Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 363: SEC Speed

(+) Yeah! (+)

xp1337 posted...

Hmm. I thought my post was pretty clear, but apparently it requires some clarification.

~Bipartisan amendment~ has the ~ to indicate my sarcasm and eye-rolling. I'll admit this part, and this alone, I felt may have been a bit unclear. I didn't think scare quotes would convey the right meaning, but from the rest of my post I thought it was pretty clear I was taking a pretty dim view of the Senators involved in this amendment given I accused them and this amendment as being purely performative political theater. There may have been a better way to convey that, I kinda feel like there may have been but for the life of me I couldn't think of anything past scare quotes and tildes.

My post does not, in fact, literally state that I think "Sanders is freaking out." In fact, I state I saw worrying elsewhere now, granted I suppose you could stretch this somewhat as me seeing Sanders doing so, but it is with a heavy heart that I must inform you all that Bernie Sanders is not part of my social circle. Also, that I follow political discussion in places other than Board 8's Political Containment Topic and I was referring to people in those discussions and forums freaking out as this amendment was being proposed, voted on, and passed during vote-a-rama.

Additionally, I will very much assert I do not think Sanders is "freaking out" about this. I think he's pretty calm, honestly. I think he knows Manchin and co are acting their act and what he's doing is reiterating and reinforcing the message. In a way, I almost think it's a game, Manchin probably gets street cred back in WV for being able to go to his constituents and say "Hey, look, I was fighting against Sanders for you, look how moderate I am!" Nor am I particularly concerned about House Dems sending a letter, again, I'd take this as them drawing their line here.

The one and only fact in play here that would have me even slightly concerned is the reporting that Biden is willing to at least entertain talks on targeting. However, on the other side of the scale, he had the Senate vote through the reconciliation process for the $1.9t price tag which very much suggests we're not going to see it scaled down and Biden has been surprisingly (to me, at least) upfront with hammering in the messaging that he has no interest in getting bogged down in negotiations and instead wants to forge ahead on getting this done.

Now does this mean I'm saying it's a done deal that the $50,000 phase out is not happening? No, I'm not. But I don't think it's an imminent or likely threat here. Nothing has actually crossed from rhetoric to action yet that has gotten me worried that Democrats are going to fuck this up. I don't begrudge anyone the anxiety that the political theater that is discussing it might bring, but to this point I don't see it as anything more than just that - theater.

If they actually phase it down to $50k, I promise you I'll be raging against them for their utter stupidity and cowardice but we're not there.

I feel like Biden is acting as if him and Bernie had a chat and he is actually sticking to it and we never heard about it. Just two old men, sat down and decided to beat Trump and Biden made promises he planned to keep.

Biden isn't doing everything I want, he isn't literally Bernie, but I feel as if that is what happened compared to just Biden's old record. It feels as if he is paying a lot of respect to the progressive base. Or maybe he is just turning into meme joe and giving them a knuckle sandwich

---

Corrik7 posted...

I honestly think you know very little actually about unions and are just trying to find a distinction to try to justify being pro-union but anti-police unions. They operate same as many other unions.

You are right in the first sentence, wrong in the rest.

The difference with police unions is that they don't have any management to answer to. The people they answer to have basically no incentive to do anything against the police. There is no real "management" side against the police union. So they arent a push and pull system like other unions, they have no real oversight.

But yeah pretty much every union is in fact run by someone that is in the union or a conglomerate of sorts that is run by someone elected/hired by the union. That is kind of the whole point of a union.

---

Biscuit educated me on the subject early last year, so I trust his ability to understand the difference tbh

---

red13n posted...

You are right in the first sentence, wrong in the rest.

The difference with police unions is that they don't have any management to answer to. The people they answer to have basically no incentive to do anything against the police. There is no real "management" side against the police union. So they arent a push and pull system like other unions, they have no real oversight.

