Messages

1

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 02, 2021, 07:04:50 AM »

This analysis ignores that the country just experienced what happens when he doesn't get his way.  Millions of sane people are fleeing the Republican party and would stay away if Trump ran for election again. His issue is not turning out the base - it's the turnout he drives for the Democrats, and how he's disaffected independents.

2

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 10:02:02 PM »

Well, it looks like McConnell is pushing back on the loony wing of the party - it took a while, but it's certainly a start: McConnell: Marjorie Taylor Greene's views are a 'cancer' for the GOP.

We'll see where it goes from here.

I think you're all being too optimistic in your claims that Trump's done and over with. Nothing I've seen indicates it. Everything to me indicates the Republican party is being purged of non-Trumpists. If he's acquitted, which he likely will be, he'll resume his attack on democracy tenfold.

He'll be the presidential candidate for the Republican party until the day he dies, or the day he wins the presidency again. 

The difference is, nobody thought he had a chance of winning in 2016.  He's now got 4 years of of history as the president, which was enough to motivate a record number, by over 10 million people, to vote against him in the last election. And nobody is going to make the mistake of assuming he can't win an election, or that it might not be completely awful if he did.

3

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 07:27:02 PM »

Ignoring his power doesn't make it disappear.

He is not in power. He will never be re-elected.  If he tries to run again, he will guarantee a loss for the Republicans worse than this time around.

BUT

There are millions of people who believe.  The Republican party, notwithstanding your oh-so-rational analysis, is giving him power willingly because they think they need his supporters.  After January 6, 45% of Republicans actually supported the attack on Congress.  That bears repeating, because obviously, people don't appreciate it.  You can bet that far more than 45% still supported Trump.  Sure, he might up and die tomorrow.  But so could Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg.  I used the word "audience" purposefully, because too many Republicans treat him as a religious or monarchical figure.  This is the Republican party today.

4

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 06:42:01 PM »

We all gonna hold the line so one POS with 1/435 power in the national legislature can hold?

I'm not sure what "hold the line" means in this context, but that does ignore that she does not simply hold 1/435th of the power.  She just had a private audience with the man in who's name thousands (1? 2? 3?) of people violently attacked the Capitol and tried to prevent the transfer of power; how many other Congress people got an audience with the orange man-child (aside from McCarthy, who slunk in to see Trump to beg forgiveness and kiss the ring?)  Not to mention - 45% of Republicans supported the attack on the Capitol the following day - I can't say I've seen an analysis of the overlap, but it is not a stretch to believe there is more overlap between that 45% and her support than there is with any other member of Congress (most congress people being nameless drones outside of their own districts).

She is the current darling of tens of millions of QAnon believers for 'speaking their truth', a truth that names their political opponents (yes, Democrats, as well as globalists and, well, those people always associated with "cabals") as sexual predators, murderers and, well, eaters of babies; literally 24% of U.S. adults believe that claims made by QAnon supporters are either very or somewhat accurate and she is their current uncontested voice in government.

So no - she holds much more than just 1/435th of the power in the national legislature.  Until they can buy it back, or until she self-destructs, she and Trump own the soul of the Republican party.

5

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 01, 2021, 06:01:51 PM »

I read stories of hospital workers reusing single masks across days, and being forced to wear cloth masks.  Yes, some hospitals were trying to keep a cache of PPE, but other hospitals simply had no buffer whatsoever.

That suggests they did not have sufficient masks.  And I've also read article on the general lack of availability to hospitals.  For instance: Vox March 27, 2020: Why America ran out of protective masks — and what can be done about it.

As for helping stop generalized spread - without getting upwards of 50% of the population 'immune' (meaning wearing masks) you really would not be able to significantly slow viral spread.  And without it getting above 20%, you would see no observable slowing in spread.  I don't know anybody who claims there was sufficient PPE available for upwards of 50 million people on a daily basis, never mind 150 million.

That least bit is the key: not only wasn't there enough PPE for health care workers, in the immediate, emergent situation in March, there was nowhere near enough PPE available to the general population for it to have made any difference whatsoever to viral spread.  Any claims that it would have done so run up against the availability constraint. And from a purely epidemiological perspective, you would want those most likely to come in contact with the virus to be most protected; by limiting the spread there, you limit the spread from those people outwards.

