ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,569 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
31 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Goose….I’m curious, but do you have any statistics on the percentage of full time working Americans who don’t get paid sick leave? I know I’ve never worked a full time job that didn’t offer it. I have to think it’s a very small percentage.
22% of American workers do not have access to paid sick leave. 14% of full time employees do not have access to paid sick leave.
Something else to keep in mind is how sick leave is accumulated when changing jobs. In an employee-friendly economy, employees can easily leave one job for a better one. Here, the lack of PTO requirements causes friction that can (and does) lead to people not taking a better opportunity or risking starting a new business due to lack of insurance or other benefits should they leave their current employer.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, reddogblitz said:
So now blue collar union workers striking to get a better contract is a "quixotic hope that it would magically get the workers what they want."? How long has this been true?
You might be right about the economic impact of a strike. But the one that would lose the most money would be the railroads which is kind of the point.
It just seems hypocritical to this guy on the internet that President Biden, a life long supporter of unions, is siding with big bidness to force not having a strike cuz its inconvenient and could hurt his reelection chances.
I'm being very specific about the railroad workers here. You local Starbucks workers striking for a union, or factory workers striking for better conditions are good. I support that. Unions, while they have problems, are great for working Americans and help protect them against the power of big business.
I don't want to get into generalities around unions, I support them and I support workers banding together to take power from the C-suite. I wanted to talk very specifically about the current railroad labor dispute.
In the real world, the options at this point are:
- Let the workers strike. In doing so, you will cost the US economy $2 billion per day, spike inflation even higher, severely disrupt commuting in our biggest economic sectors, prevent food products from moving from farms and factories into local groceries, among other effects. This would be done in the hope that the unions would be able to do something they have not yet been able to do.
- Intervene and codify the agreement that 75% of the unions agreed to. Potentially add on the 7 paid sick days that the remaining 25% of unions were holding out for. Upset your relations with the labor unions, but prevent the severe negative consequences while giving the unions most of what they asked for.
I don't think either option is particularly good. But I think Option 2 is clearly better for the country than Option 1. Long term, I would prefer better protections for all workers. It's insane that we are the only wealthy country without paid sick leave or parental leave. I think Congress should push for those reforms to benefit all workers. But in this immediate conflict, existing in the real world, the options are between bad and catastrophic. It's dirty and unpleasant, but it's reality and the responsibility of being the adult in the room to do the right thing even if you don't love it.
-
3 minutes ago, TSOL said:
You frame it as the republicans fault though and that's BS. That's what I dispute
Working people need to rise up, you are literally sticking up for the elites, and then twisting it to "republicans bad"
"Oh give them a few sick days, that'll shut them up"
They need a new contract
I blamed the GOP for exactly one thing: voting against paid sick days.
Most of the people who voted for this acknowledged that they didn’t want to do so but the cost to the economy would be too great not to act.
So they put on their big kid boots and did the dirty thing to save taxpayers money and prevent economic disruption.
Of course, some keyboard warriors would prefer chaos that would cost taxpayers billions in the quixotic hope that it would magically get the workers what they want.
-
1 minute ago, TSOL said:
Let em strike, don't just throw them a few beans.
Well, it would cost the US economy $2 billion per day and cause a national security nightmare, but hey, some guy on the internet thinks it’s a good idea! -
3 minutes ago, TSOL said:
The president can't just amend a contract to keep his ass out of the frying pan.
They need a new contract.
The unions agreed to that legally binding September contract, you have to live with it until you negotiate a new contract.
Chastise the union leaders not the republicans.
And this opinion comes from a working class person with few paid sick days, I'd love a few more.
But we all have to live with the deal we made.
1. The contract was rejected by some of the unions2. Congress does have the authority to do this, and has done so 18 times in the past:
”Congress can step in to resolve disputes between labor unions and railroads under the 1926 Railway Labor Act, as part of its power under the Constitution to regulate commerce. That law was written to prevent disruptions in interstate commerce.
Congress has previously intervened 18 times in such disputes after the process has proceeded without success to a Presidential Emergency Board, which issues recommendations that the parties may choose to reject.”
(Source)
It’s fair to disagree about the terms (the unions are not happy with this), but Congress can do it and doing so prevents a strike that would cause massive disruption to the economy during the holiday season.
-
The overall bill passed 290-137, with 79 Republicans voting for it.
There was a separate resolution for the 7 paid sick days which passed 221-207. Only 3 Republicans voted in support.
(Source)
-
Part of the working class right here:
-
For the “No Republican can get a fair trial in DC” crowd, try to remember that if you are arguing politics on an online forum, you are in the extreme minority of weirdos (this includes myself). ~99% of Americans don’t follow politics as closely and are less politically activated. The jury pool is going to be made up of normies, not weirdos like us.
