Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 323: Peaceful Transition of Topics

(+) Yeah! (+)

StealThisSheen posted...

It feels like somebody posts this every time it comes up

Yeah maybe.

It's still quite valuable to remind people of regardless of circular discussion idiocy though

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

o, I didn't miss it. You're advocating for something that can't even be talked about seriously with the other thing in place and time passing for laws to be passed. You need police unions out long enough for their hold on the lawmakers to be gone.

We get there by getting pissed off enough that police unions are doing this, shouting about it, and getting progressive change happening to get rid of an organization that is grossly abusing it's power.

This is chicken and the egg territory here.

If you have the power to rid the police of a union you have the power to change the law.

---

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/us/seattle-protester-bike-police-trnd/index.html

A Seattle police officer captured on video rolling his bicycle over the head of a protester who was laying in the street is now on administrative leave.

---

Again, if your plan is abolish the union and think the system is somehow going to work itself out...I've got bad news.

---

red13n posted...

This is chicken and the egg territory here.

If you have the power to rid the police of a union you have the power to change the law.

Yeah, so that maybe in another decade, maybe 5 states will end up not allowing disciplinary clauses in their contracts instead of the 1 we have now.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Yeah, so that maybe in another decade, maybe 5 states will end up not allowing disciplinary clauses in their contracts instead of the 1 we have now.

Yeah, so if you have the power to abolish the police union, put in a fucking law while you are at it.

If you abolish the union, think its going to change politics, you are wrong. The whole system is built up, regardless of union, where the police are going to gain power.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

And the police get their wages paid for by taxpayers.

I work for the IRS.

My wages are paid for by taxpayers.

A portion of my wages goes to the Treasury Union.

Employees who specifically perform jobs relating to the Treasury Union are paid by portions of wages that are paid by taxpayers.

My Union fights to make sure we are compensated fairly and not punished unfairly. The Union gets involved when employees are treated unfairly by management, and does all the regular things that unions do.

According to you my union should not exist because it is funded by taxpayers. Even though it is only funded by taxpayers in as much as myself and other individuals like myself decide to dedicate a portion of our wages to fund the union. In reality I am funded by the taxpayers. After I get paid the money is my own. And I'm choosing to give part of it to my union.

Police should have every right to unionize and have a group that is making sure they are treated fairly.

BUT because law enforcement is such a high stake scenario there should be something ABOVE the union that is the absolute law when it comes to punishing wrongdoing among law enforcement, regardless of what the union says.

The IRS is not as high stakes as law enforcement, but we actually do have an organization that provides oversight and will drop the hammer if an employee is caught in wrongdoing. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration or TIGTA is the IRS employee's boogey man. If I attempted to use my position to look up my own account or the account of anyone I know, or if I used my access to other peoples personal information for my own gain I would be fired incredibly quickly.

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration is an office in the United States Federal government. It was established in January 1999 in accordance with the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 to provide independent oversight of Internal Revenue Service activities.

We didn't need to abolish our union for that. They just needed to pass a law.

Going to have to side with red.

---

KamikazePotato posted...

https://news.yahoo.com/amphtml/bidens-campaign-assures-voters-u-055306527.html

Man I don't really believe him but at the very least it's something other than the Pelosi/standard Dem line of "just vote harder guys and don't worry about it."

---

red13n posted...

Yeah, so if you have the power to abolish the police union, put in a fucking law while you are at it.

If you abolish the union, think its going to change politics, you are wrong. The whole system is built up, regardless of union, where the police are going to gain power.

I don't think you understand how a movement works. People get pissed off enough about this. People see how it's impeding laws. People make bigger, substantial change. The problem is not enough people are aware or they do what you're doing and choose to remain ignorant.

Forceful_Dragon posted...

According to you my union should not exist because it is funded by taxpayers.

See Reg's post re: police unions are not labor unions. Thank you.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

We didn't need to abolish our union for that. They just needed to pass a law.

Going to have to side with red.

Did your union fight the passing of that law?

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

I don't think you understand how a movement works. People get pissed off enough about this. People see how it's impeding laws. People make bigger, substantial change. The problem is not enough people are aware or they do what you're doing and choose to remain ignorant.

I don't think you understand what would actually be required to do what you want to do. It is exactly what would need to be done to change the laws in the first place. You seem to think it is one or the other.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Did your union fight the passing of that law?

To piggyback off this, did your union have 80 years to put together a team of lawmakers and rules and contracts to say that it's alright that you can look up people's information for personal gain and then continue to fight to make sure you could look up information like that?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Did your union fight the passing of that law?

Not sure on the specific instance here, but I can tell you that my union has fought for and against the passing of a whole assortment of laws/candidates.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Forceful_Dragon posted...
According to you my union should not exist because it is funded by taxpayers.
See Reg's post re: police unions are not labor unions. Thank you.

Yeah, I saw it.

