A federal judge in Texas is blocking a rule enacted by President Joe Biden earlier this year that provides overtime pay protection for roughly four million American workers.
This is akin to the “pardoning marijuana possession convictions” thing where it didn’t apply to a single person in federal custody and only benefitted 3,000 people (with past convictions) in the entire nation.
This is basically virtue signaling and/or table scraps for us peasants.
The only thing the federal government can do is pardon federal crimes. That is what they did. You’ve called that action “virtue signalling and/or table scraps.”
It’s unclear whether you A) think that federal cannabis possession convictions shouldn’t have been pardoned (considering your displeasure with the fact that they were), or B) think that such convictions should have been pardoned (as they were), but also don’t like that.
Since B) is not internally consistent - you would need to not like something you think should happen - it’s not unreasonable to ask if you think that such convictions shouldn’t be pardoned. Frankly, neither position is easy to logically square, and you’ve done nothing to assist in that endeavor.
How about you learn about context and read the rest of what I wrote? My complaint with both of these actions is that they’re essentially meaningless for the majority of people and they don’t go far enough. I refer to them as table scraps and virtue signaling because they only give the appearance of taking action without actually fixing anything or improving the lives of nearly anyone. The politicians get to parade around acting like they’re working for our benefit when they’re actually doing very little to help.
So whether or not federal cannabis convictions were pardoned, or millions of people would have guarantees to overtime pay, you would have complained either way, probably about Democrats, because the actions taken weren’t perfect solutions, or if they weren’t taken, then “Democrats have done nothing!”
Are you not capable of responding without fabricating a complete strawman argument first?
The only thing the federal government can do is pardon federal crimes. That is what they did. You’ve called that action “virtue signalling and/or table scraps.”
It’s unclear whether you A) think that federal cannabis possession convictions shouldn’t have been pardoned (considering your displeasure with the fact that they were), or B) think that such convictions should have been pardoned (as they were), but also don’t like that.
Since B) is not internally consistent - you would need to not like something you think should happen - it’s not unreasonable to ask if you think that such convictions shouldn’t be pardoned. Frankly, neither position is easy to logically square, and you’ve done nothing to assist in that endeavor.
How about you learn about context and read the rest of what I wrote? My complaint with both of these actions is that they’re essentially meaningless for the majority of people and they don’t go far enough. I refer to them as table scraps and virtue signaling because they only give the appearance of taking action without actually fixing anything or improving the lives of nearly anyone. The politicians get to parade around acting like they’re working for our benefit when they’re actually doing very little to help.
So whether or not federal cannabis convictions were pardoned, or millions of people would have guarantees to overtime pay, you would have complained either way, probably about Democrats, because the actions taken weren’t perfect solutions, or if they weren’t taken, then “Democrats have done nothing!”
Got it.
“Meaningless for 99.9% of people”
Corrected that for you 😂