Remember that even a red-hat MAGA juror found Manafort guilty in one of his trials.
While some jury pools are generally more favorable to certain defendants than others, the idea that a trial is fundamentally unfair due to the political lean of a jurisdiction is just brain worms nonsense.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, Gene Frenkle said:
Left some out...for reasons I'm sure:
§2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.That's the part the idiots violated. Open and shut case, really.
Nice try tho!
I’ve tried explaining this before but this guy has the brain power of dimly lit bulb.
He could just read the law or he could just spout nonsense. He always chooses the latter.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, KDIGGZ said:
I thought protesting was an important part of democracy? That's what they were saying all of 2020 when whole cities were burning and small businesses looted
If you are seriously still comparing Jan 6th and the 2020 protests, you are not a serious person. -
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
-
1
-
-
While very little of my criticism of Musk buying Twitter has been about content moderation, something to keep in mind when seeing news about advertisers pulling out of Twitter is that, for social media companies, the users, the content they create, and therefore, the content moderation policies, are the product.
The content moderation policies define the content that will be allowed on the site and that in turn is used to entice advertisers to the site. Since most brands are small-c conservative, the more bland and boring the content is, the less reluctant they will be to put their branding around it. On the other extreme, in a wild west of no moderation, you end up with something like 4Chan or 8Chan with an unending stream of racism, vitriol, and violent language. For most social media companies, the goal is to draw the line somewhere between Club Penguin and 8Chan. Give your users freedom to post but keep the content clean enough to avoid chasing away advertisers. Different people will have different ideas on where to draw the line, and that's fine. Different sites will draw it differently, it's mostly a matter of opinion.
I think one of the issues that Twitter is currently experiencing is that Musk is talking as if he wants to go the 8Chan route, but Twitter is still suspending tweets and accounts, so there is confusion on what is actually the new content moderation policy. Companies like GM aren't going to want to see their logo next to a bunch of posts with the n-word in them, so they suspended their ad buys. Of course, if the content moderation policy is made more clear and Twitter enforces it, GM might come back on. Or maybe they won't. That's up to them, because we live in a capitalist economy.
If Musk had moved more slowly and deliberately, clearly defining the new moderation policy and demonstrating that he had the ability to enforce it, he likely wouldn't be having these problems, even if he loosened up the moderation to appease those on the Right. By moving fast and breaking things in an established company with existing contracts and relationships, he's shot himself in the foot. He may still recover, but this isn't some grand conspiracy, it's just the obvious consequences of his words and actions.
-
1
-
-
36 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
'Not Racist' Is Not Enough: Putting In The Work To Be Anti-Racist
Are you having a stroke? -
1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:
Anyone not calling out Apple over this the way they would a baker who refused to serve a same sex wedding is a special kind of evil.
Sorry. New rules.
“If you don’t call it out then you must support it.”
That might be the single dumbest thing I’ve ever read on this board, which is pretty impressive, honesty.
I’ve never seen you speak out against the Armenian genocide, therefore, you must support it.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:
You equating that to Elon Musk and SpaceX and Tesla which apparently should be cancelled
You people are absolutely pathetic
When have I equated 8Chan to SpaceX or Tesla?When have I advocated for Musk, Twitter, SpaceX, or Tesla to be cancelled?
I haven’t done any of what you’ve accused me of, but that won’t stop you from lying nor the gullible from believing your ludicrous claims.
-
48 minutes ago, Doc said:
It's sad that free speech is driving advertisers and partners away. Shows you what kind of country Dems want to turn this into.
How many major companies advertise on 8Chan?-
1
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:
Conspiracy is a charge, and they couldn't prove that either. The excerpts I posted show there was no evidence and there was no link established.
No matter what words you want to use, they had no case.
A loose connection with Russians isn't proof of anything. Trump was a businessman. Of course he had interaction with Russians. There was no evidence of anything nefarious.
You saying "it wasn't a clear violation of the law" is an admission that there was no actual crime committed and they could never prove it in a court of law.
There’s a difference between saying something should be investigated and saying someone should be prosecuted.
