USA Politics

LooseCannon said:
Freelancers probably should be considered different to "gig economy". The real judge as to how these changes will matter are whether or not wages increase or benefits are provided.
Click to expand...

California did not make that distinction ... freelance journalists, IT workers, truck drivers, many in the entertainment trades, and other professions are all getting hosed over by this. A very good example of a "one size fits all" approach taken by a group of legislatures more interested in scoring some political points versus actually understanding how this works. This will do nothing but accelerate the pace of companies leaving the state.

All part of a backlash against Uber, which ironically became a thing due to insane regulation that created giant barriers to owning a taxi (see examples of licenses selling for $500K and up) and no competition which ended up being incredibly shitty service. I took my first Uber in Vegas when we went to see the Iron Maidens due to being pissed at the cab driver that took us to that show.
 
And as I already noted, I believe that the gig economy makes sense to break up some industries - taxis are the one I primarily think of, I took my first Ubers there as well and they completely convinced me that it's a better experience. Won't ride any other way now. But when I think of...Amazon workers doing gig work in an Amazon warehouse, that is frightening.
 
LooseCannon said:
And as I already noted, I believe that the gig economy makes sense to break up some industries - taxis are the one I primarily think of, I took my first Ubers there as well and they completely convinced me that it's a better experience. Won't ride any other way now. But when I think of...Amazon workers doing gig work in an Amazon warehouse, that is frightening.
Click to expand...

Say what you mention about Amazon is true .. maybe it is, I thought they did part time workers and freelancers for just delivery .. why fuck over everyone else where the company and freelancer were happy?

I have 3 clients in California, I would have been screwed if this applied to me, luckily I formed an LLC to work around the idiocy of the "Affordable Care Act" which eliminated the actual affordable plan I had and replaced it with a very non-affordable option ... So I guess one idiotic and over reaching policy that was divorced from reality that hosed over the self employed gave be a head start on another idiotic and over reaching policy that would have fucked me over now.

California is really screwing themselves over. Not a week goes by without some large company either moving entirely or partially out of that state. This will make that happen faster.

.. and of course this bill was aimed squarely at Uber ... because driving in shitty over priced cabs is something everyone wants to go back to
 
bearfan said:
All part of a backlash against Uber, which ironically became a thing due to insane regulation that created giant barriers to owning a taxi (see examples of licenses selling for $500K and up) and no competition which ended up being incredibly shitty service. I took my first Uber in Vegas when we went to see the Iron Maidens due to being pissed at the cab driver that took us to that show.
Click to expand...

Don't want to hijack the conversation about California's gig economy law, but it's funny how universal this issue seems to be. Uber blew up here for the same reasons, taxis being overpriced - mainly due to the same reason, licensing costs- and having no alternative. Taxi drivers are unionized here, and news of taxi drivers beating up Uber drivers were a common occurrence here for a while. Meanwhile, many politicians visited taxi drivers and showed "solidarity" with them, clearly in a desperate attempt to get their support in the coming election. The government and taxi drivers' union are combatting Uber pretty intensely. To me it really drives the point home about the relevance of market competition, and highlights just how disruptive a collaborative effort between the government and an industrial monopoly (whether it's private or worker controlled) really can be.
 
Last edited:
MrKnickerbocker said:
Nothing's gonna happen. He's being sent to the principal's office and the principal is gonna give him a high-five and send him back to recess.
Click to expand...
While this is probably true, it would only take the cooperation of 4 Republicans to set trial rules that might make the process less of a sham. You might be able to peel off Romney, Collins, and Murkowski on those types of decisions, even if they ultimately vote to acquit. Find one more and suddenly you might have witnesses and discovery and who knows what else before a final vote is called. Probably won’t change the outcome, but it would at least help people feel like it wasn’t a joke.
 
