Poodlestrike
Banned
Not the point. It's about the journey
of harassing potential democratic voters
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
Not the point. It's about the journey
Black Mamba
Member
Sometimes I feel like Scalia is getting trolled by fate...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...-punishment-case-falls-apart?cid=sm_fb_maddow
I used to be pro death penalty...and I'm still not opposed to it for moral reasons or anything (I'm totally fine with actual murderers being put to death) but I can't endorse a system that is both institutionally biased and corrupted. The way the police coerce people is so fucking ridiculous.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...-punishment-case-falls-apart?cid=sm_fb_maddow
I used to be pro death penalty...and I'm still not opposed to it for moral reasons or anything (I'm totally fine with actual murderers being put to death) but I can't endorse a system that is both institutionally biased and corrupted. The way the police coerce people is so fucking ridiculous.
But why worry about that IN KANSAS of all places. That state has been Republican since its birth.
Poodlestrike
Banned
This, too, is part of the journey. For steel to become strong, the impurities must be burned away.
Only $50k a year for wrongful imprisonment is bullshit compensation, and putting a cap on it adds insult to injury.
Jack Remington
Banned
http://www.barrasso.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/news-releases?ID=e695ec72-4a46-460a-bcc8-c644f21ea310
Barrasso speaks out about KvB:
My favorite line is "Republicans didn't create the ongoing mess." It reads like Grade-A trolling, but I'm starting to think that people who say things like that actually believe when they say it.
Psychology grad students looking for some material to publish papers about could find an absolute treasure trove in the cognitive gymnastics that the plaintiffs supporters in King have been launching since last summer. The collective right-wing amnesia about how the federal exchange was supposed to work is quite possibly one of the most fascinating and depressing things I've ever witnessed in my 30+ years on this planet.
When you read the alternate history that gets peddled around during "intent" discussions in KvB, you have to wonder: are these people lying, or are the brain's defense mechanisms to protect against conscience pangs just that strong?
I'd really love to read an in-depth psychology paper on KvB once all the dust has cleared, though ideally you'd need to be doing the research right now.
Barrasso speaks out about KvB:
My favorite line is "Republicans didn't create the ongoing mess." It reads like Grade-A trolling, but I'm starting to think that people who say things like that actually believe when they say it.
Psychology grad students looking for some material to publish papers about could find an absolute treasure trove in the cognitive gymnastics that the plaintiffs supporters in King have been launching since last summer. The collective right-wing amnesia about how the federal exchange was supposed to work is quite possibly one of the most fascinating and depressing things I've ever witnessed in my 30+ years on this planet.
When you read the alternate history that gets peddled around during "intent" discussions in KvB, you have to wonder: are these people lying, or are the brain's defense mechanisms to protect against conscience pangs just that strong?
I'd really love to read an in-depth psychology paper on KvB once all the dust has cleared, though ideally you'd need to be doing the research right now.
BertramCooper
Banned
Pretty sure they're just lying.
Jack Remington
Banned
Lines like, "Republicans didn't create the ongoing mess", seems like he's just echoing the Republicans' preferred messaging on this point.
I'm skeptical that it will be successful for them. If they win the court battle and don't have their policy ready to go, the outcry to pass the one-sentence fix will be impossible to ignore.
I'm skeptical that it will be successful for them. If they win the court battle and don't have their policy ready to go, the outcry to pass the one-sentence fix will be impossible to ignore.
BertramCooper
Banned
The public sentiment on the ACA is so hopelessly wrong that I have no faith in the public to properly assign blame for any KvB fallout.
Jack Remington
Banned
It's easy to say, "We won't pass a one sentence fix" right now, but when insurance policies are actually on the line, it's going to be a lot harder to hold the fort together.
