Unfortunately, like filibusters, government shutdowns are a Pandora’s box. Once they’ve been used as a negotiating tactic once, you can never un-use them.
That’s not to say this isn’t despicable, but unless there’s bipartisan support to change the process, we’re going to see government shutdowns every time there’s disagreement over funding.
It won’t matter to his supporters. Trump pardoned Steve Bannon for fraud charges where he was stealing people’s donations to “build the wall”. They still don’t care.
I disagree on the grounds that it prices out poor people. The 2nd amendment is for everyone and it shouldn’t be prohibitively expensive to exercise your right to bear arms.
It’s already expensive to train and increasing that cost means more people won’t be able to train appropriately. Personally I’d prefer firearms training to be as cheap as possible so that anyone who chooses to own a gun can practice and be safe with it.
Your comment makes no sense. Government regulations, like most antigun folks want “well regulated” to mean, would mean laws limiting the militia. Well regulated in the 2nd amendment actually means in good working order as my link says.
A well regulated clock keeps accurate time. A well regulated engine produces horse power efficiently and reliably. A well regulated militia has plenty of ammo and supplies and knows how to use them.
Given past behavior with government this doesn’t help schools, it just let’s the government spend less out of the general fund for schools. It likely won’t be a net increase in funding.
They were gonna do that shit anyways. The wealthy joined a side already vs back when they played both sides. Democrats lose nothing anymore by shunning the upper class entirely.
To both sides. They need to work with whatever party is in power. On top of that the real Big 3 American companies - Ford, GM, and Tesla - have committed so hard to EVs they literally can’t back out now, but EVs are popular with liberals, not conservatives. They’ve made it clear their business interests align with the liberal agenda, and at this point any regulation on emissions is doing them a huge favor, something they won’t see from the GOP.
McCarthy probably sees it as an anvil. If he takes it and doesn’t cut a deal with Democrats fast, he might spend most of that 6 weeks trying to be reelected Speaker.
Then perhaps they shouldn’t have accepted it and striked as planned? The fact that it wasn’t “enough” for the workers isn’t on the POTUS and doesn’t negate his actions.
They kind of kick-started this years huge labor push. Sure, it was bubbling up for a while before the rail unions decided to take action but they were the first “big” players to threaten a strike in a while. It’s easy to say that from the sidelines after the fact but they were being vilified by national media 24/7 for weeks, getting a bunch of pressure from Congress and being threatened to have the book thrown at them if they decided to strike. They were early to the party and didn’t have all of it’s completely understandable.
It’s also completely valid to criticize Biden for not doing enough when it really mattered, he could’ve put more pressure on Congress, he could’ve visited the workers and given his approval. He’s clearly capable of these things when it suits his interests, why didn’t he do any of that for the rail unions? Surely they could’ve used the help. Why was “working in the background” good enough for them but all of a sudden it’s insufficient for the UAW?
The labor movement is a positive feedback loop of direct action. I’m still contending with the fact that I’m a major player in the labor movement within tech, but I can trace the labor action of the last few months directly to CODE-CWA forming to help organize Google workers in 2020. Labor action fuels labor action. The ABK Workers Alliance were inspired by Paizo, who inspired Vodeo Workers United, who inspired ABKWA members to unionize at Raven into GWA, who inspired more tech unions to form, who inspired SBWU to perform militant labor actions, who inspired WGA and SAG-AFTRA (they work in the games industry).
Edit: I feel like downvotes are coming from my claim about being a major player in the labor movement. Without revealing who I am or where I work, my workplace will be the largest union in tech when we file, beating ZWU by approximately 160 people. I’m the lead organizer of this campaign, and we have approximately 40% card saturation (the campaign started very abnormally). There is almost 0% chance anyone has seen my name outside of my home town, except my labor actions have placed me on an obscure games media podcast talking about GDC, in a picture of a CWA newsletter, and I was quoted on an article from WSJ regarding my activism.
Criticism is totally fine and often deserved, I’m just saying using the rail strike (or any past Biden ball-drops) as a measuring stick for this one servers little purpose and detracts from the core issue. He should be held to task for those things when it comes election time, not fielding “but what about XYZ?” statements.
Launching an illegal strike is far different from launching a legally protected strike. They’d have to accept the possibility that everyone loses their jobs and some people might even get taken to court. Things just aren’t that bad yet.
Gotta give the president props for that, as well as democrats. Didn’t realize they got that through. I’d like them to keep pushing for a least 12 national sick days for all mid to major companies.
It would, absolutely, but it still means a whole lot.
It's a recognition by a slick, seasoned, career politician in the highest office in his country that the winds are shifting with respect to the labour movement.
