US Politics Mega-thread - Page 875
Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21687 Posts
On February 14 2014 02:32 Wolfstan wrote: Shouldn't that be between the company and workers? Tax incentives should have a goal in mind such as pulling value producing plants into your region and securing good paying jobs. If they are represented by a strong union are the jobs TOO good paying? I think GOP is more afraid of the union dues going to the Dems. The GOP represents big businesses (less taxes/less rules) and since big businesses hate unions (since they take power from the businesses and gives some to the workers) its natural that the GOP hates unions. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Acrofales
Spain17993 Posts
On February 14 2014 02:51 Gorsameth wrote: The GOP represents big businesses (less taxes/less rules) and since big businesses hate unions (since they take power from the businesses and gives some to the workers) its natural that the GOP hates unions. But in this case Volkswagen is big business (one of the biggest, in actual fact) and they are threatening to take away a benefit for the big business if their employees unionize. Dafuq? Big business will get shafted from both sides then: by the employees who cannot be exploited as easily anymore and by the government who is "sticking up for big business" (roflol)! | ||
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
Wolfstan
Canada605 Posts
. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On February 14 2014 02:55 farvacola wrote: The important detail here is that Volkswagen is foreign. The important thing here is that TN was desperate for this plant ans these jobs to open up in this state. All of a sudden this happens and in order to pander to the right the Haslam now says this which could cost another plant opening and instead open up in Kentucky. VW has no problem with a Union being formed. | ||
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On February 14 2014 02:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The important thing here is that TN was desperate for this plant ans these jobs to open up in this state. All of a sudden this happens and in order to pander to the right the Haslam now says this which could cost another plant opening and instead open up in Kentucky. VW has no problem with a Union being formed. Of course they don't, I was addressing the disparity in the GOP's love of big business and why they might consider "helping" a company like Volkswagen different than "helping" a domestic automotive company. If this were GM, Tennessee Republicans would have a much more difficult time selling their anti-union blackmail. | ||
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On February 14 2014 02:58 TheFish7 wrote: That's why I asked; it just doesn't make sense. A foreign company (a good company from a country that is our ally) wants to create 1500 jobs in the US, when in all likelihood they could do it cheaper somewhere else. And Republicans want to sabotage this? The republican goal in this is to hurt the union because unions by and large support democrats (for fairly obvious reasons in most cases) and TN wants to make the party stronger to hurting the organization that would raise money against them makes perfect sense. | ||
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On February 14 2014 03:01 wei2coolman wrote: Okay, seriously, How is this Comcast buyout of TWC actually going through? How is there not an antitrust suit yet? Based on the article I read it seems as though they are taking the argument that since they operated in differing territories mostly that it would not actually drastically increase there regional market share in a region by region basis and thus would not actually be a monopoly. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
PRIMM, Nev. (AP) — A windy stretch of the Mojave Desert once roamed by tortoises and coyotes has been transformed by hundreds of thousands of mirrors into the largest solar power plant of its type in the world, a milestone for a growing industry that is testing the balance between wilderness conservation and the pursuit of green energy across the West. The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, sprawling across roughly 5 square miles of federal land near the California-Nevada border, formally opens Thursday after years of regulatory and legal tangles ranging from relocating protected tortoises to assessing the impact on Mojave milkweed and other plants. The $2.2 billion complex of three generating units, owned by NRG Energy Inc., Google Inc. and BrightSource Energy, can produce nearly 400 megawatts — enough power for 140,000 homes. It began making electricity last year. Larger projects are on the way, but for now, Ivanpah (EYE'-ven-pah) is being described as a marker for the United States' emerging solar industry. While solar power accounts for less than 1 percent of the nation's power output, thousands of projects from large, utility-scale plants to small production sites are under construction or being planned, particularly across the sun-drenched Southwest. The opening of Ivanpah is "a dawn of a new era in power generation in the United States," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, a trade group. "We are going to be a global leader in solar generation." The plant's dedication comes as government continues to push for development of greener, cleaner power. Source | ||
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
Kansas Bill Would Allow Companies To Refuse Service To Gay Couples A bill passed Wednesday by the Kansas House would allow businesses and government employees to deny services to same-sex couples on the basis of their religious beliefs, the Kansas City Star reported. It now heads to the state Senate; it has already earned the tacit endorsement of Republican Gov. Sam Brownback. “Religious liberty issues are ones that I’ve been around for a long time. I’ve fought for religious liberty in many countries and with many different faiths,” Brownback told the Wichita Eagle last week, adding that he had not reviewed the bill's specific language yet. “It’s basic in the Bill of Rights.” The bill says individuals and religious entities would not be required, if they had "sincerely held religious beliefs," to: Provide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement “Discrimination is horrible. It’s hurtful. It has no place in civilized society, and that’s precisely why we’re moving this bill,” Rep. Charles Macheers, one of the Republicans who voted for the bill, said on the House floor. “There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that.” Source I really don't understand how people can be proud of being bigots, or think that separate but equal was the 'good 'ole days.' And then claim the bill is there to protect the poor persecuted bigots. | ||
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On February 14 2014 03:10 Adreme wrote: Based on the article I read it seems as though they are taking the argument that since they operated in differing territories mostly that it would not actually drastically increase there regional market share in a region by region basis and thus would not actually be a monopoly. in most region of america, it would be a miracle to have more than 2 choices in broadband connection. Most companies already have monopolies in American regions, this'll only exacerbate the issue. | ||
Acrofales
Spain17993 Posts
On February 14 2014 03:04 Adreme wrote: The republican goal in this is to hurt the union because unions by and large support democrats (for fairly obvious reasons in most cases) and TN wants to make the party stronger to hurting the organization that would raise money against them makes perfect sense. Why would unemployed people vote republican? They'd be shooting their own foot. Employed people, unionized or not, should have a better incentive for voting GOP, right? Or am I assuming rationality where there is none to be found? | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
Gorsameth
Netherlands21687 Posts
On February 14 2014 03:22 Acrofales wrote: Why would unemployed people vote republican? They'd be shooting their own foot. Employed people, unionized or not, should have a better incentive for voting GOP, right? Or am I assuming rationality where there is none to be found? The last point Remeber this is the party that got uninsured people to protest against the ACA. America has a giant media bias for both sides. Large parts of the population are basically indoctrinated. | ||
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
| ||