A majority of the public wants the Supreme Court to rule against the plaintiffs, so I wouldn't get too upset about public opinion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/08/public-to-supreme-court-dont-gut-obamacare/
A majority of the public wants the Supreme Court to rule against the plaintiffs, so I wouldn't get too upset about public opinion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/08/public-to-supreme-court-dont-gut-obamacare/
BertramCooper
Banned
The public wants a lot of things in polls. And then they vote for people who oppose them. Over and over again.
If Republicans vote for a one-sentence fix, just wait for all of the primary challengers to emerge, hammering incumbent Republicans for helping fix Obamacare instead of dismantling it.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
From a straight partisan politics standpoint, republicans might be worried about it more than democrats. It's almost exactly like the 2013 shutdown, where they can't be seen as supporting Obamacare in any way, but also can't be seen as being completely dysfunctional and uncompromising.
It'd also bring to the forefront how ill prepared Republicans are to tackling the healthcare problem after they catch that car of being able to repeal the ACA. A plan they throw up on a website just to be able to say they have a plan isn't the same as a plan that has gone through the process of public debate and has the political support to pass.
From a straight policy standpoint, Republicans would obviously love a ruling for the plaintiffs, unless they think they'll lose so badly politically that they'll have to accept the one line fix. That scenario would only be good for democrats all around, which would be rather ironic considering the likely motives of the justices that hypothetically ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
This batch of Republicans conservatives is the most insane we've had since the Civil War. I can't imagine any scenario where these asshats would vote to fix a program that they've spent the past 6 years loathing with psychotic fervor.
PhoenixDark
Banned
You just know that if Lindsay gets traction in the primaries, some outside PAC groups are going to blast him on his marital status.
Sorry, Lindsey, but you aren't going to be our nation's second gay president.
Good policy. No doubt about it. Of course the NRF and trade groups oppose the change. If the threshold is raised, it will remove their ability to treat mid-level managers as exempted employees. That's a gap they can't further exploit. As for the effects, ideally employers will either pay overtime or hire additional workers. The change should have a modestly positive effect on employment. And the overall effect on wages should be positive, but I would not be surprised if some employers reduce salaries while paying overtime so overall compensation is static for some.
What little analysis that seeped through his speech yesterday indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of he situation. His plan to get tough with Russia, a sentiment shared by many Republicans and some Democrats, is what inflamed Russia's revanchism in the first place. It's the failed policy of previous administrations. One would think he'd learn from the mistakes of his brother's administration. But much like his idiotic statement on the Iraq War, he clearly has not.
Avon Barksdale
Member
T-800/Vader '16.
While Cheney could be VP again since there are no VP term limits, Schwarzenegger isn't a natural born citizen.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Making more workers qualify for overtime is one of the 2 biggest things I've been wanting Obama to do with his executive power.
The other thing I want him to do is to crack down on insider trading in a way that makes stock buybacks much less appetizing, hopefully forcing that money to be reinvested in the company instead, just like how it worked before Reagan loosened the regulation there. Unfortunately, Obama seems far less concerned with investment regulation than he is with wage regulation, but I guess I'll take what I can get.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
The "conspiracy theory" was your bizarre idea that franchising is just a trick to get around otherwise applicable laws. It isn't. It's a legitimate business model with attributes that render it practically and legally distinct from actual ownership (including actual indirect ownership) of a business.
I wasn't trying to compare Obama and Bush. I was comparing our prejudices against one another. For instance, I think that the vehement opposition to the claim in Evenwel is motivated by distaste for the consequences or the plaintiffs' political beliefs, not the legal principle on which the claim is founded. That may be incorrect (though Fake APKmetsfan admits it's correct, in his case), and is probably unfair, but I didn't mean to compare torture, wiretaps, Guantanamo, etc. with universal health care, wiretaps, Guantanamo, etc.
Hypocrisy is a moral failure that robs a person's public statements of moral force and credibility.
