|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 07 2016 07:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 07:12 Logo wrote:On December 07 2016 07:08 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2016 06:57 biology]major wrote:On December 07 2016 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2016 05:26 biology]major wrote:On December 07 2016 05:05 ticklishmusic wrote:
women are getting IUD's b/c they're worried birth control will be hard to get for the next 4 years. there is news about minority students being harassed by not only other students but also teachers because "its trump's america". i have a gay friend who had to be hospitalized for a little while after the election for reasons i won't go into. shit like this is already happening.
meanwhile, xdaunt's complains about how expensive daycare is. I'd consider your arguments fair if you showed the same amount of empathy (sympathy) to the working class voters who have had their jobs destroyed and infiltrated and replaced with drugs, while not even being a part of political discourse. Mention the violence against trump supporters too, that's where your pseudo morality ends however because politics. and replaced with drugs Please do explain this statement Oo and for the working class. Yes I do sympathise with their plight but there is no easy answer (see reverting globalization) and the blame lies with their local politicians who fought tooth and nail to keep stuff like the coal industry going for as long as possible instead of looking ahead and shifting the economy into different fields. How many times has the Federal government been stopped from trying to move away from the coal industry only to be shut down by states? Their in a bad spot now because of the choices they made 10 years ago. That's how short term gains at the cost of long term effects works. I don't have any sort of direct evidence for that statement, but I suspect that there is a strong direct inverse correlation between drug abuse and economic opportunity. The areas that have been devastated by a loss of manufacturing jobs are one example. Drug addiction is literally an erosion of the frontal cortex where your will power and thus the capacity for personal responsibility originate from so it is a bit hard for me to blame them on that front. This is also exacerbated by another major shitshow in medicine, pain control. Doctors are taught from day 1 to trust the complaints of the patient, and prescribe accordingly. Controlling pain is given more weight than a possible suspected development of addiction. Combine these variables and you get a major opioid epidemic. If your doctors are taught to trust the complaints of the patient then its no wonder your healthcare is in the sorry state its in. The mind can work wonderful tricks to convince the body and the person that there is something wrong with them for completely unrelated reasons. You shouldn't ignore it when a patient comes in with a complaint but you sure shouldn't completely trust them either and just proscribe something for an ailment you can find no evidence of during an examination. The thing is pain is an unverifiable complaint if there's legitimate circumstances around it and it causes issues. Like when is it ok to prescribe strong painkiller for someone who was just in a bad car accident and has broken bones and other injuries? Obviously the person is going to be in some pain, but when does that pain outweigh the risk of addiction? It's not an easy line to draw given that people experience pain much differently (say like Redheads experience more pain than non-redheads). It doesn't need to be a long term prescription. Certain types of rehab can take months, and even if it doesn't the pain killers can be highly addictive in very short amount of time especially if the person exceeded the dosage or does other shady things with them. It is of course a difficult subject and I can certainly see that at times there is little other option but to give someone enough to get addicted. But if handled carefully I highly doubt this would lead to enough cases to cause an epidemic. You get that from negligent proscription.
Yes I agree with that last statement, it's a negligent prescription combined with a perception that drug has less danger than it actually does.
I only contest the general point because it's pretty relevant to think about it as a difficult problem and situation that can easily arise again and again, not just a case of a bunch of bad doctors (or bad pharma companies) running amok even if that's part of it.
|
On December 07 2016 06:56 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:How many times has a democrat or state made public announcements of how they will actively increase union protections? How many times have they shared to the media their intent to specifically elevate unions? How many federal protection laws have been attempted to be pushed to protect union workers? How hard have dems fought to increase funding to OSHA? I understand that Union Membership is getting worse, because being a union member is getting fairly shitty. A lot of liberal politicians like Bernie and Warren talk a big game about unions, democrats love talking about how they care about unions. But what laws have they stuck their reputation on to specifically improve union rights? None. I don't know about announcement frequency; as I don't follow that closely. I don't know enough specifically to really say in response to your questions, all I have is some questions of my own: are the current regulatory levels of those things sufficient? are protections specifically for union workers more needed than they used to be? Are the problem that exist ones that can be fixed by laws? or is it that good laws are in place already adn the issue is regulations/enforcement? or some unknown factors are involved? e.g. with women and pay, there's been laws on the books for equal pay for a long time now, yet iirc there's still a discrepancy of a few %. why would you need to specifically elevate unions? unions aren't an innately good thing, they're an often necessary evil. does OSHA actually need more funding? from what I've seen, on the job death and injury rates have been slowly but steadily declining for many decades now; so I don't get the impression that progress isn't being made there. what specific things have not been delivered that should have been delivered/worked on with respect to unions? or is it more a general dissatisfaction than specific things that need to be done? there's also a difference between supporting them somewhat less, and not supporting them at all.