Did Fauci say the masks didn't work for the public?  That they were too stupid?  I don't think so.  Even on March 3, he pointed out that they would be useful for infected people to wear to avoid spread, and that they would be useful, at least a little, to protect from droplets.  But he also was clearly very concerned, maybe more concerned, with fomites (which, after more was known about the virus, turned out to be incorrect). Now, if one wants to make the observation that nobody, including Fauci, appreciated that the virus spread so much more effectively via droplets and aerosols as opposed to surface contact, then sure - but that is only obvious in hindsight, and I would suggest that Fauci's wording was carefully couched, always talking about "now" or "right now", and often reiterating that things could change.

6

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 01, 2021, 03:56:38 PM »

I have to agree with this.  The first major outbreak did not begin until mid-March.  In hindsight it was bad advice but that should have been obvious.

My point was that it wasn't actually bad advice, or wrong advice.  If we imagine that Fauci had advised people to go out and buy masks right away, and everybody listened, you probably wouldn't have had more than 1% of the population getting access to masks anyway, definitely less than 5%, and without a doubt, far less than would be necessary to provide pseudo herd immunity sufficient to even slow the virus' spread.

From an epidemiological perspective, on a societal level, such a directive would have had a negligible effect.  But it would definitely have had an effect on the immediate supply of PPE.

One could argue that the wording was such that people could later (and did, later) misrepresent his statement in ways that were used to reduce the uptake of mask wearing - but given what we know about people misrepresenting even the most unambiguous statements, that would be almost impossible to guard against.

7

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: February 01, 2021, 01:07:04 PM »

FAUCI: The masks are important for someone who's infected to prevent them from infecting someone else. Now, when you see people and look at the films in China and South Korea, whatever, and everybody's wearing a mask. Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.

HOST: You're sure of this, because people are listening really closely to this.

FAUCI: Right. Now people should not be walk— there's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.

And often there are unintended consequences. People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.

HOST: And you can get some schmutz sort of staying inside there.

FAUCI: Of course, but when you think "masks," you should think of health care providers needing them and people who are ill. The people — when you look at the films of countries, and you see 85% of the people wearing masks, that's fine. That's fine. I'm not against it. If you want to do it, that's fine.

HOST: But it can lead to a shortage.

FAUCI: Exactly, that’s the point. It could lead to a shortage of masks for the people who really need it.

Things to note: as of March 2, the date of this interview, there had not yet been a significant spread of the virus throughout the population.  Yes, it was spreading, and yes, if a significant number of people had started wearing masks at that point (and by that, I mean in the 50% range) that would definitely have slowed the spread of the virus, but because there were so few infections as of that date, wearing a mask would provide an infinitesimal increased protection to each person wearing a mask because each such person would be highly unlikely to come into contact with an infected person.

Marry that with the lack of manufacturing and supply, and encouraging people to wear masks on March 2 would only have put further stress on health care providers' ability to acquire them.  And yes, the increasing demand in the general public absolutely would divert resources away from hospitals and traditional health care providers, both from normal demand side pressures on the supply chain and well as black market diversions.  If you don't believe this, then you mustn't have been aware that hospitals were in fact short of PPE for months.  There simply was not the manufacturing and supply capability (at the time) to support all traditional health care providers with PPE, never mind the additional stress put on the manufacturing system by the increased demand in the general population.

By March 27, Fauci was using slightly different wording:

When we say you don't need to wear a mask, what we're really saying is make sure you prioritize it first for the people who need the mask. In a perfect world, if you had all the masks you wanted, then you could get some degree of protection, but make sure you prioritize it well.

8

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 12:11:46 PM »

You're wanting to make a local decision about representation and have the national organization invalidate it because the locals "chose poorly." It doesn't change the matter that they chose her, it's between them and her. Not the rest of us.

That would be so convenient, but no - the national organization, if it doesn't speak now, will be associated with that person's positions, like it or not.  It's not like there is a rule that says the national organization must be punished for the sins of its members.  But the silence is just one more piece of evidence illustrating what the party currently values. And naming her to a committee?  That's not even silence.

9

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 09:13:12 AM »

Yup. 

Political parties are actually more dependent on their brand, because the brand is literally what they are selling.  And what they are selling now, unless they come out and dissociate themselves with Taylor Greene's ideas strongly, is a particular set of ideas that are currently very popular with a significant percentage of Republican voters.