Nah. You and I agree that people are biased, but we disagree about how to deal with that in the legal sphere. I want to deal with it by binding the government, to the extent possible, to generally applicable legal principles that can be known ahead of time and applied to particular circumstances more or less fairly. You want to deal with it by giving up on principled government, entrenching personal prejudice in the law and doling out legal victories based on whether you like the plaintiffs.
Eh, still don't know where you are getting the conspiracy theory angle from. All APK said was that McDonald's Corporate point to their franchise model as a means to avoid responsibility for worker pay. Although they have no problem providing services and guidance to help franchise employees leverage public assistance.
The point is that if McDonald's were interested in lifting the wage floor for their employees they could do so from a top-down decision, and not have to rely on the generosity of their franchisees.
MW laws, or at least fast food and retail sector labor laws need reform. The average fast food worker is 28; and more than half of all food industry workers use some form of public assistance like SNAP and TANF. These service sectors jobs are the new manufacturing jobs, they're not going away anytime soon. I would think that there's a conservative case to be made that workers working full time regardless of their skills should be self-sufficient, and that employers should be reliant on taxpayer largesse to keep their business afloat.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Metsfan's posts make it seem like franchising is just a semantic tool for avoiding business regulations. But a franchise system is substantively different from a non-franchise business. The different legal consequences follow from those real-world differences. In some cases, it may make sense to treat the employees of a franchisee as actually (or additionally) employed by the franchisor, but Fake APKmetsfan's complaints purport to apply to franchising generally, not just to some specific franchisors that exercise substantial control over their franchisees' employees.
Your second paragraph merely repeats the same claim made earlier in the thread, but for which no evidence has yet been provided.
Wait, why couldn't McDs Corporate set a wage standard as part of their franchise model? If franchisees are willing to buy into the benefits that come with the McDs brand then they certainly can meet the standards that come along with it, including a standard on wages. Also the argument isn't that McDs specifically uses the franchise model to get around business regulations, but instead that it points to the franchise model as a talking point to avoid taking responsibility for worker pay. No conspiracy needed.
Can I also ask: do you have an opinion on MW laws in general? Obviously you are very good at discussing the legal aspects but it would be interesting to know if you have any thoughts from a policy perspective on what to do (if anything) with regards to workers employed in the fast food and other service industries.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I see two possible problems with McDonald's mandating a living wage: one practical and one legal. The practical one is the issue I've discussed already: it may not be economically feasible for McDonald's to do so. Not only might McDonald's franchisees be incapable of paying the higher wages, but imposing such a mandate when competing franchisors do not would put McDonald's at a competitive disadvantage in attracting and retaining franchisees. (The retaining-franchisees problem is likely offset, to some extent, by non-compete clauses. I think it's odd that liberals would support a publicly traded corporation coercing small businesses by threatening their owners' livelihoods, but politics makes for strange bedfellows, I guess.) Legally, McDonald's (or other franchisors) may not have the authority under existing agreements to mandate a wage that exceeds the local minimum wage. That would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
And when I refer to metsfan's conspiracy theories, I'm referring to comments like this:
Regarding the minimum wage, I'll say that I think it would make sense to tie it to inflation.
... which is a sound basis for the case that government needs to step in to raise the wage floor for everybody. There's little incentive for one player in a crowded market to do it as it puts them in an economic disadvantage. Unless everyone volunteers to jump off together (unlikely), the only way to raise the wage floor is through government action.
I feel the same way about conservatives comfortable with taxpayer handouts for corporations.
Which implies again that McDs Corporate have the power to lift the wage standard but choose not to do so, albeit for rationale, self-serving economic reasons (which you identified above). And this contradicts the argument that McDs puts forward that franchisors control wages and not corporate - which goes to the heart of what APK was saying previously.
Which would bring it up to ~$10.75/hour, which meets a fairly recent proposal put forward by the president (I believe it proposed a $10.10 a couple of SOTUs back).
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I'm not sure what the ellipsis signifies. I'm not making an anti-minimum wage argument. I've been discussing the proposal made by APK and JesseEwiak that franchisors could impose such a mandate unilaterally.