You're misunderstanding needs with image.
Do you think we *NEED* to defund planned parenthood?
Do you think we *NEED* to allow funding to national parks to require right to carry as part of the bill?
The GOP pushes and fights for all things that their constituents want, not what their constituents need. As such they keep winning local elections and have solid control of house and senate. People don't need for there to be victories in these issues, they need to feel that their person is fighting for these issues. The relevance, value, or ROI from these issues is almost never something cared about.
The "Working Class" the "Rust Belt" the "Coal Miners" and "People in Manufacturing" used to be Democrat strongholds. Now they aren't. Why? Because while the GOP verbally cry out that they need to be protected, the Dems do not. Instead they comment shit like you just said "do we really have to?"
The answer is that we don't. But Dems are supposed to represent their constituents, not fellow dems.
|
On December 07 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 06:56 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:How many times has a democrat or state made public announcements of how they will actively increase union protections? How many times have they shared to the media their intent to specifically elevate unions? How many federal protection laws have been attempted to be pushed to protect union workers? How hard have dems fought to increase funding to OSHA? I understand that Union Membership is getting worse, because being a union member is getting fairly shitty. A lot of liberal politicians like Bernie and Warren talk a big game about unions, democrats love talking about how they care about unions. But what laws have they stuck their reputation on to specifically improve union rights? None. I don't know about announcement frequency; as I don't follow that closely. I don't know enough specifically to really say in response to your questions, all I have is some questions of my own: are the current regulatory levels of those things sufficient? are protections specifically for union workers more needed than they used to be? Are the problem that exist ones that can be fixed by laws? or is it that good laws are in place already adn the issue is regulations/enforcement? or some unknown factors are involved? e.g. with women and pay, there's been laws on the books for equal pay for a long time now, yet iirc there's still a discrepancy of a few %. why would you need to specifically elevate unions? unions aren't an innately good thing, they're an often necessary evil. does OSHA actually need more funding? from what I've seen, on the job death and injury rates have been slowly but steadily declining for many decades now; so I don't get the impression that progress isn't being made there. what specific things have not been delivered that should have been delivered/worked on with respect to unions? or is it more a general dissatisfaction than specific things that need to be done? there's also a difference between supporting them somewhat less, and not supporting them at all. You're misunderstanding needs with image. Do you think we *NEED* to defund planned parenthood? Do you think we *NEED* to allow funding to national parks to require right to carry as part of the bill? The GOP pushes and fights for all things that their constituents want, not what their constituents need. As such they keep winning local elections and have solid control of house and senate. People don't need for there to be victories in these issues, they need to feel that their person is fighting for these issues. The relevance, value, or ROI from these issues is almost never something cared about. The "Working Class" the "Rust Belt" the "Coal Miners" and "People in Manufacturing" used to be Democrat strongholds. Now they aren't. Why? Because while the GOP verbally cry out that they need to be protected, the Dems do not. Instead they comment shit like you just said "do we really have to?" The answer is that we don't. But Dems are supposed to represent their constituents, not fellow dems.
Completely agree, electorate cares about being heard and fought for first, results second.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On December 07 2016 06:56 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:How many times has a democrat or state made public announcements of how they will actively increase union protections? How many times have they shared to the media their intent to specifically elevate unions? How many federal protection laws have been attempted to be pushed to protect union workers? How hard have dems fought to increase funding to OSHA? I understand that Union Membership is getting worse, because being a union member is getting fairly shitty. A lot of liberal politicians like Bernie and Warren talk a big game about unions, democrats love talking about how they care about unions. But what laws have they stuck their reputation on to specifically improve union rights? None. I don't know about announcement frequency; as I don't follow that closely. I don't know enough specifically to really say in response to your questions, all I have is some questions of my own: are the current regulatory levels of those things sufficient? are protections specifically for union workers more needed than they used to be? Are the problem that exist ones that can be fixed by laws? or is it that good laws are in place already adn the issue is regulations/enforcement? or some unknown factors are involved? e.g. with women and pay, there's been laws on the books for equal pay for a long time now, yet iirc there's still a discrepancy of a few %. why would you need to specifically elevate unions? unions aren't an innately good thing, they're an often necessary evil. does OSHA actually need more funding? from what I've seen, on the job death and injury rates have been slowly but steadily declining for many decades now; so I don't get the impression that progress isn't being made there. what specific things have not been delivered that should have been delivered/worked on with respect to unions? or is it more a general dissatisfaction than specific things that need to be done? there's also a difference between supporting them somewhat less, and not supporting them at all.