10

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: February 01, 2021, 08:52:57 AM »

If person 'A', employed by 'ACME co', makes public comments that put ACME in a bad situation, either PR wise, or in ways that conflict with their policy or direction, ACME will almost certainly take actions to protect their brand.  If they don't they will reap the benefits of that decision as well.  This is especially true if person 'A' has a publicly visible position, and especially if they are seen to have authority within the company.  It might even change the perception of their whole brand.

If person 'B', who is NOT employed by ACME, does the same, ACME won't be in the same position. If ACME does not act against person 'B', ACME is not going to have a problem. 

Taylor Greene is becoming the brand of the Republicans - the different levels of crazy, including the support for killing political opponents.  If other leaders don't actively push back on this person, offering tacit approval (and the approval seems to be more than just tacit at this point) that will become their brand.  The problem is, they seem to want that to be their brand for a specific subset of the population.

11

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 31, 2021, 09:18:32 PM »

Well, it looks like at least one GOP Senator, Rob Portman, agrees that the Republican party should censure Taylor Greene; so maybe the idea isn't so crazy after all.

Of course, Portman has said he will not be running for reelection in 2022, so I guess that makes it a bit easier to take a principled stand.

12

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 31, 2021, 08:36:25 PM »

#2, there is a wide gulf between a pundit, agitator, activist, malcontent, and an elected official

My personal favourite is when certain people pull out Kathy Griffin as a counter example.  The internet is a big place, with lots of crazy in it, and you will find crazy on every side of every topic.  But Kathy Griffin isn't a member of the national legislature.  Oh, I almost forgot - she has also been unemployable since her Trump head stunt.

Re-education camps, huh?  Show me an elected official spewing that nonsense.  Now, if you meant this guy, TheDaemon, as some sort of equivalency... well, he was forced to resign.  Are you advocating the Republican party force Taylor Greene to resign, now?  And, not that i am defending this idiot, but spouting off to a girl you're trying to impress in a bar (where you have a certain expectation of having a private, at least, not a published conversation) is quite different from publicly making statements and promoting those posts as Taylor Greene did.

13

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: January 31, 2021, 05:36:45 PM »

Every front line service industry person, and every one of their customers, just for starters.  Vast numbers of people in the food preparation industry is another example.  And whether you social distance is not completely in your control outside of these necessary situations: even ignoring the crazies like the vaccination centre protesters and Republican legislators, there are millions of people in the US who think the virus is a hoax and many who simply go out of their way to disrupt other people's attempts at virus mitigation. Not to mention - 6 feet is a rule of thumb - it is no guarantee, and the longer one stays in others' company, the less effective a simple 6 foot distance is.

14

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 31, 2021, 05:02:07 PM »

She didn't remove all her posts - just the troublesome ones.

Now, if she was removing these posts as part of a broader strategy to walk back those positions, apologize for unintended  insult, and just spur of the moment brain farts, that might make sense.  But surreptitiously removing them without taking ownership, after the totality of the posts have already been widely shared and panned?  She should fire her communications person.

As for this:

The culture of necroing old tweets and posts to destroy someone makes it too easy to miss something in your post history from years ago that can come back to haunt you.

It's not like these posts were subtle "gotcha" posts that nobody could have been expected to have been blamed for - she was supporting the killing of her political opponents.  Posting these things is a complete self-own, self-destroy.  Implying there is blame to the person digging them up is a bit rich.

15

General Comments / Re: coronavirus

« on: January 31, 2021, 04:54:15 PM »

Social distancing and masks are complementary. There are absolutely times where it's impossible to social distance even for short periods of time: for example, in the case where someone needs to work in the presence of others. It's not either/or, and neglecting mask use at this point in time will significantly aggravate the current situation.

16

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 31, 2021, 12:24:21 PM »

The Daemon, you seem to be conflating freedom of speech with "freedom from consequences"... something that has become prevalent in the right over the past few years.

The Republican party will face the consequences of accepting crazy people into their fold.  Not using one's own "freedom of speech" to clarify that the Republican party does not support calling for the deaths of their political opponents is a choice, and one that has already led to mass defections from the party.  It is also a choice that allows other people to make judgments based on that decision, like "it is more important to avoid being primaried than to call out blatant evil" or "I choose to associate with evil because I am afraid that the base will target my family".

