Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 379: Kabulshit

(+) Yeah! (+)

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

It's probably worth pointing out too that at least some of the unions came out as anti-mandate initially because I mean. If you are trying to bargain, get leverage over the actual process of vaccination (even if you agree with it), or just trying to win other concessions, that's just the position you have to take.

Yeah, discussed this with some of our union people and it is bad precedent to allow management to mandate anything without going through collective bargaining first.

Would be fine if the mandate came from a city/county/state level but coming purely from management would have been something we would have to give some pushback to(the ask would have been small and likely just job protections for unvaccinated should they get vaccinated in the future or vaccination no longer be required).

I'm all for unions having a seat at the table and the overall power of collective bargaining.

But for something like a life-saving vaccine mandate the entire process should be:

Company: So we're doing this vaccine thing now.
Union: Yup.

By all means unions can negotiate for fair wages/hours/etc, but this doesn't need to be something to negotiate over.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

I'm all for unions having a seat at the table and the overall power of collective bargaining.

But for something like a life-saving vaccine mandate the entire process should be:

Company: So we're doing this vaccine thing now.
Union: Yup.

By all means unions can negotiate for fair wages/hours/etc, but this doesn't need to be something to negotiate over.

Nah dude, Unions already have so little power that you negotiate everything.

Company: So were doing this vaccine thing now.
Union: Ok, give us paid sick leave if we catch it anyway, have to quarantine, hand washing/sanitizer stations, PPE, etc.


---

A lot of these unions aren't negotiating but refusing to negotiate over it. NBA Players Union is a good example of it. It's because people literally think it is something crazy.

Want an example? Read this. It's insane.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/28/nolte-data-confirms-trump-counties-dying-to-own-the-libs/

---

Corrik7 posted...

A lot of these unions aren't negotiating but refusing to negotiate over it. NBA Players Union is a good example of it. It's because people literally think it is something crazy.

Want an example? Read this. It's insane.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/09/28/nolte-data-confirms-trump-counties-dying-to-own-the-libs/

read the comments for an interesting evening


---

You can tell the author on that is trying to word everything in a way that will speak to these antivax morons. China flu. Trump Vaccine. They want you to die. They're too far gone though.

---

Probably a re-post, but 538's youtube did a piece on some white evangelicals rethinking their politics after reading the Bible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNBj96Cn_L4

---

Jakyl25 posted...

read the comments for an interesting evening

I read the comments way back when that article first came out and they've gotten infinitely more uhhh, something.

---

metroid composite posted...

Probably a re-post, but 538's youtube did a piece on some white evangelicals rethinking their politics after reading the Bible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNBj96Cn_L4

Welcome to me 20 years ago =P

The fact that "Christian = likely Republican" has always boggled my mind. The actual tenets of New Testament Christianity absolutely align more with Democratic policies.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Welcome to me 20 years ago =P

The fact that "Christian = likely Republican" has always boggled my mind. The actual tenets of New Testament Christianity absolutely align more with Democratic policies.

Both Christians and Republicans are more likely to distrust opposing view points and be more insular.

It's a common factor that leads to both

---

Honestly the disconnect is between "claiming to be Christian, because that's just what you do" and "understanding what it means to actually be Christian.

I would wager the majority fall into the first group.

---

It's the only thing that makes sense, since anybody with any measure of critical thinking abilitiy would not identify as religious otherwise

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

Honestly the disconnect is between "claiming to be Christian, because that's just what you do" and "understanding what it means to actually be Christian.

I would wager the majority fall into the first group.

I mean it's a difference in understanding just like any other difference between sects. They're still Christians, just also, you know, fascist. There being conservative denominations of Christianity is not exactly a recent development.

---

https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1445550977126322180?s=21

JFC

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1445550977126322180?s=21

JFC

https://twitter.com/Gothamist/status/1445407078865121305?t=g3vlY68drBecEYlxWOaxag&s=19

---

One thing (among many) that bothers me about Facebook and all these other social media companies, is that whenever they are on the defense, they put out these statements about how "Our company's goal is to connect people and foster creativity...yada yada yada" and they expect everyone to react to these statements as if they are legitimate and not just PR blather. I mean, BP and General Motors put out PR reports saying similar things, but no one takes them seriously, and regulators/politicians aren't expected to take them into account, when otherwise taking the companies to task. We know that their goal is to make money, and there's no pretense of anything else. But social media companies have trapped us int this weird mind game where we have to first prove their blatantly obvious objectives before moving forward.