I'm not very knowledgeable on this at all but I thought the first Clinton term represented a major pivot away from the unions for the democrats and has remained that way since?
More a question than a direct reply to your post really.
|
On December 07 2016 07:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 06:56 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 06:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:How many times has a democrat or state made public announcements of how they will actively increase union protections? How many times have they shared to the media their intent to specifically elevate unions? How many federal protection laws have been attempted to be pushed to protect union workers? How hard have dems fought to increase funding to OSHA? I understand that Union Membership is getting worse, because being a union member is getting fairly shitty. A lot of liberal politicians like Bernie and Warren talk a big game about unions, democrats love talking about how they care about unions. But what laws have they stuck their reputation on to specifically improve union rights? None. I don't know about announcement frequency; as I don't follow that closely. I don't know enough specifically to really say in response to your questions, all I have is some questions of my own: are the current regulatory levels of those things sufficient? are protections specifically for union workers more needed than they used to be? Are the problem that exist ones that can be fixed by laws? or is it that good laws are in place already adn the issue is regulations/enforcement? or some unknown factors are involved? e.g. with women and pay, there's been laws on the books for equal pay for a long time now, yet iirc there's still a discrepancy of a few %. why would you need to specifically elevate unions? unions aren't an innately good thing, they're an often necessary evil. does OSHA actually need more funding? from what I've seen, on the job death and injury rates have been slowly but steadily declining for many decades now; so I don't get the impression that progress isn't being made there. what specific things have not been delivered that should have been delivered/worked on with respect to unions? or is it more a general dissatisfaction than specific things that need to be done? there's also a difference between supporting them somewhat less, and not supporting them at all. You're misunderstanding needs with image. Do you think we *NEED* to defund planned parenthood? Do you think we *NEED* to allow funding to national parks to require right to carry as part of the bill? The GOP pushes and fights for all things that their constituents want, not what their constituents need. As such they keep winning local elections and have solid control of house and senate. People don't need for there to be victories in these issues, they need to feel that their person is fighting for these issues. The relevance, value, or ROI from these issues is almost never something cared about. The "Working Class" the "Rust Belt" the "Coal Miners" and "People in Manufacturing" used to be Democrat strongholds. Now they aren't. Why? Because while the GOP verbally cry out that they need to be protected, the Dems do not. Instead they comment shit like you just said "do we really have to?" The answer is that we don't. But Dems are supposed to represent their constituents, not fellow dems.
ah; I understand the needs/image distinction, I just didn't realize you were focusing on the image one. I focus on the needs one by default.
I'm still not sure the difference and change is a result of what you say it is. I'd say my case that one of the big changes is simply the decline in union membership; as I previously cited it's gone down by some 10% of the total population; and the dems got a lot of their support from the unions. So less union membership = less dem trend.
I'm not saying "do we really have to?" in the way wherein a whiny child does so on their toothbrushing or osmesuch (i'm not sure which inflection you're saying it with); I am aiming for an "is it actually necessary?" some things are in fact fine and are being worked on.
There's representing what constituent want you to be working on, then there's actually solving the real problems they have.
Also, maybe you have it the other way around, maybe some people stopped being democrat constitutents, so the dems don't cater to them as much. How do you know which way it is?
Too bad people haven't learned that it's better to have leaders who actually work on and fix problems than blather on endlessly about inanities.
It sorta feels to me like what the claims are is shifting, though that's probably from me not being clear on what you were driving it initially.
Also, I'm not a dem, i'm a strongly democrat leaning independent.
|
A federal judge has overturned a military panel's decision to force a Marine out of service for using his Yahoo account to send an email which included classified information warning his fellow marines about a corrupt Afghan official.
