EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3623
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On May 08 2022 02:34 Zambrah wrote: Is Leeds v Chelsea a new Supreme Court case It’s got a certain ring to it | ||
|
Deleted User 173346
16169 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On May 08 2022 07:36 plasmidghost wrote: My bad on the football post y'all lol On topic, since Biden just met with the Starbucks union leader, could this mean the start of more worker-friendly policies from the Biden administration? I know the NLRB filed a lawsuit against Starbucks and I'm not sure how much influence Biden had on that, if any, since I'm barely familiar with them Ah yes the Leeds vs Chelsea lawsuit, I’m familiar with that now you contextualise it. I’m unsure if it means the admin is pro-actively pro worker in any way whatsoever, but if it were to make moves that it would intercede to stop egregious union-busting that’s de facto the same thing, provided people on the ground keep doing the work. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14162 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On May 08 2022 12:06 Mohdoo wrote: I'd like to see Biden aggressively withhold federal dollars from companies that have never held a unionization vote. I think the government recently had a large contract with Amazon go through despite their aggressive union-busting awfulness, so I doubt its in the cards, but yeah I think supporting the labor movement would be probably the single most impactful way to make Democrats an actual strong and useful party. Peeling off the working class from Republicans via labor unions would be smart. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On May 08 2022 12:12 Zambrah wrote: I think the government recently had a large contract with Amazon go through despite their aggressive union-busting awfulness, so I doubt its in the cards, but yeah I think supporting the labor movement would be probably the single most impactful way to make Democrats an actual strong and useful party. Peeling off the working class from Republicans via labor unions would be smart. Federal agency funding is really our only option. The senate is a an obstructionist institution. I think we are essentially in a checkmate situation where major reform can only happen through the executive creatively leveraging federal agencies. Stuff like Trump building the wall with military funding by labeling it a national security issue is the sort of thing I'd like to see Biden doing. I will always point to BBB as an example of why classic legislating is dead and not worth focusing on. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On May 08 2022 12:23 Mohdoo wrote: Federal agency funding is really our only option. The senate is a an obstructionist institution. I think we are essentially in a checkmate situation where major reform can only happen through the executive creatively leveraging federal agencies. Stuff like Trump building the wall with military funding by labeling it a national security issue is the sort of thing I'd like to see Biden doing. I will always point to BBB as an example of why classic legislating is dead and not worth focusing on. I agree, but Democrats in general and Biden in particular aren't interested in that sort of non-traditional use of power. I think the labor movement is going to have to take off and Democrats are going to have to latch on rather than them organically supporting it as it starts to grow. They're just not interested in anything beyond their decades old playbook and won't switch off it til something becomes 100% clearly the right move politically. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
Republicans have never been so small minded, they're not looking to impose their values on their own little carved out circles of hell, but on as many people as they can exert their power over. If Democrats bomb the midterms I wouldnt be surprised to see a national abortion ban become a reality. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-national-abortion-ban-possible-roe-v-wade-overturned When asked if a conversation on a national abortion ban is worthy of debate, the senator said federal restrictions on the procedure are possible. "If the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative bodies – not only at the state level but at the federal level – certainly could legislate in that area," McConnell said. "And if this were the final decision, that was the point that it should be resolved one way or another in the legislative process. So yeah, it's possible," he continued. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18393 Posts
On May 09 2022 02:42 Zambrah wrote: Its about states rights guys! States rights! This was always something that should have been left to the states! Republicans have never been so small minded, they're not looking to impose their values on their own little carved out circles of hell, but on as many people as they can exert their power over. If Democrats bomb the midterms I wouldnt be surprised to see a national abortion ban become a reality. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcconnell-national-abortion-ban-possible-roe-v-wade-overturned It'd be have to wait until 2024 at the earliest as there is no way Biden doesn't veto that. But yeah, states' rights!  | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
| ||
|
Doc.Rivers
United States404 Posts
On May 07 2022 08:24 WombaT wrote: Would it not be easier just to say you don’t support this idea? It’s a crude method granted but I’ve found throughout my life the best way to not be charged with tacit acceptance of something is to say I personally oppose it. It’s not a foolproof method, for example it falls flat if the other party finds me an unreliable interlocutor, but for the most part I’ve got good results with it. To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature. On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them. Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court? | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44203 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
Marsha Blackburn (TN Senator) recently called out some Supreme Court cases she had an issue with, in particular Griswold v. Connecticut is telling given Roe v Wade is on the way out. “Constitutionally unsound rulings like Griswold v. Connecticut, Kelo v. City of New London, and NFIB v. Sebelius confuse Tennesseans and leave Congress wondering who gave the court permission to bypass our system of checks and balances.” So calling out Griswold v Connecticut as a potential future target, For those unfamiliar, I've got a wikipedia summary here, + Show Spoiler + Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction.[1] The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control". By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as "protected from governmental intrusion". So basically, once Roe v Wade is gone it seems Griswold v Connecticut may be one of their next targets, which makes sense. They've taken an inch and they're going to start taking miles. I hope people continue to get out there and make damn sure their representatives and the people in power know that they're not willing to see their rights eroded and stripped from them. The only ones who are going to defend the rights of the people in the US are the people themselves. I hope people really commit to making sure scumbag politicians can't go out in public without being heckled and continue to protest at their homes. Make them understand that they serve at our leisure, their power is entirely contingent on us. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24784 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18393 Posts
On May 09 2022 06:14 Doc.Rivers wrote: To be clear I don't support that idea and I think it's crazy and extreme. I just don't think it makes sense to attribute that idea to the wider republican party, when the idea is not actually going to be passed by a republican legislature. On another note, looks like the attempted bullying/harassment of Supreme Court justices over Roe has begun. If enough people don't like the leaked opinion, they'll come to the justices homes and harass them. https://twitter.com/billybinion/status/1523137624671940608 Wonder if Congress should provide for some more security for the Supreme court? You are of course right that standing on the sidewalk outside a judge's house is unbearable. I presume you'd prefer that some fans of the second amendment go out and do something about these judges? + Show Spoiler + I mean vote, of course, I'd never suggest something else and how dare you even imply that! | ||
| ||
