That's a fair point. More jobs than people inherently gives the laborers the advantage. I'll need to look into the Lineman union too -- nothing's more heartwarming than a union successfully kicking execs to the curb.

First, and I am not assuming you meant it this way it just has to be repeated over and over again, “unskilled laborers” is mostly just a phrase the rationalizes treating people who do difficult jobs like shit.

Absolutely, that's why I put it in quotation. I couldn't think of a better way to describe them at the time. You're spot on too that food service isn't trivial work. Both it and working retail are brutal, and I don't wish that on anyone except those who truly deserve it. There's nothing wrong with those jobs, but they put up with way more than they should have to.

Judging people for their job is one of those shitty conservative boomer things, and it makes absolutely no sense. When I order out for dinner, I'm not necessarily looking for a chef whose culinary skills exceed my own. I'm looking for someone to make me food so I don't have to. I'm exchanging money for someone's time and effort so I don't have to spend time nor effort. Skill and talent don't matter. If I don't want to do something, that something is going to be nontrivial effort, and I owe gratitude and compensation to whoever does it for me. All labor is precious and valuable under this viewpoint.

Also -- I'm all for unionization. If it isn't enough collective power to affect change, then we can try something else. But we should try first.

I think that has to be part of the discussion, education. These workers are "unskilled laborers", and that means companies can push them around however they'd like. There isn't a limited pool of workers that requires them to offer comprehensive benefits, like with more technical positions. There's also a very high chance some of the job hazards will be eliminated with automation -- while also eliminating jobs. We need to prepare for that.

In the meantime, we should create formal education programs for these positions so the workers have more leverage if they desire.

Got it, those innocent kids only matter if it isn't an inconvenience to your wallet or requires effort. Moving away for a clean conscience is too much, but voting for what's the best realistic scenario is an affront to your values.

So go ahead. Vote how you want. But know that if you don't vote against Trump, you're helping out Israel. It seems you're just fine with that though.

I sometimes wish they were correct about their God's existence so that I knew there was a hell they'd burn in.

It wasn't too long ago that Texas actually had a Democrat governor, and California a Republican governor.

I saw someone mention Rosa Parks, and it's the perfect example. Injustice must be fought where it is by individuals who are brave enough to put themselves in harm's way for it. I have no disdain for people who put themselves and their families ahead of a cause. I'm the same way. But the very least we can do is offer our unconditional support to these heroes.

This would be a perfect slogan. We're asking that government subsidized medical research be free to the public. We aren't asking companies to research complex medications without any compensation. Make it so the subsidy results in a net profit for the company (which it probably already does) and remove the private sales. Everyone wins, and we aren't stupidly paying twice.

Technically no other country has M4A. All of them have supplemental private insurance, and the current M4A policy completely abolishes all of it.

I'm in favor of universal healthcare for essentials and allowing private insurance for supplementals, to start with. The ultimate goal would be to phase out insurance completely, but it's unwise to jump ahead to it immediately since there currently aren't any systems that do so and we have no experience nor data.

You could. You could move out of the US and refuse to buy any US products. It would come at great personal cost to you, but it would mean you are completely not complicit.

Do your morals stop when you have to personally give or sacrifice? You refuse to vote because it would make you complicit, but you don't refuse to live in and contribute to a country that makes you complicit.

To be clear, I don't think this makes you a hypocrite. I'm just further pointing out that your absolutist morals aren't realistically sensible, and that your morals clearly aren't absolute if there's boundaries you won't cross to meet them.

Do you care more about supporting the killing of children than you actually do about the killing of children itself? You're putting your morals ahead of human lives.

I'm not pleased to pick a lesser option, but there is no realistic option that will stop all the death instantly. You don't have to like it, but you have to acknowledge reality. This is going to continue no matter how you vote. All you can do is influence how many people it'll affect, and hope that puts us on a road to outright stopping these things in the future. Do you think Israel would feel so emboldened if Trump wasn't a possible leader?

And this doesn't even take into consideration other issues. Ukraine needs to be able to defend itself from Russia. If they don't get military support, Russia will kidnap and kill even more children. Republicans don't seem to care about that, but Democrats are pushing for that military support to happen. Here there is an option for your vote to stop the death of children. I wish it was Palestinian AND Ukrainian children, but the world is a shitty place, and all we can do is try to make it less shitty.

So I ask again. Do you care more about supporting the killing of children, at the expense of the actual killing of children?

Do you have sources where I could read more about the rank and file opinion? Or surveys/polls?