That warning was not taken seriously, as NPR's Quil Lawrence told our Newscast unit, and three marines were killed shortly after. Later, "after some negative news coverage, the Marine Corps decided to force Jason Brezler out of the service for mishandling classified data."
Now, after a three year legal fight, the district judge's order found that the military Board of Inquiry which pushed Brezler out of the Corps did not follow its own regulations. The decision was then overturned.
This case is rooted in Brezler's claim that the Corps initiated the proceedings against him in retaliation for speaking about the issue with U.S. Congressman Peter King, who then talked to the media. As Quil reported, "that's when the U.S. Marine Corps got serious – about investigating Jason Brezler."
The judge wrote in his order that "the Navy violated its own discovery rule by failing to provide Major Brezler, prior to his [Board of Inquiry] hearing or at any stage during the administrative review process, with all documents relevant to his retaliation claims."
The case is now remanded to the Department of the Navy, and Brezler is set to receive a new hearing.
Source
|
http://time.com/4590994/popular-vote-tax-pledge/
A national movement not to pay federal taxes in the future would put Republicans on notice: they do not have the right to impose a hard-right, second-place presidency on a moderate nation every dozen or so years. If the Republicans won’t help amend the Constitution so that America can resume being a democracy, then Democrats, lacking the representation that supporters of a future popular vote-winner ought to have in the executive branch, should not submit to paying taxes to the federal government.
How would the pledge work? First, an online group such as MoveOn.org, Change.org or both, should circulate a petition. The pledge is not just a powerful protest; it is also effortless, requiring no legal or financial sacrifice at all for years, possibly decades.
Second, the pledge should only apply to federal taxes. We would still pay state, local, sales and property taxes. This is a protest against our 229-year-old system of electoral votes, not against taxation in general.
Third, if a Republican wins the election without winning the popular vote again, we should still pay what we owe in federal taxes—just not to the IRS. Instead, people would compute their federal taxes, file a Form 1040 and write a check to a national escrow account, preferably in a well-established Canadian or British bank that is beyond the reach of the U.S. Justice Department, because whoever opens this account probably will be in violation of U.S. law. In the check’s memo line, people should write, “Funds to be transferred to the IRS as soon as America resumes being a democracy.”
|
I'm just reading about the US. No official paid leave, no maternity leave and no limit on work week. It is said lots of people use antidepressants. Is it true? That's insane when you compare to Europe.
|
On December 07 2016 08:38 Shield wrote:
I'm just reading about the US. No official paid leave, no maternity leave and no limit on work week. It is said lots of people use antidepressants. Is it true? That's insane when you compare to Europe.
Half the people moved to a few select urban locations, the other half is ignored and called scum. Is it really surprising?
|
On December 07 2016 08:38 Shield wrote:
I'm just reading about the US. No official paid leave, no maternity leave and no limit on work week. It is said lots of people use antidepressants. Is it true? That's insane when you compare to Europe.
It's somewhat true; there'es no official paid or maternity leave nationally; some places have it at the state level. Also many companies do have such policies of their own.
They are in general far less generous than they are in europe.
there's no limit on work week, but you generally get extra pay if you have to work more than some amount; typically 50% extra pay.
quite a few people work 50-60 hours.
ah, found the labor stats for how many work what kind of hours:
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat19.htm
There is a fair bit of use of antidepressants and other use of prescription drugs for various ails.
looking at the stats:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db76.htm
it looks to be around 11% take antidepressants.
|
On December 07 2016 07:59 zlefin wrote:
Too bad people haven't learned that it's better to have leaders who actually work on and fix problems than blather on endlessly about inanities..
Leaders need to learn that they need to let the people know that they are working on and fixing the problems that are actually bothering the people...(their bosses)...instead of just working on and fixing problems their bosses don't care about, or don't know they are working on.
|
On December 07 2016 08:56 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 07:59 zlefin wrote:
Too bad people haven't learned that it's better to have leaders who actually work on and fix problems than blather on endlessly about inanities.. Leaders need to learn that they need to let the people know that they are working on and fixing the problems that are actually bothering the people...(their bosses)...instead of just working on and fixing problems their bosses don't care about, or don't know they are working on.
I agree they need better messaging.
