Nobody answer, this guy might be a fed

I’d just like to step in here and remind the people at home that appeals to hypocrisy are a logical fallacy. Just because someone isn’t doing what they say should be done doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

Thanks, I’ll hang up and listen.

Not a lawyer but I wonder how much teeth that law has. The GOP/Trump has put on a clinic on how to legally gum up the wheels of justice, it seems like unions could try the same. Delay, argue technicalities, appeal, rise, repeat…

For example: if you spend 2 months in court arguing about who organized what and what they’re technically striking for, damage could still be done even with the strike broken up. Multiply that by a few major unions and it adds up.

You can already see a similar plan coming together with UAWs 2028 contact expiration plan. Its not a general strike, there’s just coincidentally a lot of strikes at once.

Of course there’s a stricter set of laws and leeway when you’re not a corrupt oligarch so it wouldn’t work. But it’s fun to think about…

Oh huh, interesting… 📃✍️

Wouldn’t composting just release more greenhouse gasses? We need a more effective means of carbon capture, or maybe directly repurpose them as some sort of nutritional paste

Personal consumption accounted for 68.8% of US GDP in at the end of 2024, an all time high. Granted, ~45% of that is very hard to cut back on (healthcare, insurance, housing).

But even still, a drop of 10-15% would be devastating. If you could organize it, you could even skip payments on the big ticket services. Everyone skipping a month of bills at the same time would do serious, recession-level damage.

It’s not a direct fix for our problems, but you can play serious economic chicken when most of the economy flows through your wallets.

It’s literally illegal for these publicly traded companies to do anything that would be detrimental to their shareholders. The guy in oval office is telling them there will be consequences for not following his EOs (ie: lowering shareholder value). There’s not any decision to be made here (not that they aren’t laughing to the bank either way)

You proved it’s impossible to be a completely ethical consumer, but did you prove that it’s necessary to be a consumer at all? Or that all volumes of consumption are equally culpable?

People view boycotting as if enough homework will find them the fabled Free Market Unicorn©️, with sparkling udders they can ethically consume from to their hearts content.

Guess what: your coffee and chocolate are slave labor all the way down. Nestle owns all your water and 6 media conglomerates get your entertainment money no matter where you swipe your credit card.

But do you actually need to make those purchases in the first place? There’s nothing other than habit, comfort, and convenience keeping you from cutting most of it out of your life. It makes the ethical calculus so much easier.

Of course, how much austerity you can stomach in your modern life is a personal threshold. But every dollar you don’t spend is a dollar less to our corporate overlords. You could even donate it to a worthy cause for double the satisfaction (if you care to do that homework…)

Why not go out doing something exciting at least?

It’s easy to make statements like that before desperation sets in. Starving is an awful way to die, death after nuclear fallout is excruciating and slow, you won’t enjoy any sunsets when the smoke from burning cities fills up the sky.

50 years from now when you’re freezing in a cold muddy ditch, you’ll be wishing you died a martyr taking the 1/1e10000 chance to fix it.

Edit: I’m legally required to clarify that martyrdom can result from non-violent acts 🙂

Burnie Burns? Weird choice but I admit it’d be an upgrade

The dirty little secret is that nobody in any government has control without the backing of guys with guns. In the US, that’s the executive branch headed by the president.

If Democrats (and any handful of Republicans secretly hiding their shred of dignity) have any chance, it’s not going to be as a toothless opposition. Best case they’re ignored, worst case they have a terrible accident involving a high window.

Ensuring they have some semblance of support from the military would be priority #1, second would probably be hoping the Supreme Court would lend them legal support by not tearing up the constitution. With the backing of both, the non-treasonous remnants of Congress could pick up the pieces with some semblance of legal continuity.

Without the military, your only choice is to concede to the executive branch. You could stand firm and end up a constitutional martyr to fuel some civil unrest, maybe even form your own government in exile, but not much beyond that.