The US is not a “conglomerate” nor is it different countries. You do not have a passport from your state and if your state would seceede there wont be many international recognition.
Also it is quite telling that you say that you have these rightsin your state, so workers who dont habe them shouldnt fight for them. Then again i think you just saw recently in the abortion decision of the supreme court, why it is dangerous to leave these things to the state level and not have them on the federal level or better yet constitutionally protected.
Waah waah technicalities. Stop distracting. My original and central point was that in Democratic strongholds, the US more closely resembles a European standard of living. Do you agree?
so workers who dont habe them shouldnt fight for them.
My point was that the workers need to fight, because they have no political means. You showed that they do have some political means, which i interpreted as an arguement against them fighting and trying the political way.
While i agree that there is different states with different levels of workers rifhts, i still think that the political route is not reliable, in particular in the states where republicans are dominatinf but also because of the reluctance of the federal level of the democratic party to grant and protect workers rights. These need to be governed by federal law and their principles should be in the constitution.
The federal level democrats are NOT reluctant, they just literally don’t have the numbers to enact change. In most cases, you need 60/100 senators to pass a law over the objections of the other party, and Republicans object to almost every single bill democrats put forward.
If we vote in more democratic Senators, federal law gets better.
The US is not a “conglomerate” nor is it different countries. You do not have a passport from your state and if your state would seceede there wont be many international recognition.
Also it is quite telling that you say that you have these rightsin your state, so workers who dont habe them shouldnt fight for them. Then again i think you just saw recently in the abortion decision of the supreme court, why it is dangerous to leave these things to the state level and not have them on the federal level or better yet constitutionally protected.
Waah waah technicalities. Stop distracting. My original and central point was that in Democratic strongholds, the US more closely resembles a European standard of living. Do you agree?
Stop making shit up and pretending I said it.
My point was that the workers need to fight, because they have no political means. You showed that they do have some political means, which i interpreted as an arguement against them fighting and trying the political way.
While i agree that there is different states with different levels of workers rifhts, i still think that the political route is not reliable, in particular in the states where republicans are dominatinf but also because of the reluctance of the federal level of the democratic party to grant and protect workers rights. These need to be governed by federal law and their principles should be in the constitution.
The federal level democrats are NOT reluctant, they just literally don’t have the numbers to enact change. In most cases, you need 60/100 senators to pass a law over the objections of the other party, and Republicans object to almost every single bill democrats put forward.
If we vote in more democratic Senators, federal law gets better.