Though that can be difficult at times; in particular, the news media isn't that interested in devoting broadcast time to a story about "we're working on it"
|
On December 07 2016 09:00 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 08:56 Krikkitone wrote:On December 07 2016 07:59 zlefin wrote:
Too bad people haven't learned that it's better to have leaders who actually work on and fix problems than blather on endlessly about inanities.. Leaders need to learn that they need to let the people know that they are working on and fixing the problems that are actually bothering the people...(their bosses)...instead of just working on and fixing problems their bosses don't care about, or don't know they are working on. I agree they need better messaging. Though that can be difficult at times; in particular, the news media isn't that interested in devoting broadcast time to a story about "we're working on it"
Whatever the reason, Trump did a significantly better job than Clinton at making every day people feel listened to.
|
On December 07 2016 09:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 09:00 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 08:56 Krikkitone wrote:On December 07 2016 07:59 zlefin wrote:
Too bad people haven't learned that it's better to have leaders who actually work on and fix problems than blather on endlessly about inanities.. Leaders need to learn that they need to let the people know that they are working on and fixing the problems that are actually bothering the people...(their bosses)...instead of just working on and fixing problems their bosses don't care about, or don't know they are working on. I agree they need better messaging. Though that can be difficult at times; in particular, the news media isn't that interested in devoting broadcast time to a story about "we're working on it" Whatever the reason, Trump did a significantly better job than Clinton at making every day people feel listened to.
That I can strongly agree to; at least for certain substantial groups of people.
|
On December 07 2016 07:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 06:37 Slaughter wrote:On December 07 2016 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 07 2016 03:16 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 07 2016 02:08 xDaunt wrote:On December 07 2016 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 07 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote:Trump sure knows how to pick 'em. This is a nice, high profile, yet relatively limited issue that Trump can use to continue to build his legend. And he's probably right that this particular contract is bloated. Would you object if I asked you to write a series of things that Trump could do where you'll disagree with him? Cause I'm getting the distinct sense that you're just agreeing with things as they come because Trump is the one doing them. If you've already done that I apologize, it's possible I missed it. There are a lot of things that he could do that I'd disagree with -- pretty much anything that falls outside of my policy preferences. For example, if Trump stopped being a nationalist and pursuing nationalist objectives, I'd be very unhappy with him. I think that the other thing bears mentioning in response to Nebuchad's post that's not-so-subtly accusing me of being a Trump cheerleader is this: regardless of how agreeable Trump's policies and actions are, what he's doing is undeniably interesting and exciting. For how many years have people wanted some kind of change in Washington? Something to shake up partisan gridlock and status quo? Well, we're getting that change now. We'll see whether any good comes of it, but the quality of the spectacle is undeniable. Sometimes your sitting at home a little bored wanting for something interesting to happen to occupy your mind. Getting attacked by a wild bear would fit that criteria. But its normally not something people wish for. Your attitude is that of the well off white male who has (almost) nothing to fear. You call it a spectacle but when your job, your pension, your health insurance or your gay marriage are affected by it your slightly less happy. Congratulations and enjoy the spectacle in your silver tower. Just don't get mad that other people who's daily lives are effected by the 'spectacle' going on are a little cross. Damn, dude. Where's the optimism? Your narrative above is hyperbole ad absurdum. You even threw gay marriage in there, which is a settled issue now and won't be affected by anything Trump does. ? You don't think that there isn't a good chance that once Trump picks the next 1-2 justices that there won't follow a challenge to get the gay marriage decision overturned? He could care less about the issue himself but his appointees open the door for those who do care to take advantage. I also find it curious that you say that the liberal-democrats are fucking "everything" up considering how much more power the GOP has had the last 6 years, even longer if you look at the state level. For a country "in such a bad place" as the right likes to say, they sure have had their hands all over decision making. No, I don't think that there's any chance that the Court reverses the gay marriage decision, regardless of whom Trump appoints. Stare decisis is a thing. And don't worry about my disdain for the GOP. I have plenty for them as well, and I blame them for a whole a bunch of things.