Again, this seems to be another example of the "party of personal responsibility" desperately hoping to avoid taking responsibility.

Also, please do show where I am urging that Taylor Greene be arrested for her likes, reposts, and statements about paying for freedom with the "price of blood". Especially since I just stated, in my immediately preceding post, that I don't think those statements and likes rise to the level of being a crime.

As an aside, Taylor Greene has no constituents in Colorado.

17

General Comments / Re: Pencemegeddon

« on: January 31, 2021, 09:14:27 AM »

McConnell, Jan 7: hmmm... the president's actions are impeachable, but bringing the senate back on an emergency basis is not warranted - plus we must give him time to prepare a defense.
McConnell, now: I vote not to move forward with the trial, because Trump is no longer president and I question the constitutionality of trying someone who is no longer in office.

18

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 31, 2021, 09:04:43 AM »

If holding an opinion about something which views an illegal action in a favorable way is a crime,

I don't think anybody is claiming that is a crime; that's more than a little bit of a straw man - what it is, is completely unacceptable behaviour.  Arguing that even just implying political opponents should be killed is somehow now acceptable (though that is the most generous interpretation of Taylor Greene's pattern of conduct) is evidence of just how far political discourse has fallen, but not just that - in the current context, I think we have all seen just where demonizing political opponents and normalizing threats and support for violence against one's opponents brings you.

It's truly sad that people now feel it necessary to support their own team even if it means trying to excuse their most rabid comrades calling for the death of one's opponents.

19

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 07:45:04 PM »

Hank Johnson, D-GA has openly expressed concerns about Guam capsizing.

You think an inartful metaphor is in any way equivalent to any of those issues raised concerning Taylor Greene?  Really?   Even if you think he meant the island would literally tip over, that would just mean he was stupid.  Is that really equivalent to having supported the killing of her current coworkers?

20

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 07:36:30 PM »

OK, so what are the specifics?

21

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 07:34:16 PM »

Be specific.  Which Democratic whack jobs?  And what are you accusing those whack jobs of doing? 

Granted, I'd happily see the conservative ones gone so they don't enable people doing what you're doing right now. People are entitled to their views, even if they're insane.

Shouldn't you want her gone because she has supported statements calling for the killing of members of Congress; for belonging to a group, and supporting a group, that believes that her political opponents belong to a world-wide cabal of baby-eating pederasts, and that those pederasts are running the world?  For promoting the idea that the worst mass shooting/killing events in the past couple of decades were the result of Democrat actors belonging to a conspiracy to take away her guns?

As opposed to simply because it is not politically expedient to continue associating with an insane person, nor to be seen to be supporting an insane person's presence in a leadership role in the government and one's party?

22

General Comments / Re: Unprecedented Attacks on Capitol Hill

« on: January 30, 2021, 07:25:07 PM »

Hmmm... if past is prolog, are the Capitol attackers from January 6 also looking at between 20 and 50 year sentences?

23

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 02:32:01 PM »

You think anything posted here has any effect on people's ability to vote for their preferred candidate?   I think you vastly overestimate the power of the internet word.

24

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 01:56:04 PM »

You seem to forget - certifiably insane, yet supported by the former president, and supported by the vast majority of Republican Representative and Senators, either by omission or by commission.  You also seem to forget she was also named as a member to a committee.  As much as anything, she is a symptom of the illness in the Republican party.  The party needs, for its own good, to censure her.  If they continue to refuse to do so, the cancer definitely continue to spread.

25

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 01:45:55 PM »

Yes, it is about congress people.  It is literally about a person, voted into Congress, who believes there is a conspiracy involving Democrats eating and sexually abusing babies in a world wide conspiracy and who also supported statements about murdering Democratic politicians, and who claimed that 9/11 was a hoax, among other things.  And my statement was specifically about the Republican party, as represented by their elected officials, refusing to censure this person, or, heck, even to be seen to disagree with her.

Again I ask - who are these Democrat crazies in Congress, and what are they saying that is in any way equivalent to supporting the killing of political opponents?

26

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 01:20:40 PM »

And on the subject of health care it's not that the right wing doesn't believe that poor people shouldn't have it, it's that they believe a free market will provide it.

