|
someone got in big trouble for voter fraud. her husband (R) won his election to the Woodbury board of supervisors. hope it was worth it. https://twitter.com/dojcrimdiv/status/1613661061101625345 quote:Woman Arrested for Voter Fraud Scheme https://www.woodburycountyiowa.gov/contact-us/9-board-of-supervisors-contacts/4-jeremy-taylor 
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2023 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Didn't see it posted, but here's Garland's actual statement from a few hours ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKgqmtHiWY8&t=888s
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
i was going to joke that casting 23 illegal votes was probably decisive for a county board of supervisors election but it turns out he won by a little under 2k votes so that was pointless in edition to being very illegal
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I don't think Garland of all people is going to be concerned that the right wing were going to do the thing they were going to do anyways. Maybe I'm wrong but I get the impression that Garland is very concerned about optics. Like did he really need to appoint a special counsel for Trump's classified files? He's a former president after all. But he did to put that layer of impartiality on the investigation. Hence why I think no matter how dead to rights Trump is for breaking the law he's not going to indict now that Biden is guilty of the "same thing" (which is very much not the same thing).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 00:06
|
|
|
Maybe someone else has better information, but my understanding is the FBI has a number of internal policies and regulations that Garland adheres to and that is why the Special Counsel was appointed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 00:49
|
|
|
Ither posted:In Michigan, the Dems seem to be good: christ, it's so depressing that so many blue-collar tradesman probably still voted republican even when they were apparently loving with prevailing wage. is it ignorance or spite driving it, who can tell
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 02:10
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:christ, it's so depressing that so many blue-collar tradesman probably still voted republican even when they were apparently loving with prevailing wage. is it ignorance or spite driving it, who can tell It's the two party system, and american complacency .There are people who straight up identify as republicans, who don't even like any republican leadership. At this point, and I mean this sincerely not trolling (and I realize I'm not talking about people who typically pay as much attention as this community), the "lesser evil" being anything more than just that is as crazy an idea as Republicans helping the working class. The idea that both parties lead nowhere has, in my experience, often been answered with "you can't look at it like that", and I guess that's true as far as your mental well-being goes. I understand this topic is somewhat of a "thing", but it is always relevant to such a question as I quoted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 02:31
|
|
|
as someone who has worked non-union blue-collar jobs and prevailing wage jobs in the same year, the idea that a party flat out eliminating state prevailing wage would naturally be lost in the sea of political ennui is hard to wrap my mind around. maybe state prevailing wage in michigan wasn't as good as in california, but prevailing wage jobs were the ones that actually allowed you to save something at the end of the month. the prospect of just having one party visibly end those jobs, and shrugging and going "yeah, but clinton had nafta, so really who's to say?" is wild. this isn't democrats reinstating a voucher loan forgiveness program for small business owners in special zones, or whatever the gently caress, this is a meat and potatoes pocket book issue that the republicans hosed and apparently some state democrats are trying to unfuck somehow failing to immediately reinstate prevailing wage would fall into the "both bad" camp
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 02:56
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:i was going to joke that casting 23 illegal votes was probably decisive for a county board of supervisors election but it turns out he won by a little under 2k votes so that was pointless in edition to being very illegal 23 is the type of number where the person filling out fraudulent ballets thinks they’ve done a poo poo load but in actuality they’ve done so few it’ll almost never matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 02:58
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:christ, it's so depressing that so many blue-collar tradesman probably still voted republican even when they were apparently loving with prevailing wage. is it ignorance or spite driving it, who can tell In 2010 I was in a union shop that was near completely on board with gutting all the public sector unions that didn't support Walker. A few got upset about right to work but too many thought it was the union holding them back from better pay and conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 03:28
|
|
|
SpeedFreek posted:In 2010 I was in a union shop that was near completely on board with gutting all the public sector unions that didn't support Walker. A few got upset about right to work but too many thought it was the union holding them back from better pay and conditions. The funny thing is, every single person I've talked to who thinks the union is holding them back is a below average worker. Not a terrible worker, they know the union is why they can suck and still get paid. Not a good worker, they all realize the benefits and see how everything just an inch outside the contract is hosed. So it's the guys who wouldn't get fired, but also sure as hell wouldn't get promoted/raises who think they'd be better off. Like, you would not be getting anything other than maybe cost of living raises without the union, and those old timers you complain about never doing anything are actually doing multiple times your work. The last guy I argued with literally sat there talking to his mom on the phone for 2 hours the night before while we were twiddling our thumbs waiting for something to do. Motherfucker refused to acknowledge that would be an issue if he didn't have backing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
SpeedFreek posted:A few got upset about right to work but too many thought it was the union holding them back from better pay and conditions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 04:32
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Did they explain why they thought that was the case? Better pay: Usually a variety of they could totally negotiate a better raise for themselves. Largely based on everyone getting the same increases which they think is unfair because they think they deserve more than others. Better conditions: Usually bitching about seniority and bids being the basis of moving to other positions. Obviously there's issues with any system for promotion, but they generally think they'd be better for the job they want than whoever actually got the bid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 05:15
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Did they explain why they thought that was the case? "I, as the protagonist of reality, am the best and hardest worker and everyone else is a lazy slob. Surely the boss will recognize this, so I'm better off on my own."