I don't really know anything of this. Is there even a precedent for such major reversals?
|
On December 07 2016 10:10 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 07:07 xDaunt wrote:On December 07 2016 06:37 Slaughter wrote:On December 07 2016 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 07 2016 03:16 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 07 2016 02:08 xDaunt wrote:On December 07 2016 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 07 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote:Trump sure knows how to pick 'em. This is a nice, high profile, yet relatively limited issue that Trump can use to continue to build his legend. And he's probably right that this particular contract is bloated. Would you object if I asked you to write a series of things that Trump could do where you'll disagree with him? Cause I'm getting the distinct sense that you're just agreeing with things as they come because Trump is the one doing them. I'm If you've already done that I apologize, it's possible I missed it. There are a lot of things that he could do that I'd disagree with -- pretty much anything that falls outside of my policy preferences. For example, if Trump stopped being a nationalist and pursuing nationalist objectives, I'd be very unhappy with him. I think that the other thing bears mentioning in response to Nebuchad's post that's not-so-subtly accusing me of being a Trump cheerleader is this: regardless of how agreeable Trump's policies and actions are, what he's doing is undeniably interesting and exciting. For how many years have people wanted some kind of change in Washington? Something to shake up partisan gridlock and status quo? Well, we're getting that change now. We'll see whether any good comes of it, but the quality of the spectacle is undeniable. Sometimes your sitting at home a little bored wanting for something interesting to happen to occupy your mind. Getting attacked by a wild bear would fit that criteria. But its normally not something people wish for. Your attitude is that of the well off white male who has (almost) nothing to fear. You call it a spectacle but when your job, your pension, your health insurance or your gay marriage are affected by it your slightly less happy. Congratulations and enjoy the spectacle in your silver tower. Just don't get mad that other people who's daily lives are effected by the 'spectacle' going on are a little cross. Damn, dude. Where's the optimism? Your narrative above is hyperbole ad absurdum. You even threw gay marriage in there, which is a settled issue now and won't be affected by anything Trump does. ? You don't think that there isn't a good chance that once Trump picks the next 1-2 justices that there won't follow a challenge to get the gay marriage decision overturned? He could care less about the issue himself but his appointees open the door for those who do care to take advantage. I also find it curious that you say that the liberal-democrats are fucking "everything" up considering how much more power the GOP has had the last 6 years, even longer if you look at the state level. For a country "in such a bad place" as the right likes to say, they sure have had their hands all over decision making. No, I don't think that there's any chance that the Court reverses the gay marriage decision, regardless of whom Trump appoints. Stare decisis is a thing. And don't worry about my disdain for the GOP. I have plenty for them as well, and I blame them for a whole a bunch of things. I don't really know anything of this. Is there even a precedent for such major reversals?
Not really. I can't think of a case where the Court granted a Constitutional right and then took it away outright. There are cases where earlier holdings are curtailed, thereby limiting previously granted rights, but I don't see that being an option for gay marriage. It's an all or nothing affair.
|
On December 07 2016 08:56 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 08:38 Shield wrote:
I'm just reading about the US. No official paid leave, no maternity leave and no limit on work week. It is said lots of people use antidepressants. Is it true? That's insane when you compare to Europe. It's somewhat true; there'es no official paid or maternity leave nationally; some places have it at the state level. Also many companies do have such policies of their own. They are in general far less generous than they are in europe. there's no limit on work week, but you generally get extra pay if you have to work more than some amount; typically 50% extra pay. quite a few people work 50-60 hours. ah, found the labor stats for how many work what kind of hours: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat19.htmThere is a fair bit of use of antidepressants and other use of prescription drugs for various ails. looking at the stats: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db76.htmit looks to be around 11% take antidepressants.
The vast majority of salaried workers didn't qualify for OT until this year with some changes to how they calculate the rules on that. I think Trump's people have said they want to roll back to this system.