I don't see how Reg's assertion is relevant to anything I just said.

Police officers are entitled to collective bargaining.

They are just lacking their own version of TIGTA.

Please read my entire post again. I feel like you must not have understood it.

---

red13n posted...

Not sure on the specific instance here, but I can tell you that my union has fought for and against the passing of a whole assortment of laws/candidates.

It doesn't matter on general laws/candidates or whatever.

Did you lobby actively fight against laws (and candidates) that specifically wanted to undercut the power of the union?

I don't want to be presumptuous but that's kind of the point of unions so I'd expect them to. And the theory here is that police unions wield so much power that they are able to stop this just by existing. A lot of the huge reforms we are championing literally required the entire police force to be disbanded first so that they weren't in the way of them.

---

red13n posted...

Not sure on the specific instance here, but I can tell you that my union has fought for and against the passing of a whole assortment of laws/candidates.

So how much trouble can you get in for murdering people on the job? How many weeks of vacay do you get for it? How long are they mandated by union-made contracts to even begin an investigation after you kill someone?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Did you lobby actively fight against laws (and candidates) that specifically wanted to undercut the power of the union?

yes?

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Yeah, I saw it.

I don't see how Reg's assertion is relevant to anything I just said.

Police officers are entitled to collective bargaining.

They are just lacking their own version of TIGTA.

Please read my entire post again. I feel like you must not have understood it.

Did your union fight the existence of TIGTA and spend decades and decades perfecting the way you can not get in trouble for looking up people's information for personal use?

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

So how much trouble can you get in for murdering people on the job? How many weeks of vacay do you get for it? How long are they mandated by union-made contracts to even begin an investigation after you kill someone?

We have a management team that prevents us from putting such provisions in our contract.

---

red13n posted...

yes?

did you read the next part about having to abolish the police force (by the way, this also will abolish their union)

sorry, DISBAND since this is argument is very pedantic

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

did you read the next part about having to abolish the police force (by the way, this also will abolish their union)

Abolishing the police would in fact abolish the union, yes.

---

PrivateBiscuit1 posted...

Did your union fight the existence of TIGTA and spend decades and decades perfecting the way you can not get in trouble for looking up people's information for personal use?

Couldn't tell you, I was in 6th grade when that law was passed.

But we will still very much be fired for looking up people's information for our personal use. The threat of TIGTA enforcement is ever present.

So my point is that the introduction of that law has been very effective at reducing wrongdoing among IRS employees.

---

red13n posted...

Abolishing the police would in fact abolish the union, yes.

You're not understanding me.

One of the most prominent models for police reform is Camden, NJ. They were able to implement drastic (but imperfect) reforms but to do so literally had to fire the entire force and rebuild it from the ground up, because the police union was so strong.

By the way, the new officers still have a union! But the original union had to be completely deleted for that to occur.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

You're not understanding me.

One of the most prominent models for police reform is Camden, NJ. They were able to implement drastic (but imperfect) reforms but to do so literally had to fire the entire force and rebuild it from the ground up, because the police union was so strong.

By the way, the new officers still have a union! But the original union had to be completely deleted for that to occur.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am completely for this.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Couldn't tell you, I was in 6th grade when that law was passed.

But we will still very much be fired for looking up people's information for our personal use. The threat of TIGTA enforcement is ever present.

So my point is that the introduction of that law has been very effective at reducing wrongdoing among IRS employees.

And my point is that the police unions have fought so hard to put the right people in power and have normalized no accountability so much for police that they will fight hard to prevent such a thing from existing.

This isn't as cut and dry as "Don't look up information for personal use; here's a group to maintain this." This is far more significant and to add an oversight group would mean redoing all the contracts, working directly with the police unions, getting it past all the people they put in charge through lobbying trying to stop it.

There's a lot more steps here, because you need to pass laws banning the police unions from including anything about investigations and punishments from their contracts and police unions will have to make massive overhauls to their contracts. Pass laws on a state/local level to have more transparency (while working with people lobbied that will be opposed to that).

Washington DC is the only one that has made a step towards any of that. Nobody else is even close because the police union has them on a stranglehold.

---

red13n posted...

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am completely for this.

So then you agree that you have to completely strip the union of any effective interfering power (for shorthand, let's call this "abolishing the unions") if you want to pass laws that would allow oversight of the police.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

So then you agree that you have to completely strip the union of any effective interfering power (for shorthand, let's call this "abolishing the unions") if you want to pass laws that would allow oversight of the police.

What laws specifically did they pass because of this?

---

red13n posted...

What laws specifically did they pass because of this?

I believe the major changes were that they moved the jurisdiction to a county-wide force but, importantly, this allowed them to change the union contract and leadership.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I believe the major changes were that they moved the jurisdiction to a county-wide force but, importantly, this allowed them to change the union contract and leadership.

So as far as laws are concerned, doesn't seem to have any impact.

---

xp1337 posted...

