JCC The U.S. Politics thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Dec 6, 2012.

  1. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    With the election over... and a lot more news and storylines unfolding than anyone predicted... American politics remains really interesting... sometimes entertaining, sometimes in a "it's horrifying but I just can't look away" kind of way... but always with lots of twists and turns.

    Right now, there's the big fight over the budget, the beginnining of a new immigration debate, and the civil war inside the Republican Party. Along with a lot of wacky and unexpected stories, and of course talk of the 2014 and 2016 elections.

    So let's try to keep all the JCC political topics in here... if anyone wants to go really in-depth on one thing, that's what the Senate is for.




    Some of today's news:

    Senator Jim DeMint, godfather of the Tea Party, is resigning to become a lobbyist/think tank president.

    And here's a good video that sums up the GOP civil war right now:

    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Dec 6, 2012
  2. Likewater Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2009
    star 4
    Wait thoes two shril blowhards....I am scared to click that video, too much of either and I enter an enraged state
    Last edited by Likewater, Dec 6, 2012
    Jedi_Dajuan and Jedi Merkurian like this.
  3. Likewater Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2009
    star 4
    I did not become enraged but confused, Is It wrong that I didnt get the point either of them were...Was hannity accusing coulter of betraying conservatie principles, while coulter saying Hollywood accounting has most of the revenue?

    that was the oddest exchange i have ever heard.
  4. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Really? It showed Ann Coulter being the 'voice of reason,' and Hannity having a mental breakdown on live television. "We lost the election, Sean." It was awesome! :D

    Also yesterday, Mitch McConnell fillibusted... himself (he was trying to embarass Reid, but made Senate history instead). Can't wait for filibuster reform in January!
  5. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Ann Coulter as the voice of reason?

    That's it, the world really IS coming to an end!
  6. Likewater Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2009
    star 4
    They both sounded crazy to me. The Hollywood conspiricy...yeah, the guys scraping the bottom of the creative barrel and producing cheap entertainments are..what did she say they were again? the 1 percent of the 1 percent?
  7. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
  8. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Dem in name only or in practice as well?

    That Coulter vid is two Fox/Koch slaves wining at each other. Did Coulter each a sammich or get some face work done? She usually looks like Gollum.
  9. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 6
    who cares about her physical appearance when she's advocating oppression and genocide on a regular basis, vlm? seriously, the misogynist undercurrent is tiresome

    what never gets old, however, is seeing two famous pundits on the most popular media outlet in the country whining about how "the media" is always against them
    Last edited by Rogue_Ten, Dec 8, 2012
  10. I Are The Internets Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 20, 2012
    star 6
    Ann Coulter is an incredibly repulsive figure. She needs to go away. Maybe if people stop believing in her or something.
    Summer Dreamer and Juliet316 like this.
  11. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    There is nothing sexist abput it. I have been watching every media personality regularly for over a decade and noted her appearence changed. Move along.
  12. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 6
    why are you so eager for me to "move along", brah? funny that out of all the media personalities youve been monitoring so closely over the aeons, the only media personality whose appearance ive seen you comment on happens to be a woman...
    Last edited by Rogue_Ten, Dec 8, 2012
    Darth Guy and Point Given like this.
  13. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    No really, I can comment all I want on her or anyone and if you keep badgering me over it I'll just inform a mod or all of them. Move along.
  14. Likewater Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2009
    star 4
    This might come off as a tangential question but does misogyny imply malice? I know the offical definition I just want to know, is there a diffrence between misogyny and male privilage, or are the two so linked there is no diffrence.
  15. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 6
    i would argue the misogyny and male privilege are two sides of the same coin, but i wouldnt argue that malice is a necessary component in terms of the actions (or inaction) of an individual. sexism, like racism, is embedded in society and as such acts a bit like and escalator: you're on it and moving forward whether you contribute under your own power (active, malicious racism/sexism) or not (passive racism/sexism). if you want to resist the pull of the escalator, you actually ahve to be actively ANTI-sexist and ANTI-racist - walking in the other direction

    vlm what are you going to "inform the mods" about? that i called you out for misogynist behaviour? ive certainly never implied that you're not entitled to focus on undesireable aspects of a women's anatomy over undesirable aspects of her political beliefs. im well aware that, whether i agree with it or not, there's really no precedent on this board for punishing that type of behaviour. i merely pointed out that this behaviour smacks of misogyny

    what would you think if kimball tried to dodge accusations of racism in the tea party by informing the mods about it? do you think that should be the way we do things around here? i would suggest it would be better if, when someone points out that you're behaving in a chauvanist manner, you take a moment to think about why they might think that and maybe, if you want to, modify your behavior to better reflect the progressive principles i know you earnestly believe in. ill try to do the same when people catch me doing similarly questionable things
    Last edited by Rogue_Ten, Dec 8, 2012
  16. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    What do people think about what's going on in Michigan, passing "right to work" so employees aren't compelled to be in a union and pay union dues? People were literally rioting in the streets over it yesterday.