---

Most of the proposed regulations on them are very bad and/or unconstitutional (since fundamentally a lot of what the politicians want to regulate is protected speech)

Actually Facebook themselves have been shamefully backing reforming Section 230 protections (almost certainly because theyve decided it would act as a barrier to prevent potential competitors from getting off the ground)

---

Been a while since there was a new article to get the ACAB juices flowing

https://minnesotareformer.com/2021/10/05/bodycam-shows-minneapolis-officers-hunting-civilians-during-floyd-protests/

https://i.imgur.com/Bxhk5wS.png

https://i.imgur.com/ekZmaYn.png

https://i.imgur.com/9pZ4zdy.png

https://i.imgur.com/u2JaMro.png

https://i.imgur.com/0MdHptK.png

---

Paying taxes so that people can get paid to shoot at you, that's that shit i don't like

---

https://twitter.com/filmthepolicela/status/1445566038855217158?s=21

---

Some good news:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1445910653189951490

---

Of course nobody is going to feel safe at this point with the whole stupid provision that if the law gets blocked but later goes back into effect, you can still sue people for what they did while the law wasn't in action.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Some good news:

https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1445910653189951490

That's an interesting approach. I assume it'll get immediately appealed.

---

JeffreyRaze posted...

Of course nobody is going to feel safe at this point with the whole stupid provision that if the law gets blocked but later goes back into effect, you can still sue people for what they did while the law wasn't in action.

I mean, like every element of this law is flagrantly unconstitutional, but that provision specifically feels like an obvious unconstitutional ex post facto law but the chilling effect is there regardless given you can't be sure our partisan judiciary will actually strike it down.

---

https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1445926051771727872?t=t8sQgdPaB3U-hGP4mr-AUA&s=19

Not sure why anyone is still running Bernie hit pieces in 2021 but I gotta say this only makes him look more based

---

What a hilarious thing to try and leak to make Sanders look "bad".

---

I don't agree with all of Bernie's policies (lol @ the thought of spending my tax money to fund people that took out massive loans to go party at some garbage school), but you have to admire the fact that he has run out of fucks to give

---

jesus christ shut up black turtle


---

A post I can't read followed by "jesus christ shut up black turtle", name a more iconic duo

Speaking of Sanders:

https://www.businessinsider.com/bernie-sanders-pissed-senate-moderates-manchin-sinema-reconciliation-infrastructure-2021-10

He said that 48 out of 50 members of the Senate Democratic caucus support the bill, as do 210 members of the House: "And, by the way, the president of the United States supports this bill."

"Two people do not have the right to sabotage what 48 want, what the president of the United States wants. That, to me, is wrong," Sanders added later.
...
Sanders said he's unsure what Manchin means by saying he does not want the country to become an "entitlement society." Sanders cited findings that $300 direct child tax payments have helped cut childhood poverty. The Democrats' proposal would extend those payments through 2025.

"Is protecting working families and cutting childhood poverty an 'entitlement?'" Sanders asked.

...

"Does Sen. Manchin really believe that seniors are not entitled to digest their food, and that they're not entitled to hear and see properly?" Sanders said. "Is that really too much to ask in the richest country on Earth that elderly people have teeth in their mouth and can see and can hear?

Straight into my veins, please!

---

Hey, everyone, it's not just our media that is awful.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/akgxm5/bbc-expected-to-quit-stonewalls-lgbtq-diversity-programme

The BBC plans to withdraw from a LGBTQ charity diversity program and there's some atrocious shit coming out of it.

Vice reports...

A person involved in the discussions who cannot be named because they're not authorised to speak publicly about the issue said: "BBC bosses feel that they can't allow the organization to be connected to Stonewall in any way, because the BBC needs to be 'impartial on LGBTQ lives'."

Emphasis there mine. There's also this gross both sides'ing and "just asking questions" shit:

https://twitter.com/BenInLDN/status/1446107271843368960

"The BBC is currently making 'a documentary debate programme' which will explore 'questions' around gender and sexuality."

---

Debt ceiling punted to December:

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1446271879354982403

---

I remember BBC getting under fire for doing that exact same thing last year or so, specifically taking issue with quote "the trans issue"

https://inews.co.uk/news/media/bbc-news-pride-guidelines-virtue-signalling-tim-davie-742938

yup, oct 2020

---

Your existence as a human being with equal rights is obviously great debate material

---

Isn't that the point though? Treat all their employees the same rather than giving preferential treatment?