It implies no such thing, since it expresses ignorance regarding McDonald's authority to mandate a higher wage under existing agreements. If the agreements permit McDonald's to control the wages paid to franchisees' workers, then a lack of authority is not an impediment to imposing the proposed mandate. Otherwise, it obviously would be.
Poodlestrike
Banned
He was too good for this cruel world.
Tying the minimum wage to inflation is a pretty good idea, honestly. If nothing else, it'd save us from having this crisis again in a couple of decades. I'd have to check the figures, though; is the 15 dollar minimum wage actually what'd be required for minimum wage to be livable, or is that number arbitrary? Having a boost to the base level and then tying future increases to inflation could work as well.
http://www.businessinsider.com/jeb-...tatus-and-rivals-say-hes-getting-nasty-2015-6
Ohboyohboyohboy!
He's going to end-up carpet bombing his opponents on TV by the end of the year, I can feel it!
I wonder if any of his opponents at a debate would just come out and bluntly say, "your last name is Bush. You're not going to win a general election."
BertramCooper
Banned
The fact that it's from Fiorina is rich.
Hillary isn't ready to be president, but Carly Fiorina is?
jenniferlawrenceokay.gif
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
The fact that Voldemort is 5 times as popular as Trump is hilarious to me.
Rhomega Beta
Member
I get the impression that people care more about fictional characters than politicians, when conservatives feel it should be the other way around.
Ready To Be At Hilary
Fenderputty
Banned
Voldemort is easily half as evil as Paul Ryan. Maybe on par with a guy like Huntsman and like 1/10th as evil as Cruz. He also embraces his hairlessness and doesn't put a carpet on his head.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Does voldemort even care about us muggles?
Fenderputty
Banned
At least he doesnt hide his hate via code words.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The media really wants it to be Bush though. I'm sure everyone on politico staff has a dozen prewritten articles hand-wringing over a Clinton v. Bush election and if only some moderate saint would emerge from the shadows, someone who 30 years ago would be considered a radical Republican.
eBay Huckster
Member
Now by Voldemort does that poll mean the actual Voldemort, or Tom Riddle?
PhoenixDark
Banned
Who didn't see this coming. Losing his "above the fray" stature also ruins his plan to essentially lecture everyone on why Common Core is fine, why immigration reform is needed, etc. He was always going to be playing defense on those issues, but now he'll be playing defense from behind, against opponents that have no fear of him.
Romney has to be kicking himself. He planned on running to Bush's right, and it seems pretty clear such a plan would have worked. I still think Walker is the most likely to win, but if I was Romney I'd question whether someone with no experience on the national stage can win this thing. Romney is a better debater than just about anyone in the GOP primary field and has the money to take on Bush and Walker. Oh well.
not only that but remember this articles:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83550.html
It was written literally 2 days after election day 2012
YES. I have been telling you all that for months now. You dont think he wont go hard negative and destroy his opponents? That includes Marco Antonio Rubio. He will have the money and PACs to do the dirty work. This happy campaign was never going to materialize. You cant run those anymore in this polarizing climate. I even said that a Bush vs Clinton race will be nasty. Bill Clinton will do probably whatever it takes against his adopted "in laws" even if it means destroying his relationship with the Bush family for his wife to win.
and guess what Aaron and tom? THE MEDIA WANTS THIS. why? RATINGS AND MONEY lol. The stories write themselves. The media in no way wants a boring general election where Hillary is presumed to win the Presidency. That does nothing for their ratings as you and Aaron and others both fully know. Look no other than the medias obsession with Bernie and the supposed horse race/scandals.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Link?
Coriolanus
Banned
That wouldn't even be the cruelest thing they could do to him. Clown train can go full clown and go "You failed to prevent Schiavo from being murdered".
I assume they mean Rick Scott.
That would be equal parts utterly, and unspeakably, horrible and hilarious.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked