|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 02 2022 03:51 Gorsameth wrote:so your telling me that tomorrow everyone there will be fired to avoid said union from forming?
No they’ll just close the warehouse a year later due to “business reason.”
Joking aside, I’ve always said Amazon warehouses are prime (pun intended) venues for unionization because Amazon can’t just close warehouses and move jobs elsewhere because they need those warehouses to fulfill Amazon Prime 2-Day shipping.
We’ll see how important that actually is though, going to be important to keep an eye on JFK8. If enough other warehouses manage to unionize though then it’s gonna be hard for Amazon to suppress it, especially if unionization efforts are geographically concentrated.
|
Northern Ireland24995 Posts
On April 02 2022 01:53 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2022 01:18 WombaT wrote:On April 01 2022 08:44 Belisarius wrote:
I think if you are on the left and accept that a military is necessary, it's very difficult to argue against veterans' benefits in some form.
If we reluctantly acknowledge that the existence of our country requires us to find people who will join the military on our behalf, and we are aware of the cost to them and mindful of the fact that they are disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, I think we are absolutely required to take responsibility for the ones that come back broken.
Removing veterans' healthcare while still expecting people to fight for us is completely incompatible with any model of equity and fairness that I can agree with. The only way to get there is to either believe that service is a sufficient reward in itself via glory, patriotism, payment etc, or to just nakedly state that by having the power to exploit someone we gain the right as well. Both of those are pretty horseshoe-ish.
I think there's a lot of people with an unfocused pacifism who see the VA as a soft target, but this is very contradictory to me. From a humanist perspective, if you are going to chip away at the military, the VA should be the absolute last thing to go. The flip side is the likes of the VA, or other benefits are a form of inducement that enables the kind of manpower required for various ill-advised foreign excursions. You’re effectively dangling carrots that certain segments of society have no equivalents elsewhere. I mean it gets circular, you can’t cut the benefits because veterans need taken care of, but they wouldn’t be on that hook if there were equivalent opportunities elsewhere, or indeed the military wasn’t deployed as it has been historically. Which is in part due to those benefits offered The VA itself is not as enticing an incentive that people in this thread have made it out to be. It's something that is really only thought of as after the fact. The main purpose for recruits joining are vast. I certainly didn't join the Marines for the VA benefits but after I served my 4 years, I was glad I had it for various reasons. Using th VA is akin to taking unemployment. You really only want to use it if you have no other recourse.
It’s just been a focus, as for some reason it became a focus, I was merely alluding to it.
Good way for funding school, better career path than what’s open to some. Good career for other people, get around the world. Genuine altruism/patriotism is a motivator too of course, etc.
But yes thanks for the clarification and explanation.
I’m only an outsider this side of the Atlantic, seems to me recruitment is way more aggressive over there, and some of the perks available to military folks are perks many of us elsewhere get for merely being alive.
|
My Uber eats driver tried to sham me out of my food and still get paid. I hereby rescind my support for universal healthcare.
|
|
|
Eh, there'd be a similar effect if non-Fox viewers were paid to watch Fox. The viewer's slant would change. People almost universally claim to be able to make up their own minds about politics regardless of what the media tells them, but the reality is that they are very much influenced by their media diet. That goes for CNN viewers too.
|
On April 05 2022 00:11 JimmiC wrote:Interesting study in which they paid fox news watchers to watch cnn 15 dollars an hour for up to 7 hours. It changed peoples beliefs. Show nested quote +“Despite regular Fox viewers being largely strong partisans, we found manifold effects of changing the slant of their media diets on their factual beliefs, attitudes, perceptions of issues’ importance, and overall political views,” the authors of the study said. Show nested quote +“We found large effects of watching CNN instead of Fox News on participants’ factual perceptions of current events (i.e., beliefs) and knowledge about the 2020 presidential candidates’ positions,” the researchers said. “They discovered changes in attitudes about Donald Trump and Republicans as well as a large effect on their opinions about Covid.”
The researchers concluded that this is an effect in part of “partisan coverage filtering”, wherein partisan outlets selectively report information, leading viewers to learn a biased set of facts. No matter how you lean this shows how important "news" reporting facts is, the US needs rules back to make sure their people are not just getting dramatized entertainment "news" but actual accurate info. https://ca.yahoo.com/news/fox-viewers-transformed-watching-cnn-063911412.html
I wonder what would happen if you paid CNN viewers to watch Fox for 7 hours.
|
I like to imagine the difference is that Fox viewers don't know better so they see different news and are influenced by that while a CNN viewer watching Fox knows he is watching complete BS so if they say the sky is now blue you don't believe it without looking out the window.
|
|
|
On April 05 2022 00:33 Gorsameth wrote:
I like to imagine the difference is that Fox viewers don't know better so they see different news and are influenced by that while a CNN viewer watching Fox knows he is watching complete BS so if they say the sky is now blue you don't believe it without looking out the window.
This is mostly my experience when at the gym, they have Fox playing and Im usually thinking, "Christ, people watch and believe this."
And then back to HGTV to mock the bougie people
|
People who watch CNN, in my experience, also tend to consume a wider variety of news media, and don't only watch CNN. A large portion of Fox News viewers only watch Fox News, or they consume a variety of even sketchier sources like Breitbart or OAN. And that's by design, those organizations have a consistent throughline to them that you can trust them, but you can't trust "The Mainstream Media", which conveniently excludes far-right sources.
|
On April 01 2022 14:19 ChristianS wrote:
Interesting video. I find a fair amount of common ground in his historical analysis, although right at the start I think he whiffs the first question: Russia is the aggressor in Ukraine! It isn’t complicated! When you invade a neighboring country to try to eliminate its leadership and annex them, you’re the aggressor! If your definition of imperialism has gotten so nuanced it no longer includes “literally invading your neighbors and massacring their people so you can expand your territory” you’ve gone too far, and you should retrace your steps to figure out where you fucked this up!
Not that there isn’t value in understanding the historical context. Putin has occasionally given quotes saying the collapse of the Soviet Union was a humanitarian tragedy. This tends to make Westerners uncomfortable, since they remember the Soviets mostly for their atrocities, but it absolutely was! Westerners were too busy celebrating and expanding NATO into former Soviet states to care much, but collapse of the government that was managing the whole economy is going to have massive humanitarian cost, and we didn’t do nearly as much to offset that as we could have. That’s a lot of why things have gone so poorly since then, and why Russia would be eager to reconquer ex-Soviet territory today.
But none of that justifies the invasion, any more than Versailles justified German aggression. And if you want less atrocities to happen you have to want wars of conquest to stop, because wars of conquest have never not led to atrocities. More than leftism or democracy or liberalism or anything else, I believe in going into other people’s houses with guns being bad. If we can’t oppose that, what the hell are we doing?
The sanctions on Russia now should've been made in 2014 when Putin annexed Crimea. I think weak resolve from Obama and the EU emboldened him to cripple Ukraine and his own country for at least 2 decades...
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220404-merkel-defends-2008-decision-to-block-ukraine-from-nato
President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who served as foreign minister in two of Merkel's cabinets, on Monday admitted that he made a "mistake" in pushing for Nord Stream 2, the controversial pipeline built to double Russian gas imports to Germany. Admitting his miscalculation, Steinmeier said his "assessment was that Vladimir Putin would not accept the compete economic, political and moral ruin of his country for his imperial madness."
|
From the Associated Press. Why bother even having these hearings? It's such nonsense. Jackson is literally one of the most qualified SCJ nominees of the past 50 years, but the Republican monolith insists on putting party before country.
|
Per usual, the Republican line of criticism for the first black woman to be nominated is not just racist and sexist in its application, but Democrats have been woefully anemic in defending her to the Republican's baseless criticisms. One of the most qualified nominees in recent history, much more than the last 2 confirmed justices combined, being grilled by Republicans who suddenly care that a Supreme Court Justice actually be qualified. Guess they ran out of softballs.
And the Democrats refusing to call this shit out for what it is, when she's their nominee, and so far one of their biggest prospective achievements, is just absurd to me. That's an easy win. Get your support on the record, mark what an accomplishment this would be as a historic appointment, and call out the hypocrisy of Republicans who postured like they were going to show decency.
This whole circus has been a damning demonstration to me of the fact that not only will this confirmation be a substantial achievement, but holy shit do we still have work to do.
|
United States24664 Posts
This isn't about racism and sexism. Don't get me wrong, they're racist and sexist. However, even if the candidate was a cis white male, the GOP would still provide zero support at this time.
|
It's political grandstanding that's it.
The Democrats did the same when Trump was nominating SC justices.
|
On April 05 2022 09:10 gobbledydook wrote:
It's political grandstanding that's it.
The Democrats did the same when Trump was nominating SC justices.
If you think there's anything remotely similar between KBJ being grilled despite being incredibly qualified, and rightly calling out Brett's escapades with PJ, Squee, and a beer keg, I have a bridge to sell you.
|
On April 05 2022 09:10 gobbledydook wrote:
It's political grandstanding that's it.
The Democrats did the same when Trump was nominating SC justices.
Not even close.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Yeah, Kavanaugh got raked over the coals WAY harder than this. No comparison.
|
|
|
On April 05 2022 09:56 LegalLord wrote:
Yeah, Kavanaugh got raked over the coals WAY harder than this. No comparison.
Dems probably shouldn't complain about the treatment of KBJ until the republicans bring sketchy claims of serious criminality and demand an FBI investigation into them. The precedent for SC hearings has been set, and it ain't pretty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