But yeah pretty much every union is in fact run by someone that is in the union or a conglomerate of sorts that is run by someone elected/hired by the union. That is kind of the whole point of a union.

Their management is their employer which is the city, state, municipality, etc. Same as in any other union. The problem is that you just dislike the options they have to carry out punishments as dictated by their collective bargaining agreement and/or the lack of push by the employer.

Again. This is where the distinction should come from. You shouldn't be anti-police unions if you are pro-union. They do exactly the same thing as any other union. You are pointing the finger at the wrong party.

Of course these employers can choose to lockout their police forces to try and negotiate better contracts in their favor. But, it is why the police force is so strong. Most areas can't withstand a lockout because you basically declared war against all police so they won't even cover it for you. What you gonna do... Use scabs for police? Lmfao.

It is the employers own fault though. They let these contracts happen in the first place and have very little leverage to change it barring major concessions which taxpayers would probably like even less.

It's hard to be pro union and upset that a union has done such a good job at protecting it's workforce. Unions would do just as good a job keeping a guy employed who spilled harmful chemicals into a river at a production plant.


---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Biscuit educated me on the subject early last year, so I trust his ability to understand the difference tbh

Why? It is apparent he knows very little on the subject and is regurgitating stuff he has heard that is wrong. Twice in this topic alone he has stated incorrect things which he based all his premises on in the first place.

---

This whole interview sure is something

https://twitter.com/sonnybunch/status/1358202331695824897?s=21

---

Speaking of Police: https://news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-teen-had-hands-police-220540745.html

Disgusting. They need to be fired and charged.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Of course these employers can choose to lockout their police forces to try and negotiate better contracts in their favor. But, it is why the police force is so strong. Most areas can't withstand a lockout because you basically declared war against all police so they won't even cover it for you. What you gonna do... Use scabs for police? Lmfao.

You literally just said police unions are the same and then said this, lmao

---

Corrik7 posted...

A local union. Tons of unions are ran by people in their business or field or union. Many are just elected from their own ranks. Those are the best kinds of leaders usually but not always.

https://boilermakerslocal154.com/leadership-1

International isn't much different.

https://boilermakers.org/about/leadership

I honestly think you know very little actually about unions and are just trying to find a distinction to try to justify being pro-union but anti-police unions. They operate same as many other unions.

Corrik, when I say "they are their employers" I'm not speaking literally. I'm dumbing it down for you because you actively refuse to understand the problem at hand here, likely by choice.

Their contracts, crafted entirely by the police union, give them full independence and freedom away from their "real employers" which you name as whatever city/state they belong to. But the city/state doesn't actually have any control over their management. In fact, they are actively blocked out of being able to do anything about the management of them because police union contracts all universally force them to not be able to choose any management in the police force.

Moreover than that--this clause isn't even needed. Because their employer in this case doesn't even make hiring and firing decisions on the police force. The police force does. The police unions don't actually give them protections from their employer, they give them protections for themselves. Ergo, they make these decisions to benefit themselves. Police forces investigate any misconduct themselves. It's like asking employees to investigate themselves and then decide whether or not they deserve to be employed still. What do you think their answer is going to be? "Nah, we deserve to be fired."

So when I say "They are their own employer" it's because they essentially are. They aren't protecting them from their employers, the city/state, so who are they protecting them from? The people.

Corrik7 posted...

It is the employers own fault though. They let these contracts happen in the first place and have very little leverage to change it barring major concessions which taxpayers would probably like even less.

Hey Corrik, how many unions can also use electioneering and lobbying to also directly effect the actual instatement of their employers too? And how many employers have to also strongly consider the support of that union to get hired in the first place?

Like I said, if it's so easy to make these changes and fix these contracts to start bringing accountability to cops, then why is it that ONLY Washington, D.C. is the only place where this has been able to be possible? It's because they rely on support of the police union and the police force entirely too much.

---

"I am dumbing it down for you by being completely wrong by what I am saying".