You reversed the point being made.  You were the one positing the existence of Democrat crazies in Congress (the "in Congress" is implicit since I was pointing out Republicans' support for members of Congress).  I tried to come up with the craziest position the Congressional Democrats hold (excluding the murder of babies thing).  Observing that Republicans have beliefs concerning health care doesn't actually address the fact you were equating the crazies on both sides.

27

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 01:15:30 PM »

Don't be silly - the Republicans have been challenged to push back on the craziness. They refuse to do so.  They continue to refuse to do so.  And this is in the context of them making other choices concerning the attack on the Capitol.

And did you not really try to equate the belief in QAnon, mass shooter conspiracies, and 9/11 conspiracies with beliefs held by Dem members of Congress?  (not even getting into the supports for physical attacks against members of Congress)?

Who are these "crazy" Democratic members of Congress, and what are their espoused beliefs that are in any way equivalent to vocal support for QAnon or support for the murder of politicians belonging to the opposing party?

28

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 12:23:22 PM »

As for this:

They've got their crazies, we've got ours. They're a pain in the ass all around.

I think you've both-sides'ed yourself into a brain cramp.

The Republican crazies in Congress believe that mass killing events are hoaxes perpetrated by leftist actors meant to deprive real Americans of their rights.  They are coincidentally supported by the people who attacked Congress, who support confederate, nazi and holocaust symbols.

Leftist crazies in Congress believe that humans should have universal health coverage, and that society is still organized in ways that disadvantage Black people and other communities.

29

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 12:06:41 PM »

Not the point - she has supported threats of assassination of political, she has supported conspiracy theories including the belief in a worldwide cabal of baby cannibals, yet the vast majority of Republicans are afraid to disavow her or her ideas. And unfortunately, she is not the only QAnon supporter among Republicans elected to Congress.

THAT is the issue.  Of course Republicans don't, as a party, believe that 9/11 is a hoax.  But that they close ranks around the crazies (and in this case, named her to an education committee) is part of the issue.  The broader issue being that a significant portion of their base is married to dangerous conspiracies and the Republicans, instead of leading, have become the modern "know nothings".

30

General Comments / Re: Joe Biden the Dictator

« on: January 30, 2021, 09:53:29 AM »

I counted about 36 executive orders.  I only counted 11 that were related to undoing Trump EOs or policies.  They include:

What is interesting about this list is that Biden openly campaigned on taking the majority of these actions, either "on day one" or "I will direct..." or "I will take executive action to".  They were not a secret.  The attempt now to denigrate him based on the number is weird.  But taken in conjunction with the misrepresentation of Biden's town hall comment, as Lloyd did in the OP, and as the Republican members of Congress are now also openly doing as well, is clearly an attempt to win political points by lying about Biden's statements and goals.

If the Republicans, instead of lying, had limited themselves to whining about comity or unity, that would be one thing (although compromising on binary choices is not always a possibility, and whining about reversing unilateral Trump orders is especially rich).  But the need to openly lie about Biden, instead of being confident in the correctness of their own positions, is telling.

31

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 30, 2021, 09:10:20 AM »

Now that it seems like it is accepted orthodoxy in the Republican party that 9/11 was a hoax, will the party of personal responsibility be looking to charge members of the GW Bush administration for ware crimes for their involvement in commanding the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

32

General Comments / Re: Joe Biden the Dictator

« on: January 28, 2021, 04:17:52 PM »

Joe Biden in October 2020

I have this strange notion, we are a democracy ... If you can't get the votes ... you can't [legislate] by executive order unless you're a dictator.  We're a democracy.  We need Consensus.

Video

I just decided to look back at the source of this thread - why, I couldn't tell you - and surprise, surprise, the quote above is a manipulated misrepresentation.  I expect Lloyd wasn't lying and just took the quote verbatim from the tweet, and did not invest the time in listening to the Biden interview.  But still, one should be careful about blindly repeating partisan sources without double and triple checking the accuracy.

Q: So there is not going to be any delay on the tax increases?

Biden: No, well... I gotta get the votes... I gotta get the votes... that's why, you know, I... the one thing that I - I have this strange notion. We are a democracy.  Some of my Republican friends and some of my Democratic friends even occasionally say "well, if you can't get the votes, by executive order you're gonna do something".  Things you can't do by executive order unless you're a dictator. We're a democracy.  We need consensus.