|
On December 07 2016 10:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 10:10 Slaughter wrote:On December 07 2016 07:07 xDaunt wrote:On December 07 2016 06:37 Slaughter wrote:On December 07 2016 04:32 xDaunt wrote:On December 07 2016 03:16 Gorsameth wrote:On December 07 2016 03:12 xDaunt wrote:On December 07 2016 02:08 xDaunt wrote:On December 07 2016 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On December 07 2016 01:41 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Trump sure knows how to pick 'em. This is a nice, high profile, yet relatively limited issue that Trump can use to continue to build his legend. And he's probably right that this particular contract is bloated. Would you object if I asked you to write a series of things that Trump could do where you'll disagree with him? Cause I'm getting the distinct sense that you're just agreeing with things as they come because Trump is the one doing them. I'm If you've already done that I apologize, it's possible I missed it. There are a lot of things that he could do that I'd disagree with -- pretty much anything that falls outside of my policy preferences. For example, if Trump stopped being a nationalist and pursuing nationalist objectives, I'd be very unhappy with him. I think that the other thing bears mentioning in response to Nebuchad's post that's not-so-subtly accusing me of being a Trump cheerleader is this: regardless of how agreeable Trump's policies and actions are, what he's doing is undeniably interesting and exciting. For how many years have people wanted some kind of change in Washington? Something to shake up partisan gridlock and status quo? Well, we're getting that change now. We'll see whether any good comes of it, but the quality of the spectacle is undeniable. Sometimes your sitting at home a little bored wanting for something interesting to happen to occupy your mind. Getting attacked by a wild bear would fit that criteria. But its normally not something people wish for. Your attitude is that of the well off white male who has (almost) nothing to fear. You call it a spectacle but when your job, your pension, your health insurance or your gay marriage are affected by it your slightly less happy. Congratulations and enjoy the spectacle in your silver tower. Just don't get mad that other people who's daily lives are effected by the 'spectacle' going on are a little cross. Damn, dude. Where's the optimism? Your narrative above is hyperbole ad absurdum. You even threw gay marriage in there, which is a settled issue now and won't be affected by anything Trump does. ? You don't think that there isn't a good chance that once Trump picks the next 1-2 justices that there won't follow a challenge to get the gay marriage decision overturned? He could care less about the issue himself but his appointees open the door for those who do care to take advantage. I also find it curious that you say that the liberal-democrats are fucking "everything" up considering how much more power the GOP has had the last 6 years, even longer if you look at the state level. For a country "in such a bad place" as the right likes to say, they sure have had their hands all over decision making. No, I don't think that there's any chance that the Court reverses the gay marriage decision, regardless of whom Trump appoints. Stare decisis is a thing. And don't worry about my disdain for the GOP. I have plenty for them as well, and I blame them for a whole a bunch of things. I don't really know anything of this. Is there even a precedent for such major reversals? Not really. I can't think of a case where the Court granted a Constitutional right and then took it away outright. There are cases where earlier holdings are curtailed, thereby limiting previously granted rights, but I don't see that being an option for gay marriage. It's an all or nothing affair.
I feel like Japanese interment camps come pretty close to such an instance, admittedly, I haven't followed that closely to the specific point being argued. The Supreme Court definitely took away several of their (Americans of Japanese ancestry, which included Korean-Americans and those from Taiwan) Constitutional rights outright though.
IIRC it's never been ruled unconstitutional, meaning that technically, our legal system holds the Japanese internment as a constitutional act?
|
On December 07 2016 09:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2016 09:00 zlefin wrote:On December 07 2016 08:56 Krikkitone wrote:On December 07 2016 07:59 zlefin wrote:
Too bad people haven't learned that it's better to have leaders who actually work on and fix problems than blather on endlessly about inanities.. Leaders need to learn that they need to let the people know that they are working on and fixing the problems that are actually bothering the people...(their bosses)...instead of just working on and fixing problems their bosses don't care about, or don't know they are working on. I agree they need better messaging. Though that can be difficult at times; in particular, the news media isn't that interested in devoting broadcast time to a story about "we're working on it" Whatever the reason, Trump did a significantly better job than Clinton at making every day people feel listened to.
I think he used the internet/social media.
Democracy as a whole should really be reformed around the communicative power that has emerged from the recent widespread use of the internet. Draft legislation based on public wikipedia-esque discussions amongst experts and politicians and facebook/reddit-esque likes/dislikes from the commoners that bother to read them. Something akin to that, anyhow. I think it might be a rather better approach rather than the lobbyist/special interest culture that exists in politics today.
|
On December 07 2016 11:55 a_flayer wrote:
Draft legislation based on public wikipedia-esque discussions amongst experts and politicians and facebook/reddit-esque likes/dislikes from the commoners that bother to read them. Something akin to that, anyhow. I think it might be a rather better approach rather than the lobbyist/special interest culture that exists in politics today.
So you want to replace our existing democratic institutions with the Youtube comment section? I'd rather take a literal lizard people government. If anything we need to get the effects of social media under control and get some new checks and balances into the system, not make it even worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