That's a doozy of a fucking thing to say. Like, wow. That was said with a straight face. Lmfao.

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Corrik, when I say "they are their employers" I'm not speaking literally. I'm dumbing it down for you because you actively refuse to understand the problem at hand here, likely by choice.

Their contracts, crafted entirely by the police union, give them full independence and freedom away from their "real employers" which you name as whatever city/state they belong to. But the city/state doesn't actually have any control over their management. In fact, they are actively blocked out of being able to do anything about the management of them because police union contracts all universally force them to not be able to choose any management in the police force.

Moreover than that--this clause isn't even needed. Because their employer in this case doesn't even make hiring and firing decisions on the police force. The police force does. The police unions don't actually give them protections from their employer, they give them protections for themselves. Ergo, they make these decisions to benefit themselves. Police forces investigate any misconduct themselves. It's like asking employees to investigate themselves and then decide whether or not they deserve to be employed still. What do you think their answer is going to be? "Nah, we deserve to be fired."

So when I say "They are their own employer" it's because they essentially are. They aren't protecting them from their employers, the city/state, so who are they protecting them from? The people.

Hey Corrik, how many unions can also use electioneering and lobbying to also directly effect the employers too? And how many employers have to also strongly consider the support of that union to get hired in the first place?

Like I said, if it's so easy to make these changes and fix these contracts to start bringing accountability to cops, then why is it that ONLY Washington, D.C. is the only place where this has been able to be possible? It's because they rely on support of the police union and the police force entirely too much.

Tons of unions use can use lobbying that affects their employers. In fact, many do so. They generally do so in hopes to get better returns for their union through alleviated circumstances against the company.

Many places are against breaking unions and/or weakening them. The fact DC has done so just means that the unions have taken a hit there. It is no different than the assault on teacher unions in Wisconsin or such. It's the same thing with a different target union.

You still have zero idea how unions work. You think the police Union is unique when it really isn't.

Who do you think does the hiring, job placements, and firing for the 154 boilermakers?

The employer contracts them for a job. The boilermakers send who they decided to hire, train, and etc to the jobs. The employer doesn't pick and choose these employees.

Like, you honestly just don't know what you are talking about.

Unions aren't 3rd parties. Unions aren't the employers. Unions are made up of generally people they represent.

Arbitrators are the third party.

And, sadly, if you think "Police Unions are corrupt". Which, again, is hypocritical from a pro-union stance (nor is their actual corruption much greater than what we say in many unions). You don't even agree someone should be able to be a police officer yet not be in the police union if they wanted to with the Right to Work. You have no problem probably spouting All Cops Are Bastards at the top of your lungs, singling out their union for some reason as the issue, while also not allowing a cop to operate outside the union even if they wanted to.

= /

Hypocrisy is all over your argument. You aren't dumbing down your argument to help someone understand it. You are talking to someone who has been a part of many unions and are spouting incorrect shit to them repeatedly.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Tons of unions use can use lobbying that affects their employers. In fact, many do so. They generally do so in hopes to get better returns for their union through alleviated circumstances against the company.

If the city/state are the employers, they lobby to DIRECTLY PUT THE ACTUAL EMPLOYERS IN THEIR JOBS, i.e., the politicians. You have to be purposefully not understanding this. You've made it very clear you don't want to understand the issues. And despite you saying you've been a part of many unions, you should be able to very easily understand how they're different, and you just don't want to so you can keep spouting right-wing nonsense and whataboutism that doesn't apply.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

If the city/state are the employers, they lobby to DIRECTLY PUT THE ACTUAL EMPLOYERS IN THEIR JOBS, i.e., the politicians. You have to be purposefully not understanding this. You've made it very clear you don't want to understand the issues. And despite you saying you've been a part of many unions, you should be able to very easily understand how they're different, and you just don't want to so you can keep spouting right-wing nonsense and whataboutism that doesn't apply.

