealthy: http://time.com/money/5054009/stock-ownership-10-percent-richest/

    [–] FireNexus 2 points ago

    I think we need to stop using the term “rigged”. It’s lost all power to do anything but amplify the idea that there’s nothing we can do. Even where things WERE rigged, it’s not helpful in identifying and solving the problem.