Lloyd's quoted section makes no distinction between what Biden was saying and what he was paraphrasing others as having said, and there is nothing in that quote suggesting that Biden was characterizing what was paraphrased.

There's also nothing to suggest he was responding to a very specific question - one about tax increases.  I'm not going to suggest those on the left don't mischaracterize in the same way, but this is a clear case of editing with the intent to misrepresent , and Lloyd fell for it.

Now, maybe I'm wrong - maybe Biden has tried to force through tax increases via executive order, or even things that are clearly outside the executive's purview.  I don't think so - but regardless, that was a whole bunch of misrepresentation to kick off the thread.

33

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 28, 2021, 03:49:51 PM »

BTW, let's review. Greene thinks that Pelosi belongs to a ring of satan worshipping pedophiles. Is it really such a stretch to think that she wishes Pelosi was dead?

Ignoring for a moment that the belief in the existence of a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, cannibalistic pedophiles which is running a global child sex-trafficking ring is a level of batch!t craziness that should already be disqualifying for anybody to hold office, this is also something I wanted to ask: she believes Pelosi eats people, that Pelosi is a pedophile, and that Pelosi associates with a global ring of other cannibalistic pedophiles who are running a secret world government, yet she only "liked" and reposted comments calling for Pelosi's death, not because she agreed with them, but because... "hey, look what people are saying!".

If I honestly thought that somebody was eating babies and helping other people to eat and sexually abuse babies, and getting away with it because they controlled the justice system, I just might support having that person killed...

Darn it... what it is this thread called again?  I feel like we may have gone off topic.  Oh, no, my mistake.  It's pretty much on the nose, still.

34

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency

« on: January 28, 2021, 02:14:05 PM »

DonaldD,

each state has their ow  state minimum wages ,  which in most cases are extremely low.

Using COLA is already present in military pay so I don't think it would run afoul of law requirements.

I think at the state level is too roughly grained.  The major factor is city vs rural rather than state specific.

This seems completely reasonable. 

I wonder what creative agreements could be made using the cudgel of a federal minimum wage to negotiate state-level minimum wages? Not that this is being proposed, but having a state-level opt-out clause so long as the state law met certain criteria...

Will the federal minimum wage affect all hourly workers, or just federal employees?

35

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 28, 2021, 02:07:51 PM »

For some context, here is Greene not taking responsibility on Twitter:

Over the years, I've had teams of people manage my pages. Many posts have been liked. Many posts have been shared. Some did not represent my views. Especially the ones that CNN is about to spread across the internet

Notice what she does NOT say...

36

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 28, 2021, 02:03:11 PM »

Sometimes it means that.  I usually like things that I find funny, or that I want my friends to see.  But if this is now the bar for cancellation I think there a large number of politicians, Democrats included that are in for some trouble.

If there are other members of Congress who 'liked' calls for murder, or reposted same, without clarifying their intent, then I would absolutely want them, regardless of political stripe, to be raked over the coals for those statements - and at the very least, they should apologize for their irresponsibility, and take ownership of the mistakes.

Taylor Greene seems to know this, which is why she suggested that somebody else was using her Facebook account to post, that it wasn't her.  But no attempt was made to apologize for or to condemn those statements, as far as I have seen. What she dd say is something like "those statements do not reflect her position"

37

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency

« on: January 28, 2021, 01:55:03 PM »

I expect each state has (or, well, should have) its own minimum wage law, or would that run afoul of some interstate commerce clause interpretation?

38

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 28, 2021, 01:53:33 PM »

Are you guys really suggesting that liking a comment on Facebook is the equivalent of saying the same thing?

I'm glad you wrote "equivalent" and not "the same".  Yes, likes are equivalent to publicly saying "I agree with you".  That is their purpose.  Reposting something, like she also did, is more akin to verbally repeating what was stated.

Just to be clear, though - do you no-longer disagree with the statement you labelled as "bull*censored*" earlier?

There is literally a GOP congressperson who has publicly supported and agreed with calls for the murder of other members of Congress and a former president.

Notice the specific wording, BTW.

39

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 28, 2021, 01:47:39 PM »

The problem the GOP has with this, the on-going self inflicted wound, is that Greene is currently, temporarily, more effectively powerful than any other GOP member of Congress, and the rest of them are too terrified to act on what should be a slam dunk decision.

