Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 399: Teardrops on My Qatar

(+) Yeah! (+)

nazbol i guess

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Whats he saying? I dont think Ive seen him say anything like that over here, and I avoid the politics board lol

I block for transphobia and yup I've had deepspraw blocked over what I remember was him backing up Rowling saying she says nothing wrong about trans people etc, here in the politopic a decent while back

I don't remember if I have deepspraw blocked, I haven't seen him around in a while so shrug

Just a nazbol, block and move on, don't engage

https://twitter.com/johncornyn/status/1595958007644721152

Its still up, lol

Kenri posted...

DeepsPraw is a tankie which fits with him having dipshit conservative social views

yeah, this. he wasn't communist-adjacent, he just simps china

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/johncornyn/status/1595958007644721152

Its still up, lol

What's wrong with this, other than it being grammatically incorrect*?

*He's speaking to a wide audience, so the correct word is "you" not "thee." "Thee" would be used for a single person with whom you are familiar, or for God.

red_sox_777 posted...

What's wrong with this, other than it being grammatically incorrect*?

*He's speaking to a wide audience, so the correct word is "you" not "thee." "Thee" would be used for a single person with whom you are familiar, or for God.

It's written at though it was sent from Ted Cruz, hence the sign off of "Heidi & Ted", implying that it's just a generic holiday greeting from social media managers that handle both Texas senators.

Right, the social team got their texas senators mixed up lol

is it supposed to have a maple leaf

https://twitter.com/dannydevito/status/1597459871330275328?s=46&t=gDwgaPuumrD0rLgrr5jseQ

I cant speak to the specifics of the deal, but Joe put out a statement basically saying Congress should force the striking railworkers to accept the current deal that was made, even though the union members voted it down.

Seems bad.

It's a shitty situation.

The tl;dr (but still kinda long) of it is:

The deal isn't great, but it is somehow an improvement over the deal that was on the table in the summer. The administration-brokered deal is a 25% pay raise but still doesn't include paid sick leave (sounds like 3 unpaid sick days.)

It's been rejected by 4 of the 12 railway unions but it seems like it's a pretty fiercely divided thing in the unions. One of those rejections was 49%-51%, and I have no illusion that the ones who approved it had much better margins. In any event, even being rejected by a single union would have almost certainly have caused a strike because even the unions who approved it are highly unlikely to cross the picket line in solidarity with any who rejected it.

Congress basically has 3 options here: Push the deadline back to allow for further negotiation, force the two sides into arbitration, or impose a deal on the two sides. The problem, IMO, for a non-confrontational resolution is twofold - the incoming GOP House and, of fucking course, the filibuster. I'm skeptical extending the negotiation time does much because the railway companies know that a GOP House will be taking over and will be far more willing to screw over the workers than the current House so they can just wait it out because the blame will inevitably fall on the workers and Biden. Arbitration I imagine is probably a non-starter in the Senate because of the filibuster because I imagine the GOP would rather pretend that's not an option and will instead move to the last option - imposing a deal on them. I think Congress could edit the existing deal and just, for instance, give the 4 sick days a year that the unions are asking for but I absolutely would expect a filibuster from the GOP and to reiterate I'm not 100% sure they can just edit the deal. Which leaves them with imposing one of the two deals already out there as-is - the administration-brokered deal or the even worse for labor deal from the summer.

I mentioned this in Discord, but I actually kinda get Biden's position here simply because of how devastating a rail shutdown would be. Biden talks about the economy in his explanation (because that's what most people will selfishly care about) but I'm thinking of the consequences that include the possibility of communities no longer having clean drinking water. In his role as POTUS I can see why he feels he can't let that happen. On the other hand, I also believe the workers of course have the right to strike if the companies can't give them what should be basic rights like paid sick leave and if they choose to do so even if Congress tries to order them back to work, I would not fault them. Though I do think they will end up being blamed by the public as a whole and it will not lead to a better outcome for them but that's not my call to make, it's theirs.

Basically I ended up at a place that was basically "paid sick leave needs to be enshrined in law fucking yesterday" and "uhhh the government should really nationalize rail wtf"

A rail shutdown would be ridiculously bad

The vote was close enough I think forcing it through is fine

masterplum posted...

A rail shutdown would be ridiculously bad

They should probably take the demands seriously then, huh?

You think forcing it through is going to end in sunshine and rainbows?

masterplum posted...

The vote was close enough I think forcing it through is fine

That's not how voting works.

It's always interesting watching people argue about working conditions in very non adjacent fields.