This is obviously the case for anyone employed directly by a government. This is the same for federal employees, state employees, and so on that are represented by a union. This again is not unique.

---

I think I'm done here. Corrik is just focusing on doing anything but understanding the issues, because he doesn't give a fuck about the actual issues presented and would rather try to continuously split hairs to go further from the actual points.

Someone else can clown with him if they'd like, but I'm done.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I think I'm done here. Corrik is just focusing on doing anything but understanding the issues, because he doesn't give a fuck about the actual issues presented and would rather try to continuously split hairs to go further from the actual points.

Someone else can clown with him if they'd like, but I'm done.

Then be done. Because you are spouting things that are untrue over and over and over. It's hard to even take a single thing you say seriously because you are obviously someone ranting about something you don't have details to understand what you are talking about. No one would take you serious outside of a liberal bubble. They would be telling you that you are wrong and literally dumb over and over.

---

Shouldn't have ever started!

Like I'm sure people get tired about me pointing out the futility of engaging with this dude, but it's nothing compared to how tired it is seeing everyone waste their time when it has literally never once born fruit or had any positive result whatsoever.

"But we have to engage or lurkers will assume he has something of value to say because nobody is challenging it."

Naw, if you didn't give him the time of day then nobody would pay any attention to his nonsense.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

If the city/state are the employers, they lobby to DIRECTLY PUT THE ACTUAL EMPLOYERS IN THEIR JOBS, i.e., the politicians. You have to be purposefully not understanding this. You've made it very clear you don't want to understand the issues. And despite you saying you've been a part of many unions, you should be able to very easily understand how they're different, and you just don't want to so you can keep spouting right-wing nonsense and whataboutism that doesn't apply.

He knows EXACTLY why theyre different, hes even pointed out the differences himself! He just didnt realize it and is incapable of learning or admitting he was wrong. Its a good idea to end this.

---

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1358435857196343297?s=21

They threatened my boy with the heart attack gun again

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

He knows EXACTLY why theyre different, hes even pointed out the differences himself! He just didnt realize it and is incapable of learning or admitting he was wrong. Its a good idea to end this.

Acting like I am wrong when the dude has objectively made at least 3 absurdly wrong claims already and has to keep trying to move the argument when called out. Lol. You even were quick to absolve yourself of saying what he said because you knew it was wrong. Go team blue, Tony!

---

Corrik7 posted...

Go team blue, Tony!

Whats team blue? Is Joe Biden ACAB? Former District Attorney Kamala Harris? The DNC? Youre saying stupid stuff again, my friend.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Whats team blue? Is Joe Biden ACAB? Former District Attorney Kamala Harris? The DNC? Youre saying stupid stuff again, my friend.

He isn't. If he was, he wouldn't have gotten my vote. It's more of a line of if you have to choose between a blue or red position, you are gonna stick up for the blue position because the other side is red. Regardless of who is right during debate.

---

Corrik, how hard is it for you to understand that most unions don't protect their constituents from the consequences of murdering people

---

Corrik7 posted...

He isn't. If he was, he wouldn't have gotten my vote. It's more of a line of if you have to choose between a blue or red position, you are gonna stick up for the blue position because the other side is red. Regardless of who is right during debate.

ACAB is not a blue position lmao

Its much farther left
---

ACAB is a very stupid catch phrase and is tone deaf and dumb.

I really fucking hate that one.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

ACAB is a very stupid catch phrase and is tone deaf and dumb.

I really fucking hate that one.

Would still be my sig if I didn't have to find an alternative because of mod pockets.


---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

ACAB is a very stupid catch phrase and is tone deaf and dumb.

I really fucking hate that one.

Why?

---

Hbthebattle posted...

Corrik, how hard is it for you to understand that most unions don't protect their constituents from the consequences of murdering people

Except we have covered this. A union will protect someone who spilled harmful chemicals which can kill people into a river.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Would still be my sig if I didn't have to find an alternative because of mod pockets.