40

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 28, 2021, 01:17:46 PM »

Anybody taking odds on Lloyd admitting that the Greene said that and that it wasn't bull*censored* after all? Or will the story be that Antifa hacked her twitter account?

Well, hacked and also silenced every attempt for her to correct the record until this week... (and when I say "correct" that's reeeeaaaaally kinda/sorta)

41

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency

« on: January 28, 2021, 01:14:40 PM »

The federal minimum wage had not been increased in 12 years.

Is there any likelihood that the new minimum wage will be indexed to inflation? If not, it will likely be in place, as-is, at its current level, for at least another 4 years.  Given these points, is 15$ really that unreasonable?

42

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 28, 2021, 01:09:56 PM »

Donald

To be fair, if Wm or Serati had made a claim like that we would have expected them to provide a link to back it up.  Of course Wm usually would not do that, but we all know you are better at that then he is.

I would have more sympathy if Greene's statements weren't being reported on as headline news on all major media (yes, even on Fox) not to mention that all major media are also reporting on Congressman (D) Gomez' statement that he will introduce a resolution to expel her from Congress (yes, also on Fox).

Now, if Lloyd hadn't immediately implied that I was lying, I might have been more responsive to a request for more information.

43

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 28, 2021, 12:43:09 PM »

Google is your friend.

44

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 28, 2021, 12:36:15 PM »

Thankyou... thankyouverymuch

45

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 28, 2021, 12:13:49 PM »

Trump is unhealthy, overweight, has no interest in having healthy habits or taking care of himself, and is not getting any younger.

The likelihood of him being in any shape to campaign and be seen to be a force will decrease every year; sure, it's all probabilities at this point, but if I were a purely selfish, rational Republican, that math would factor heavily into my calculations of his benefit to me. 

46

General Comments / Re: The Party of personal responsibility?

« on: January 28, 2021, 11:19:35 AM »

Is the Republican party now broken beyond repair?

The QAnon wing of the party is clearly now ascendent.  'Regular' GOP members either support, or worse, believe the conspiracy, or are too cowed to object.

The members are even so afraid of being primaried that they refuse to even investigate the insurrection that might have led to some of their executions.

There is literally a GOP congressperson who has publicly supported and agreed with calls for the murder of other members of Congress and a former president... and yet I am unaware of any significant number of GOP members of Congress that are willing to describe those actions as unacceptable, never mind calling for that member's censure.

The question is whether they really believe there is enough independent support for this level of wackadoodle and evil in the country to avoid them being relegated to permanent opposition status.

47

General Comments / Semantic validity in 2021

« on: January 28, 2021, 10:24:48 AM »

"Robinhood nerfed memestonks" could win a prize. 

Poetic. Grammatical. Semantically valid.  Utterly meaningless in 2010.

48

General Comments / Re: Predictions and thoughts on the Biden Presidency

« on: January 28, 2021, 08:58:53 AM »

A living minimum wage is a proxy for an effective balance of power/knowledge between the seller and the buyer (in this case, the employee and the employer).  This balance does not exist today.

I suppose if you allowed (and enforced the freedom of) workers to organize (yes, unions) there would be less need for a minimum wage.  But until there is effective parity between employers and employees across the whole negotiation process, a realistic minimum wage is a necessary fallback position.

49

General Comments / Re: Pencemegeddon

« on: January 27, 2021, 03:08:46 PM »

The extent of the attack on the Capitol coming into sharper focus: The Capitol Police union says nearly 140 officers were injured during the riot

Two dead officers, one lost eye, a number of brain injuries, broken vertebrae, one officer stabbed with a metal fence stake... I guess we can be thankful that the insurrectionists love the police.

50

General Comments / Re: Now you've done it

« on: January 27, 2021, 09:38:53 AM »

I was never under the impression that Senate Republicans (in sufficient numbers) would vote to convict Trump, but that 90% of them felt that the article of impeachment, alleging that the president was involved in encouraging an attack on Congress, is not worthy of trial, truly shows how far the party has fallen. 

It's not a question of whether they would convict - that should only be a function of what occurs during the trial; no, they felt that a president accused of involvement in an attack on the transfer of governmental power should not face even the risk of consequences for the alleged actions. The implication is, really, that no actions of a president will ever be considered worthy of a Senate impeachment trial.