---

While I know it's not nearly as much as some (myself included) would like, the Biden administration continues to chip away at student loan debt cancellation, this time by overhauling the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1446445272800825360

$1.74bn wiped out with this move.

Brings the total cancellation the Biden administration has done so far to over $11.5bn for nearly 600,000 borrowers.

---

Okay, gotta call out Bernie for this. This isn't 2 people blocking this bill, it's 52 - representing 150 million-ish Americans.

---

Nice.

Keep pushing him. But nice.

---

I feel like Biden is being sneaky smart about the student loan debt thing lol. By the time we look at it again in 2024 maybe we can have gotten a lot more wiped out.

(and free community college)

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I feel like Biden is being sneaky smart about the student loan debt thing lol. By the time we look at it again in 2024 maybe we can have gotten a lot more wiped out.

(and free community college)

I mean, if he wants to just keep deferring it, that's as good as wiping it out. The WWI debt many countries owe the USA has been on deferral for 88 years. Student loans won't last that long because they'll be wiped out before that either by the operation of the income-based repayment programs which have a time length in the 20 year area or by the death of the debtor, which is generally written into the contract (i.e. one's estate generally does not have to pay back student loans IIRC).

I think perpetual deferral is actually (much) better than forgiveness because it doesn't create nearly as much of an incentive for colleges to raise tuitions. Students and parents will still be uncomfortable about taking out vast student loans, limiting how much colleges can get away with charging.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I feel like Biden is being sneaky smart about the student loan debt thing lol. By the time we look at it again in 2024 maybe we can have gotten a lot more wiped out.

(and free community college)

Honestly yes. We've been in deferment for what? 18 months now? We are getting to the point where restarting payments is going to be hard even if they really want to, so the easiest way to wipe out the debt is honestly just never collect on it.

I'm getting to the point where I could pay mine off.... but why would I pay off a 0% loan?

---

Let's understand the economic reality of student loans though. The government pays a ton of money to colleges. Later on, either students pay back the government or the government writes it off. But either way, the money is already gone - into the hands of the colleges. We're just deciding who pays - (1) students, or (2) taxpayers, or (3) everyone who uses dollars in the world, through inflation.

What we really need is lower tuitions. And I don't mean the government subsidizing those tuitions, I mean lower tuitions.

---

red sox 777 posted...

Let's understand the economic reality of student loans though. The government pays a ton of money to colleges. Later on, either students pay back the government or the government writes it off. But either way, the money is already gone - into the hands of the colleges. We're just deciding who pays - (1) students, or (2) taxpayers, or (3) everyone who uses dollars in the world, through inflation.

What we really need is lower tuitions. And I don't mean the government subsidizing those tuitions, I mean lower tuitions.

Why would you charge less when the government will pay anything you ask.

It's the same exact reason health care costs are insane. It's not like people will say no to health care

---

masterplum posted...

Why would you charge less when the government will pay anything you ask.

It's the same exact reason health care costs are insane. It's not like people will say no to health care

Yes, that's what needs to change.

---

The solution is to have the government run some schools directly, while leaving private schools to their own devices. As long as there's a cheaper and properly regulated government funded option, 90% of the problem goes away. And the quality of education doesn't matter, since the people that rack up massive student debt and then can't pay it off are the people that either fail out of their programs, or the people that get a useless degree.

---

BlAcK TuRtLe posted...

The solution is to have the government run some schools directly, while leaving private schools to their own devices. As long as there's a cheaper and properly regulated government funded option, 90% of the problem goes away.

The answer is just start some government-run colleges, easy as that? Who do you think is running the public colleges we already have?
---

I love seeing bt rage about useless degrees every few weeks, it's like he has a personal vendetta against non-stem degrees. Who hurt you, man? Did a chick with a literature and history double major turn you down? It's ok to say that you hate culture. Who do you think makes video games worthwhile?

---

Wow, they actually got an agreement on a 15% global minimum (corporate) tax:

https://twitter.com/jasonfurman/status/1446510900110761985?s=21

---

Seems pretty meaningless, since the issue with tax avoidance has always been loopholes in moving money around and abusing tax breaks/incentives. Ultimately you can only tax on net revenue, and as long as companies have loop holes to take advantage of, net revenue can be defined however they see fit.

---