In the end, you support like 100k upper middle class workers getting a raise or million upon tens of millions upon hundreds or millions lower class people taking the hit.

The first question should be... why is sick days an issue with the company. It doesn't matter if they enshrine in sick days because these companies just say that's pto and take away vacation to replace the sick days you got given saying they are the same thing.

I miss the days when unhappy workers just did large-scale industrial sabotage.

The days when corporations werent considered people is something we really need to go back to

Suprak_the_Stud posted...

That's not how voting works.

Its not a democracy

swordz9 posted...

The days when corporations werent considered people is something we really need to go back to

So if we nationalized the railroad and enforced the contract they just voted no to would you be ok with it?

Looking into it more, the current deal is literally one sick day.

This is after a pandemic where if you caught it you could be on your ass for two weeks.

Dogshit.

if we nationalized the railroad i'm pretty sure they would get paid sick leave so that hypothetical couldn't really exist

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/29/1139342874/corporate-greed-and-the-inflation-mystery

Their complaints were being on call and sick days. More sick days you have the more on calls you end up making.

The union itself said it aimed for sick days but considered it something they wouldn't get and a nonstarter in negotiations for them to achieve.

24/7 operations that can't operate without full crews and can't shut down generally don't have sick days and if they mandate sick days on the government level, they just say you already have this many pto days so just classify this amount of pto days sick days instead of vacation days.

It's a catch-22 the more days you give people off, the more coverage you have to account for by others. People who don't work jobs like this just don't get this.

masterplum posted...

https://www.npr.org/2022/11/29/1139342874/corporate-greed-and-the-inflation-mystery

I'll need to see some figures to support this. My understanding is the corporate profits as a percentage are way up, that's not something you can just hand wave because raw material prices did see an increase.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

I'll need to see some figures to support this. My understanding is the corporate profits as a percentage are way up, that's not something you can just hand wave because raw material prices did see an increase.

I thought the conclusion was interesting. Prices increased due to material costs and consumers seem to just have been willing to pay that much signaling to companies they could keep that price regardless

Which isn't corporate greed, it's consumers being willing to accept higher profit margins.

Which is super weird. Would love to see how this shakes out.

Wouldn't shock me if regulatory capture strikes again where there isn't pressure by different companies to lower prices

I guess my conclusion isn't "well there are only 3 companies so of course there is no competition" but rather "these 3 companies as being greedy by taking factors that justify a 10% price increase and using them to hit us with a 40% price increase"

They didn't know the disproportionately higher prices would be paid until after they were already set at those levels.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

I guess my conclusion isn't "well there are only 3 companies so of course there is no competition" but rather "these 3 companies as being greedy by taking factors that justify a 10% price increase and using them to hit us with a 40% price increase"

They didn't know the disproportionately higher prices would be paid until after they were already set at those levels.

It seems like raw material costs was the cause of the first price increase

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/0/2/AAGQPmAAD7zq.jpg

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1597402990796849154?s=46&t=f26ofiAvkhCWoiM0iAN6eA

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1597406559377952769?s=46&t=f26ofiAvkhCWoiM0iAN6eA

What a gathering of assholes

https://twitter.com/burgessev/status/1597732231920984064

hell yeah

but also, who the fuck voted against it?

I'd bet on Grassley as one of those no votes.

The followup to that tweet has the twelve Rs who voted for it

Blunt, Burr, Capito, Collins, Ernst, Lummis, Murkowski, Portman, Romney, Sullivan, Tillis and Young

Now if only they could laugh at SCOTUS' face in every other case as well.

The Respect for Marriage Act is a pretty big win for the religious right so it's frankly pretty funny that they still refused to vote for it

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1597739899200983041

Pelosi will hold a vote on the railway deal tomorrow in a two-parter.

First vote sounds like the administration-brokered deal.
But then followed immediately by a second vote to add seven days paid sick leave to the deal.

Package would then go to the Senate.

Not sure if this is shrewd by splitting it up and putting the GOP on the record on voting down paid sick leave or if this is a sign she doesn't think the votes are there for paid sick leave at all and its separated out so the deal gets through. Though in that case we'd at least see which Dems stabbed labor in the back.

Thorn posted...

https://twitter.com/JakeSherman/status/1597739899200983041

Pelosi will hold a vote on the railway deal tomorrow in a two-parter.

First vote sounds like the administration-brokered deal.
But then followed immediately by a second vote to add seven days paid sick leave to the deal.