I think it is stupid it can't be your sig, for the record.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Why?

It does nothing but piss people off, even many people sympathetic to police reform bristle at the language. It's... not needed and not productive, its a child's cry and it will only make reform harder (it was already terribly hard so that may not matter much)

---

https://news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-teen-had-hands-police-220540745.html

Those Cops are Bastards

---

CaptainOfCrush posted...

https://news.yahoo.com/pennsylvania-teen-had-hands-police-220540745.html

Those Cops are Bastards

Those cops are murderers.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Except we have covered this. A union will protect someone who spilled harmful chemicals which can kill people into a river.

Lol, first of all: Citation needed.

Secondly, in your strawman example, is the chemical spill due to Union worker negligence or a result of bad management (aka not a Union member)?

---

alright,

TCAM

TDCWHTCIUAB

Their Department Colleagues Who Helped Them Cover It Up Are Bastards

---

Nuance is important and often gets intentionally obscured, specific examples do better with people yeah

---

Ive converted plenty of people to ACAB, it just takes a conversation.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Those cops are murderers.

That's the thing, though. The department helped them cover up the murder and it would have stayed that way without this video (and let's be honest, probably still will). As a result, every single cop in that department is a bastard.

The thin blue line is a poison pill situation.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

That's the thing, though. The department helped them cover up the murder and it would have stayed that way without this video (and let's be honest, probably still will). As a result, every single cop in that department is a bastard.

The thin blue line is a poison pill situation.

Right, those people are guilty of aiding murderers.

You really have to tighten up your language if you want to appeal. They aren't bastards, that's just some dumb insult. They are murderers and those that conspired with murderers. Lay out the case plainly. It will get more traction than stupid insults.

Because of course I understand and agree with you.

But I am not the target, not if you care about change.

---

Theyre not bastards, just murderers!



---

My whole point is don't be vague, don't say ALL because it's wrong and fucking stupid. Cite sources, go hard against them. Make Republicans defend specifics. Make them defend a cop who shot a kid and then defend the cops who covered it up. ACAB is easy to defend against with bluster. Stop making it fucking easy.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I think it is stupid it can't be your sig, for the record.

It does nothing but piss people off, even many people sympathetic to police reform bristle at the language. It's... not needed and not productive, its a child's cry and it will only make reform harder (it was already terribly hard so that may not matter much)

You know what pisses me off? Cops murdering people in the street getting paid leave, cops that have hundreds of complaints of brutality and sexual assault keep their jobs, Cops that don't rat out their "brother-in-blue" when they're doing something illegal, Cops who defend the fraternity even when they know another cop did something wrong, that Cops that do report their fellow cops get fired way more than cops that murder people in the street. And that's ALL of them.

PerfectChaosZ posted...

You know what pisses me off? Cops murdering people in the street getting paid leave, cops that have hundreds of complaints of brutality and sexual assault keep their jobs, Cops that don't rat out their "brother-in-blue" when they're doing something illegal, Cops who defend the fraternity even when they know another cop did something wrong, that Cops that do report their fellow cops get fired way more than cops that murder people in the street. And that's ALL of them.

Yeah, sounds like that sucks. Sounds like they have a lot of power. When you go for someone very powerful you tread carefully and you be wary. When you point a dull blade at them, which is what ACAB amounts to, it just allows the people who they line pockets of to bludgeon more people to death with it.

Are you satisfied with the fact the police are getting more money than ever? That nothing has changed? They got all the guns, got to be better with the words.

---

I can't find the source right now but it was something along the lines of, over 1,800 of Baltimore's current police force has at least one complaint lodged against them - and there's only 1,900 members of said force?

I understand Chris' desire for a more "pure" and "specific" argument here, but ACAB grew out of of frustration to the common refrain that it's "just a few bad apples." Those few will ruin the whole bunch, hence ACAB.