The list of contacts between Russians and the Trump campaign is extensive. It would have been insane not to investigate:
“D. Trump Campaign and the Dissemination of Hacked Materials
b. Contacts with the Campaign about WikiLeaks
d. WikiLeaks’s October 7, 2016 Release of Stolen Podesta Emails
e. Donald Trump Jr. Interaction with WikiLeaks
2. Other Potential Campaign Interest in Russian Hacked Materialsa. Henry Oknyansky (a/k/a Henry Greenberg)
b. Campaign Efforts to Obtain Deleted Clinton Emails
IV. RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT LINKS TO AND CONTACTS WITH THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN
A. Campaign Period (September 2015 – November 8, 2016)
1. Trump Tower Moscow Projecta. Trump Tower Moscow Venture with the Crocus Group (2013-2014)
b. Communications with I.C. Expert Investment Company and Giorgi Rtskhiladze (Summer and Fall 2015)
c. Letter of Intent and Contacts to Russian Government (October 2015- January 2016)
i. Trump Signs the Letter of Intent on behalf of the Trump Organization”
ii. Post LOI Contacts with Individuals in Russia
d. Discussions about Russia Travel by Michael Cohen or Candidate Trump (December 2015-June 2016)
i. Sater’s Overtures to Cohen to Travel to Russia
ii. Candidate Trump’s Opportunities to Travel to Russia
2. George Papadopoulosa. Origins of Campaign Work
b. Initial Russia-Related Contacts
c. March 31 Foreign Policy Team Meeting
d. George Papadopoulos Learns That Russia Has “Dirt” in the Form of Clinton Emails
e. Russia-Related Communications With The CampaignTrump Campaign Knowledge of“Dirt” g. Additional George Papadopoulos Contact
3. Carter Pagea. Background
b. Origins of and Early Campaign Work c. Carter Page’s July 2016 Trip To Moscow
d. Later Campaign Work and Removal from the Campaign
4. Dimitri Simes and the Center for the National Interest
a. CNI and Dimitri Simes Connect with the Trump Campaign
b. National Interest Hosts a Foreign Policy Speech at the Mayflower Hotel
c. Jeff Sessions’s Post-Speech Interactions with CNI
d. Jared Kushner’s Continuing Contacts with Simes
5. June 9, 2016 Meeting at Trump TowerSetting Up the June 9 Meeting
i. Outreach to Donald Trump Jr
ii. Awareness of the Meeting Within the Campaign
b. The Events of June 9, 2016
i. Arrangements for the Meeting
ii. Conduct of the Meeting
c. Post-June 9 Events
6. Events at the Republican National Convention
a. Ambassador Kislyak’s Encounters with Senator Sessions and J.D. Gordon the Week of the RNC
b. Change to Republican Party Platform
7. Post-Convention Contacts with Kislyak
a. Ambassador Kislyak Invites J.D. Gordon to Breakfast at the Ambassador’s Residence
b. Senator Sessions’s September 2016 Meeting with Ambassador Kislyak
8. Paul Manaforta. Paul Manafort’s Ties to Russia and Ukraine
i. Oleg Deripaska Consulting Work
ii. Political Consulting Work
iii. Konstantin Kilimnik
b. Contacts during Paul Manafort’s Time with the Trump Campaign
i. Paul Manafort Joins the Campaignii. Paul Manafort’s Campaign-Period Contacts
iii. Paul Manafort’s Two Campaign-Period Meetings with Konstantin Kilimnik in the United States
c. Post-Resignation ActivitiesB. Post-Election and Transition-Period Contacts
1. Immediate Post-Election Activitya. Outreach from the Russian Government
b. High-Level Encouragement of Contacts through Alternative Channels
2. Kirill Dmitriev’s Transition-Era Outreach to the Incoming Administrationa. Background
b. Kirill Dmitriev’s Post-Election Contacts With the Incoming Administration
c. Erik Prince and Kirill Dmitriev Meet in the Seychelles
i. George Nader and Erik Prince Arrange Seychelles Meeting with Dmitriev
ii. The Seychelles Meetings
iii. Erik Prince’s Meeting with Steve Bannon after the Seychelles Trip
d. Kirill Dmitriev’s Post-Election Contact with Rick Gerson Regarding U.S.-Russia Relations
3. Ambassador Kislyak’s Meeting with Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn in
Trump Tower Following the Electionl
4. Jared Kushner’s Meeting with Sergey Gorkov l
5. Petr Aven’s Outreach Efforts to the Transition Team l
6. Carter Page Contact with Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich
7. Contacts With and Through Michael T. Flynnl
a. United Nations Vote on Israeli Settlements
b. U.S. Sanctions Against Russia”Thats a LOT of contact between the Russians and the Trump campaign. And it resulted in several people being indicted and convicted of crimes. But as I noted, Mueller couldn’t find any actual agreement between Trump and Russia. So no indictment post-presidency (though Mueller did note that Trump should have been impeached for Obstruction of Justice, which he very clearly committed).
If you can read through all of those connections and still think it was inappropriate for the FBI to investigate them, then you’re just a partisan.