    I'm leaning more towards the Republicans on this issue, though it's not an issue I'm as informed about as others. I just haven't seen one good Democratic argument against it. All the Democratic arguments I've heard seem to be a variety of "the end justifies the means," that unions support Democrats so they should still be allowed to do this. There's got to be a better argument than that, about the policy instead of the politics... right?? But I haven't heard one yet, so yeah, I think I support the Republicans on this.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Dec 12, 2012
  17. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 6
    You shouldn't be FORCED to pay union fees.

    *works second job to pay credit card debt*
    Darth Guy likes this.
  18. Valairy Scot Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Sep 16, 2005
    star 5
    I'm sure many won't see this as a valid argument, but there is the argument that one can remain outside of the union and yet will still benefit from whatever contract the union negotiates with management - you don't have to pay (dues) but you get the benefits.
  19. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    It's not just a theoretical possibility. It's in fact what happens. In a union-dominated workplace (like the auto plants) non-union employees would get a majority of the benefits--if not all of them outright--won by the unions. This is true simply because a single employee will not be able to leverage for anything greater than the whole union, and on the other hand it is inefficient for the company to spend a great deal of time negotiating brand new contracts for every individual entry level worker. If someone gets all the benefits of being in the union without actually having to be a part of the union or pay any fees, what is the incentive to do so? It's a free rider problem in a manner similar to health insurance.
  20. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 6
    here have some agitprop

    Last edited by Rogue_Ten, Dec 12, 2012
  21. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Keep diggin' that hole, America.
  22. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    The problem with the RTW in Michigan is the union killing nature of it. Getting union benefits without paying union dues is just a death knell for unions. Do you like higher wages, 40 hour work weeks with time and a half overtime, and a non-slavery mentality? Unions gave us that. Also, the Michigan Gov said for two years he would have nothing to do with it then just last week said he'd push it through.
  23. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    You just need to change the law so only union members get the benefits of whatever contract the union negotiated, which is already happening in several states. There's no Free Rider problem then.

    And I think Governor Snyder said he wanted to get other things done first, because he knew this would be controversial, and he did get those things done. Indiana becoming a right-to-work state, as well as the defeated referendum on making collective bargaining part of the state constitution, are said to be the reasons why he signed the law.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Dec 12, 2012
  24. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    You're wrong on both points, Ghost. He didn't say he was saving it for last because it was controversial. He said it was so controversial and unproductive that it should never be done at all. He said this consistently for over two years, starting while he was still running for Governor, and recorded here.

    On your second point, that "law" doesn't make any sense. The most obvious baseline for any negotiations about a job are the salary and benefits offered to other people filling an identical position. By merit of controlling so many contracts simultaneously, unions are a major influence on said baseline, and skew it more in favor of the worker than it would be otherwise. A non-union member in a union shop that gets, for instance, 75% the number of sick/vacation days as his union counterpart is still benefiting from the union's presence, as this number of days off is still likely more than he would have gotten in a work place where no union existed to make the number seem plausible to begin with. This much is obvious from an analysis of a comparison between benefit packages between unionized and non-unionized workplaces, and is pretty much the whole of the Republican complaint that public sector workers are overpaid. All public sector workers get "over-paid" in this manner, whether they are part of the union or not, because it is fundamentally hard for an employer (be it the government or someone else) to justify not giving at least roughly equal terms to two people who do the exact same thing.
  25. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Snyder said he changed his mind when the similar law in Indiana gave it a competitive advantage, and the rejected referendum I mentioned showed that it would likely have majority support. Politicians are allowed to change ther minds after coming across new facts and changing situations. I wish more adapted. Obama certainly has, as have other Democrats.

    Also, why is forcing people to pay union dues necessary for an employer to come up with a baseline of salary/benefits for each job title? You're just obfuscating the issue there. The employer creates an identical salary/benefits package for each job position, and then the individual negotiates any changes they may want individually. And if that person wants the union to do that for them, then they join the union. If they don't want the union to do that for them, then they don't join. This may even make unions more popular.
    Last edited by Summer Dreamer, Dec 12, 2012