Finally watched Thursday’s Democratic debate. For the first time I felt like no one on the stage was a waste of my time, and with only seven people participating it gave everyone a chance to be heard.
  • Biden seemed more together than he has in a long time. I actually see this as a bad thing, because he could unravel again at any time, and making him the nominee is just too risky, IMO. Someone else needs to convince black voters that they’re a better choice.
  • Steyer has a pretty clear and consistent message, focusing on three things: he’s a successful businessman who can challenge Trump on the economy, he wants term limits and campaign finance reform, and he wants to put climate change policy front and center. While he hasn’t sold me yet, he does look pretty credible.
  • Yang had some funny moments, and pretty deftly swung the conversation back to his freedom dividend, even when starting from issues like race. As before, I enjoy having him in the conversation even though he wouldn’t be my choice for the top of the ticket.
  • Klobuchar probably had her strongest debate yet, looking strong and thoughtful, and making a good case for her electability and her more moderate stances. I really hope that people start looking at her more seriously as an alternative to Biden.
  • Sanders was typical Sanders, though I liked that he spent a little more time rebutting Biden’s misleading complaints about the tax increases related to Medicare For All. His billionaire donor comments also landed pretty well on Buttigieg without coming off as mean spirited.
  • Warren had a good night, sinking her fangs into Buttigieg over the wine cave (though she didn’t come out unscathed), making a strong case for how a credible anti-corruption candidate may be the Democrats’ best option to win, and turning that stinker of a question about “gift or forgiveness” into an opportunity to explain why she’s so passionate about the issues. I did get sick of hearing about her selfies, though.
  • Buttigieg held his own, and while he didn’t have a great defense of the wine cave incident, his counterattack on Warren for funneling her own wealthy donor money into her campaign before changing her stance was effective. Also pointing out that he was the only non-millionaire on stage, and the importance of living your values, seemed to land a bit. But in fairness, if you’re in your 60s or 70s and you haven’t built up at least a million dollars in investments, good luck retiring. Buttigieg’s back and forth with Klobuchar was weird and didn’t come off well for either of them, IMO.
Based on this debate performance alone, I could be OK with any of these people getting the nomination, though I’d prefer that it not be Biden or Yang. I do think that right-wing media has effectively poisoned reluctant Trump voters against Biden, Sanders, and Warren at this point, painting Biden as corrupt and Sanders and Warren as evil socialists. With that in mind, the Democrats would probably be best served by having someone like Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer, or even Bloomberg at the top of the ticket so potential swing voters (yes, they do still exist) would be willing to take a fresh look.
 
www.defconlevel.com

Current DEFCON Level Warning Condition Today

Current DEFCON level warning condition today. Alert level information and breaking global news.
www.defconlevel.com www.defconlevel.com
Here is the best place for all updates: https://www.defconwarningsystem.com/phpBB3/index.php The military events section is the main place to check. They might have a different DEFCON level though because each sites makes their separate decisions based on what's going on with world events.
I2Aw4eJ.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Wow
Reactions: Jer
LooseCannon said:
I mean, DEFCON is a real thing that isn't just some website...
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a real thing. These are sites that put the DEFCON level at what they THINK it should be based on world events. And the forum I linked to at defconwarningsystem.com has members who put out updates all the time about what's going on.
 
Iran counterattacked and mostly missed - and according to reports on the ground, this was intentional and they may have even warned US forces that the strike was coming and where. Sounds like Iran wanted to do something to poke the bear without actually hurting the bear, to give the US as little of an excuse to counter-attack as possible while pacifying the hardliners in their own country.
 
Travis The Dragon said:
And now it looks like the US is just going to impose some sanction on Iran. This situation could have turned out much worse.
Click to expand...
I mean, it did.

As a result of this action, Iran disavowed the 5+1 treaty entirely and has returned to enriching uranium. All because Trump claims there was a "clear and present danger" but they refuse to tell anyone what it was, including Congress. So...I think it's a net loss.
 
Iran handed Trump a pretty big optics gift with this, largely thanks to American stupidity. WWIII was never a possibility.
 
Here's the nutshell of it:

Trump tells his followers stuff and makes promises. One of the things he says is that he wants to end wars for America.
Trump is elected and turns out to be a bad president. He can't fulfill any of his promises. Re-election is in danger.
Trump provokes Iran. Iran strikes back. Trump doesn't strike back and can now present proof that he's following up on his promise to end wars for America.
Trump will be re-elected.
 
I think part of him backing down is also that the Solemani strike didn't move the needle, there was no "rally-around-the-flag" event. Possibly because Americans were actually afraid this could be World War III, because...of their rampant ignorance of geopolitical reality.
 
LooseCannon said:
I think part of him backing down is also that the Solemani strike didn't move the needle, there was no "rally-around-the-flag" event. Possibly because Americans were actually afraid this could be World War III, because...of their rampant ignorance of geopolitical reality.
Click to expand...

Do you say that because Middle Eastern countries hate each other more than they collectively hate the US?
 
I dunno, I think this was a win-win for him. Either he could go for the peacekeeper angle or start a war with Iran that would almost guarantee his re-election. Politics aside, I'm glad he opted for the former.

This was also effective in moving the focus away from impeachment and will almost certainly shift the discussions in the next primary debates. Trump has not had control of the narrative to this degree in quite some time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top