---

Its not wrong, any cop who works side-by-side with bad cops and enforce laws that result in de facto white supremacy is a bastard.

Does that mean all cops are irredeemable? No.

Does it mean kill all cops? No.

Does it mean our system of policing is bad? Yes.

You enrobe it in the paternal language of oh thats just too dang harsh, people wont listen, but anyone who sees ACAB and their only response is to retreat into no, all cops are good! was unreachable in the first place.

Just like Corrik can literally say lol imagine Cop scabs and then say Police Unions arent different, those people are a waste of time.

Theyll only change their minds when it affects them personally, using ACAB or Guys, some cops are murderers, not bastards! wont change that.

---

Peace___Frog posted...

I can't find the source right now but it was something along the lines of, over 1,800 of Baltimore's current police force has at least one complaint lodged against them - and there's only 1,900 members of said force?

I understand Chris' desire for a more "pure" and "specific" argument here, but ACAB grew out of of frustration to the common refrain that it's "just a few bad apples." Those few will ruin the whole bunch, hence ACAB.

I understand, I share that frustration. I share some of that fear. My partner is a very small black woman in the south and I don't know if one day she'll be the target of something. Just another name and number. My son has that in his future as well. It is why I will argue until I am blue in the face with people I agree with 99.9% of the way that you need to be perfect to get this done, it is unfair and cruel and tedious... but this is possibly my son's life on the line. We've got to get this right. We've got to make change. If I thought ACAB would do that I'd be right there, but it will just make the fight harder.

---

Peace___Frog posted...

I can't find the source right now but it was something along the lines of, over 1,800 of Baltimore's current police force has at least one complaint lodged against them - and there's only 1,900 members of said force?

I understand Chris' desire for a more "pure" and "specific" argument here, but ACAB grew out of of frustration to the common refrain that it's "just a few bad apples." Those few will ruin the whole bunch, hence ACAB.

What Chris is saying is that, while you are completely justified in thinking ACAB, the message alienates the majority of the population who are easily cowed into thinking that the police do nothing but protect and serve. They immediately view ACAB supporters as the REAL bad guys, which further empowers the bastards cops who get to play the victim against the mean old internet mob.

---

Pretty sure they don't have all the guns honestly. ;3

Cop: *murders the 100th innocent person that year as a collective group*
Public: This is fine but oh god don't insult them that's the worst thing you can do. A dull blade is worse than a loaded gun.

It's the system that's bad. In the apple tree analogy, the tree itself is bad, from the roots up. ACAB still misses the point because it makes it sound like all the fruit just happens to be bad, without acknowledging the problems with the tree. And it is inflammatory because it pins the blame on individual police officers, many of whom are decent people, and by and large are not super powerful or rich.

People need to understand how deep the rot goes - far beyond individual officers. Look at police chiefs, mayors, district attorneys, attorneys general, politicians, and even voters with blinders on as to how police treat other people in other places.

---

I struggle to believe that any one specific tactic will make boots and boot lickers not play the victim.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Right, those people are guilty of aiding murderers.

You really have to tighten up your language if you want to appeal. They aren't bastards, that's just some dumb insult. They are murderers and those that conspired with murderers. Lay out the case plainly. It will get more traction than stupid insults.

Because of course I understand and agree with you.

But I am not the target, not if you care about change.

Your mistake is thinking "ACAB" is supposed to appeal to reformist moderates. It isn't.

---

Inviso posted...

What Chris is saying is that, while you are completely justified in thinking ACAB, the message alienates the majority of the population who are easily cowed into thinking that the police do nothing but protect and serve. They immediately view ACAB supporters as the REAL bad guys, which further empowers the bastards cops who get to play the victim against the mean old internet mob.

Replace ACAB with BLM and cops with racists and this statement is just as valid.

...Do you see the problem yet?

---

People really like to pretend BLM was a slogan with zero pushback

---