Package would then go to the Senate.

Not sure if this shrewd by splitting it up and putting the GOP on the record on voting down paid sick leave or if this is a sign she doesn't think the votes are there for paid sick leave at all and its separated out so the deal gets through. Though in that case we'd at least see which Dems stabbed labor in the back.

I think this is to force a deal through with plausible deniability that they wanted more sick leave but couldnt make it happen

I know nothing about it. How is it a win for the religious right?

Peace___Frog posted...

I know nothing about it. How is it a win for the religious right?

It protects the ability of religious institutions to discriminate against same-sex couples. It also isn't an enshrinement of Obergefell into law. Should SCOTUS overturn that ruling as they've openly signaled they'd like to then the states where the laws on the books prohibit same sex marriage would once again be valid. This law would force them to give full faith and credit to marriages performed in the states where it is legal but it's the same issue with abortion where not everyone can just leave a state.

Basically it's an extremely weak law and the cost of getting even that much was to provide additional legal protection to the rights of religious groups to continue discriminating.

Thorn posted...

It also isn't an enshrinement of Obergefell into law. Should SCOTUS overturn that ruling as they've openly signalled they'd like to then the states where the laws on the books prohibit same sex marriage would once again be valid.

True, but if SCOTUS wants to overturn Obergefell wouldn't they just strike down any federal protections of gay marriage anyway? Constitutional amendments are the only real way for Congress to block SCOTUS decisions.

I mean, I left it unsaid but I wouldn't be particularly surprised if this court indeed tried to find to way to take out the protections in this law too (while leaving the shields it gives to religious groups of course.) It would have to be even more unhinged and untethered to logic to get them to such a point but they're already citing witch trials as legal precedent so you never know.

Thorn posted...

I mean, I left it unsaid but I wouldn't be particularly surprised if this court indeed tried to find to way to take out the protections in this law too (while leaving the shields it gives to religious groups of course.) It would have to be even more unhinged and untethered to logic to get them to such a point but they're already citing witch trials as legal precedent so you never know.

Six members of the court don't use logic in decisions at all. It's time we started ignoring them entirely to be honest.

Unfortunately, I don't think we can choose to just ignore them.

Thanks for the explanation.

https://www.timesleader.com/news/1588599/luzerne-county-election-board-does-not-certify-nov-8-general-election-results
Looks like they're going to try to re-do the election for the benefit of some local races?

It's no surprise that Republicans voted against a Respect for Marriage Act. They're all on their like 4th marriage. And nothing grates their gears like people who actually take 'till death do us part' seriously.

Yeah, so the reason the RFMA is a win for the religious right is that all it does is guarantee that a marriage performed legally in one state will be recognized federally, but it also has a ton of weaselly language in there about how non-profit religious organizations are indeed allowed to be as discriminatory as they want, and it basically enshrines 'states rights' as the law of the land in the case that Obergefell falls. Remember, the mormon church was in favor of this law, and this is why; it's a hedge bet against Obergefell falling from both sides, basically. If it does, then there is no question that they would be able to fully discriminate against gay marriage in Utah, and the matter would be a 'settled issue' because of the RFMA's passing that they don't have to debate anymore. It's not a huge win for them, but it just sort of ends up settling the debate on their side of the issue too much.

Peace___Frog posted...

Unfortunately, I don't think we can choose to just ignore them.

Historically, you can if you want to commit genocide or something

People in power, sure. Not us peons.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/oath-keepers-verdict-seditious-conspiracy-trial-rcna58415

A federal jury in Washington on Tuesday found Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes and Kelly Meggs, another member of the far-right organization, guilty of seditious conspiracy in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, a victory for the government in a case that involved a rarely used Civil War era statute.

Three other members of the group who were on trial alongside Rhodes and Meggs Jessica Watkins, Kenneth Harrelson and Thomas Caldwell were found not guilty on the seditious conspiracy charge. All five defendants were found guilty of obstruction of an official proceeding and aiding and abetting for their actions on Jan. 6, 2021.

Paratroopa1 posted...

and it basically enshrines 'states rights' as the law of the land in the case that Obergefell falls

Not exactly a fair way to phrase that since it was unambiguously the case without it.

House passes the railway deal and succeeded in adding the 7 days of paid sick leave.

221-207. All Dems in favor. All except three GOP opposed.

https://twitter.com/MorePerfectUS/status/1598020256189980672

Senate tomorrow.

Thorn posted...

succeeded in adding the 7 days of paid sick leave.

This is good. This is very good.