Don't think of this as Biden expressing any deeply held belief. Don't think of anything he does in those terms. The Democrats in general, and Biden especially, are a mirror that reflects something meaningful about the socio-political environment. Just as Trump and the Republicans are.
He and his team believe that something in that environment has shifted, and that labour is poised to be ok the winning side of that shift.
Did he though? His Congress pushed through a bill with a smaller compensation package, 1(one) day of sick time, no removal of advance notice for sick time, none of the OT protections, and no acknowledgement of safety concerns.
Fuck you for assuming I’m any kind of liberal. Especially fuck you for insinuating I’m a Republican.
Regardless of the RLA holding a gun to their Union’s head, they did vote to approve the Senate’s contract. I’m personally very dissatisfied with the agreement, but ultimately, their union voted to ratify the agreement. As NPR notes, the deal falls significantly short of the goals rail workers were fighting for. They decided to accept it, in the face of a repeat of PATCO.
I got a bit upset about you saying I was fueling right-wing talking points, so my bad. I’ll always fight on the side of labor, even if the Republican party is trying to make them the ball in political games.
Personally I think it would have turned out much better for their union after even a day on strike, but I guess we’ll never know. My point is not “they didn’t get what they wanted but got something good”, it’s that the deal was forcibly imposed on them without any other options. I was not aware of the aftermath of the deal so I appreciate you highlighting it, but it still falls short in my eyes. Were I in their union, I’d be a minority opposed to the outcome. But that’s the thing, I’m just a guy on the Internet, not a member of IBEW, SMART-MD, or IBT (CWA guy in the tech industry, actually).
I trust you to do the right thing, I don’t need a screen shot. Thank you for putting up.
Err… what? I copied and pasted what I wrote before because it was a sufficient response to your comment.
You seem to have this weird idea that just because they accepted the deal, that it was a good deal. I said that’s not necessarily true. Then you replied saying “yes it is, they know more than you” which completely ignores my point, so I re-iterated it.
Lol, what? I’m countering the point that just because they’ve accepted it doesn’t mean it’s good.
Just because they are union workers doesn’t mean they weren’t taken advantage of.
What about this is so hard for you to understand?
You seem to think that any deal they would’ve taken is a good deal, because they know more about it than you do. That’s a classic appeal to authority, and it’s hilarious that you’re trying to defend it.
I propose the National Popular Vote Interstate compact. Cgp grey has an amazing video on it. It’s a “petition” of sorts that basically says that states that sign it will have its elective representatives vote with the majority vote of their said state.
“But he acknowledged many of these laws might not survive legal challenges”
How is this not grounds for some form of punishment? Politicians shouldn’t be able to write laws even they acknowledge are illegal, gun law or otherwise?
“California will ban people from carrying firearms in most public places” and then it goes on about the tax.
I feel like the carry ban is a far larger story then the tax. Not just because its blatantly unconstitutional but it directly opposes very recent rulings from the highest court in America
How is it “blatantly unconstitutional”? The right to bear arms seem to be only in conjunction with a well regulated militia. Something that yet has to be found in the USA. And a well regulated militia would not run about their daily business with a gun ready to murder the next cop passing by, because he eyed them weirdly.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
Arms are a “right of the people” not the militia. A militia is a result of, not a prerequisite for, the right to bear arms. “well regulated” doesn’t mean government regulation it means well armed, supplied, and trained
This stopgap bill would absolutely have enough votes to pass in the House and the only reason McCarthy won’t bring it to a vote is because the hard liners would motion to vacate the speakership. So the US will be plunged into chaos all because one guy doesn’t want to lose his title. Cool democracy.
Could he put it up for a vote before they manage to remove him and sacrifice himself to save the government for another 2 months? Or could they remove him outright and lock government up for a few weeks guaranteed until enough Republicans get pissed and vote a dem speaker into the chair?
Lol McCarthy doing anything that benefits others at a cost to him. He could have cross the aisle on multiple occasions to strip the lunatic fringiest part of his party of power at a much lower cost to himself. The man has all the spine of a jellyfish.
I think it’s that the hard liners would immediately kick Mccarthy and no one wants to deal with those assholes and run for majority leader. The majority is so slim that those assholes hold a lot of power. Republicans always fall in line. they can’t work with democrats. They would immediately be ostracized and lose reelection.
That’s likely to happen anyway because he put himself in a no win scenario. The hard liners’ demands can’t make it through the Senate, because even the Senate Republicans aren’t onboard with that shit.
So it’s cut a deal with the Democrats to keep the government open, and get primaried, or shutdown the government and weaken the party in 2024… And get primaried because his speakership was disastrous.
Gaetz’s imaginary door #3 doesn’t exist, and McCarthy knows it.
news
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.