-
2
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Billz4ever said:
Utter nonsense. These are excerpts directly from the Mueller report. If there was legit anything there, the DOJ could have been waiting to arrest Trump after the very second Biden was sworn in. Russia collusion was an invention of the Clinton campaign.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/politics/hillary-clinton-robby-mook-fbi
Probably the most important part for understanding the report is in the intro:”In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign “coordinat[ed]”—a term that appears in the appointment order—with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, “coordination” does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement—tacit or express—between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actionsthatwereinformedbyorresponsivetotheother’sactionsorinterests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Essentially, because “collusion” is not a crime defined by statute, Mueller instead investigated through the lens of conspiracy, which requires an agreement. He then laid out dozens of connections between the Trump Campaign and Russians. But he was unable to find that they made an agreement to work together.
So what you have is a campaign that was crawling with Russians but because the Special Counsel was unable to identify an actual agreement between the parties, it wasn’t a clear violation of the law.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
So did you call for the Clinton/China connection to be investigated?
What are you talking about? -
3 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
Ask yourself. What answer do you come up with?
Yes. That it would be a dereliction of duty not to investigate. -
49 minutes ago, T master said:
So other words it was all a bunch of BS because if there was enough evidence as you say that the Trump campaign was crawling with Russian agents & willingly excepting help from the Russians it was right there in front of everyones eyes to see then prosecute the evidence is there .
I call BS as most of the supposed russian BS came from lies & a fake dossier & the hacking came from the DNC no protecting their servers as they were told to as the republicans were & did so there's another case of the dum ass for the Dems .
Your argument that there was evidence every where yet they still didn't prosecute is so lame even you can't see how foolish that statement is it was all a crook just like everything they have ever brought against him with absolutely no intent of putting him in jail just a continuance of the waisting of tax payers money with no out come of proof as far asa crime just speculation ...
I get that you don’t understand how the law works, and if you still think the investigation was based on the Steele Dossier, then you’re certainly getting bad information from untrustworthy sources.
But I would encourage you (and anyone who thinks the Russia investigation was a hoax) to read through just the table of contents in volume one. Anytime you see a member of the Trump campaign mentioned, switch it to the Clinton campaign. Anytime you see a Russian mentioned, switch it to China. And then ask yourself if you’d want those activities investigated.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, T master said:
Then why bother it's just a total waste of money & nothing but a side show especially when so much was fueled by lies and a fabricated dossier . No one should be above the law if so there would be a lot more ex presidents & politicians that would be in jail & rightfully so !!
Because laying down the record of facts for history is always the right thing to do, even if it doesn’t achieve justice.
The Mueller investigation uncovered dozens of crimes and showed that the Trump campaign was absolutely swarming with Russian agents. Mueller couldn’t indict Trump, so he specifically stated that the proper remedy was impeachment.
But impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one. So instead of looking at the facts that showed that the Trump campaign was willingly accepting help from Russian agents and that Trump himself 100% had obstructed justice, the Senate just voted on party lines because it was politically convenient.
BTW: if you think the Russia investigation was started because of the Steele Dossier, you are wrong. And if people are still telling you that, you should recognize that they are not people to be trusted.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, KDIGGZ said:
They are going to pass a federal law to get rid of all of the guns? Lol just like they did with drugs? I can get drugs faster than I can get a Happy Meal. You are living in quite the fantasy world. There will always be bad guys with guns just like there will always be bad guys with drugs and bad guys with knives etc etc. There are bad people in this world. Knowing that don't you think good guys should be able to protect themselves? Or should I go to jail on a felony just for carrying concealed into a Walmart? Please let this make sense
I agree that it is unlikely that they go full Australia to solve gun deaths.
Instead, we are likely to continue to do absolutely nothing as innocent people are slaughtered because people stubbornly insist at looking at everything EXCEPT the cause of gun violence so we can’t even get to a serious discussion of potential options.
-
45 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:
Well aren’t you the brilliant one. 🙄
How about we’d reduce mass shootings is we did something that we actually could have happen. Increasing the ability to see these red flags and get people better access to mental healthcare.
The thing that’s really frustrating about these discussions is that they only occur after mass shootings, which, while awful and far too frequent, represent only a fraction of gun deaths.
If we truly valued lives, we’d have a discussion on all gun deaths and how they can be prevented.
There are steps between “take all the guns away” and “muh freedoms” that would actually save lives. But it requires us talking about the actual issue and not scapegoating mental health as if we are the only country with mentally ill people.
Name a Right Wing Position
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
14% of full-time employees do not have paid sick leave. As far as I can tell, it does not breakdown between hourly and salaries. Though I would argue that’s irrelevant anyway.
And I’m glad that you have generous benefits. My argument is that it would be beneficial to all of us if all American workers had some baseline of paid sick time.
Also, if anyone is looking for details on the railway dispute, I found this explainer to be incredibly helpful:
Why America’s Railroads Refuse to Give Their Workers Paid Leave