Hey, we're back to transparent election bribes: https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1309242403551940608

Trump says he's going to send $200 cards to Medicare recipients.

The backstory (included in the thread) is kinda wild too. I don't think we talked about it when it first came around because there's just so much happening, but last week it came out that the administration and pharmaceutical companies actually nearly reached a deal where the industry would spend $150bn to help with the price of prescription drugs... but then the White House blew the whole deal up when they further insisted that the drug companies mail $100 cards to seniors before the election and they balked because it was so fucking brazenly political. So we lost an opportunity for something that might have been somewhat positive because he couldn't send out these "Trump cards."

Now it looks like he's just going to go ahead and do it anyway, just now its taxpayer money paying for it... and the administration claims the money is coming from savings from a Trump initiative... that isn't even in effect... so they're just fucking lying about the money. So transparently corrupt. (And just a payment to those pharmaceutical companies since without a deal in place to make them actually change their practices this is just a one-time gift card with the current insane prices)

I know police unions are the topic of choice over the past five pages, but holy **** can we go back to this? What the ****?!?!

---

red13n posted...

So as far as laws are concerned, doesn't seem to have any impact.

Well, it did have impact on their use of force. That plus activism reduced their use of force significantly. I'm sure the cops didn't want it to happen a second time.

There's a lot of criticisms you can make of it and I already said it was imperfect. The point is that the threat of straight up disbanding the police force (and the union) enables other changes. You have to be willing to fight the union literally to the point of throwing the entire force out.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

There's a lot of criticisms you can make of it and I already said it was imperfect. The point is that the threat of straight up disbanding the police force (and the union) enables other changes. You have to be willing to fight the union literally to the point of throwing the entire force out.

Again, I have no doubt its a net positive. I am absolutely for such action. Just the "necessary to change the law" portion of it doesn't seem to apply. It didn't change the law, it changed the people enforcing said law.

---

Mega Mana posted...

I know police unions are the topic of choice over the past five pages, but holy **** can we go back to this? What the ****?!?!

literally, actually what the fuck

I missed this post in the police union discussion I guess

but keep in mind that this is literally just a giveaway to one of the industries that needs it least, essentially laundered through medicare recipients. They get marginal benefit out of it, but not nearly as much as the massive fucking giveaway to the industry.

In the big picture, the best case scenario is quite possibly that he's lying out of his ass and this money doesn't exist and the cards never go out. Which fucking hurts to say because medicare recipients, especially in the midst of the Covid recession that the Republicans caused, could use a lot of help. Just like everybody else in this fucking country

I cant wait to see these Trump Cards
---

Trump Card is an absolutely boss name for something pretty deplorable.

---

wait how is this page 5 already tho

---

Grimlyn posted...

wait how is this page 5 already tho

Topic's haunted.

---

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1309303160603729921?s=19

Lindsey Graham on TV literally begging for money.

God I hope he somehow loses.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1309303160603729921?s=19

Lindsey Graham on TV literally begging for money.

God I hope he somehow loses.

I hope he does also

---

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-termlimits/democrats-prepare-bill-limiting-u-s-supreme-court-justice-terms-to-18-years-idUSKCN26F3L3

Doubt it is legal

---

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-nw-second-coronavirus-stimulus-check-updates-20200924-6qwfzpkph5esbksct7nhnpytaa-story.html

---

Corrik7 posted...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-termlimits/democrats-prepare-bill-limiting-u-s-supreme-court-justice-terms-to-18-years-idUSKCN26F3L3

Doubt it is legal

This would be immediately ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court probably 9-0.

---

It's a good idea though.

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

This would be immediately ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court probably 9-0.

They should limit Senate terms if they wanna start limiting shit.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1309303160603729921?s=19

Lindsey Graham on TV literally begging for money.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCQGQ5qBQTA

---

I'm in the politics topic and I see Q, I'm expecting bullshit, not the good stuff, haha

---

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-pennsylvania-could-decide-the-2020-election/

A week old but I just read it today and found this little tidbit interesting.

In fact, Pennsylvania is so important that our model gives Trump an 84 percent chance of winning the presidency if he carries the state and it gives Biden a 96 percent chance of winning if Pennsylvania goes blue.

How does Pennsylvania look to you right now Corrik?

---

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-pennsylvania-could-decide-the-2020-election/

A week old but I just read it today and found this little tidbit interesting.

How does Pennsylvania look to you right now Corrik?

Ughhhh

I'm super worried about this naked ballot bullshit with PA. Hope Biden's blanketing the state with PSAs!

---

Also, potentially good census news (if it stands):

https://twitter.com/hansilowang/status/1309341705825595392

But, again, fill yours out now if you haven't! In addition to Congressional reapportionment the census determines, afaik, the allocation of something like $4000-5000 in federal money per person per year.

---

https://twitter.com/RyanVanVelzer/status/1309308902643826690?s=19

---