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 06:05
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:"I, as the protagonist of reality, am the best and hardest worker and everyone else is a lazy slob. Surely the boss will recognize this, so I'm better off on my own." It's pretty much this, and an entire culture built to teach and reinforce this so those dudes believe they're the hero of the story and any attempt at solidarity with others is a trick from the devil, along with the completely mythical idea of upward mobility. Of course there's different flavours of this for different demographics, see #Girlboss.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 06:41
|
|
|
There's also the huge psychological power of the line item on the paycheck. Average union dues are about 1.5%. Seeing a separate line item for that (relatively small) amount coming out of every paycheck also drives people crazy and makes the loss feel more significant. Yet, when Trump redid withholding formulas and Obama cut payroll taxes in 2009, those resulted in people getting ~3.5% more money in their paychecks and most people didn't even realize it happened at all - except for the Trump one where people actually got mad when they got smaller tax refunds because they had been getting part of their tax refund slowly paid back to them in every paycheck for the year instead of all in one lump sum at the end of the year. That money was all part of the giant pot that they don't keep track of, so most people thought they lost money due to the Trump tax cuts and didn't even realize that the Obama ones happened. Same thing with a business: Raise menu prices at the restaurant by 15% and most people wouldn't notice because they don't eat there that frequently and it is a small dollar amount. Add a line item for a 15% service charge on the bill? Drives people insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 06:51
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:christ, it's so depressing that so many blue-collar tradesman probably still voted republican even when they were apparently loving with prevailing wage. is it ignorance or spite driving it, who can tell Well, it is pretty easy to tell as there have been countless studies done on why "X" votes Republican despite it making no personal financial sense. The answer is always the same: they're pieces of poo poo who value their bigotries more than they value their material conditions. It isn't a mystery and they're not ignorant but actually keep receiving what they vote for more than any other constituency in America that is not wealthy. But let's appeal to their material conditions for the 58th time, the hunt for the reasonable republican never ends! DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Jan 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 08:25
|
|
|
lol at humans being bad at numbers. reminds me when the old ceo/prez of jcpenney tried to just be honest about "sales" prices and then got his teeth kicked in due to people wanting to believe in the fantasy of a "sale" rpice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 09:29
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Maybe I'm wrong but I get the impression that Garland is very concerned about optics. Like did he really need to appoint a special counsel for Trump's classified files? He's a former president after all. But he did to put that layer of impartiality on the investigation. Hence why I think no matter how dead to rights Trump is for breaking the law he's not going to indict now that Biden is guilty of the "same thing" (which is very much not the same thing). its worse, since Biden wasn't president at the time. Of course, Biden doesn't seem to grasp the severity of his crime as he explains it away by saying his garage was locked  https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1613569668115214339 (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 13:23
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Did they explain why they thought that was the case? Gyges posted:Better pay: Usually a variety of they could totally negotiate a better raise for themselves. Largely based on everyone getting the same increases which they think is unfair because they think they deserve more than others. Pretty much that, dues were hardly anything but complainers would get upset their dues were defending people they didn't like from bullshit disciplinary action. That 1 percent of your paycheck is worth the extra 50 percent you're getting because of the union. On another note I'm really hoping Garland at least tries to make the case that these instances of mishandling documents are not the same.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 15:09
|
|
|
The RAND Corporation performed an exhaustive study of impacts of different types of gun legislation on shooting deaths, defensive gun use, hunting and recreational sporting, and police shootings in America. This is the only major study of this type. Major Findings: - They found that of all the major gun control policies proposed, that only one (prohibiting firearm purchases by mentally ill people) did not have enough evidence to support conclusions that it would reduce gun homicides. - None of the pro-gun or gun control policies had any impact on police shootings in a positive or negative way. - Studies show that assault weapons bans may reduce mass shootings, but there is limited data and a conclusion can't be drawn yet. However, gun control measures that limit the amount of bullets in magazines and ban high-capacity magazines do reduce the number of people killed in mass shootings. - Child safety features have no impact on overall gun violence or accidental deaths among adults, but do significantly reduce the amount of accidental deaths among children. - None of the 18 policies they analyzed, both the pro-gun and gun control, had any impact on the number of people who used guns for hunting or sport. - None of the gun control policies had any impact on the rate of people using guns in self-defense. Stand your ground laws did moderately increase the number of people who used their guns defensively. - Raising minimum age requirements for buying firearms doesn't seem to have a major impact on the overall gun homicide rate, but does have a significant impact on the youth suicide and self-harm rate. - Mandatory waiting periods do reduce the amount of total gun homicides, but the impact is very small. - Banning assault weapons dramatically drives up their price and results in significantly decreased usage. However, it is not clear that it had a major impact on the overall gun homicide rate or how many people just switched to firearms that were not banned. - Firearm licensing and permitting requirements don't seem to have a significant impact on gun homicides, but they do lead to a significant reduction in gun suicides. - Concealed carry laws significantly increase the amount of gun-related deaths, but there isn't enough evidence to say that they increase overall violent crime. https://twitter.com/RANDCorporation/status/1613256956168347648
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 16:03
|
|
|
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/13/politics/aca-open-enrollment-deadline obamacare enrollment is up, possibly due to the increased subsidies and lowered premium maximums (from 10% to 8.5%) passed as part of the IRA. those last through 2025 so there is going to be a big fight brewing in a few years about extending the changes or make them permanent. dems better hope the 2024 election goes better for them in the house and senate; at least they didn't have this stuff phase out in an election year and piss everyone off right as they were figuring out who they want to vote for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
I thought it would take a while longer before debt limit shenanigans would unfold with a GOP House in place, but it looks like the drama is already starting. https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/1613946606130282496 quote:Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Friday notified Congress that the U.S. will reach its statutory debt limit next Thursday and that the Treasury Department will begin “taking certain extraordinary measures to prevent the United States from defaulting on its obligations.” The fact that we have this dialogue every 6-12 months is maddening. This is so stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2023/01/13/debt-limit-extraordinary-measures-treasury/ So, uhm. Looks like we're in for a debt-ceiling fight... next week. I am not enthused about this, all things considered. e: gently caress! That'll teach me to read the drat article to make sure before linking it. e2: Adding some more detail. quote:The Treasury Department on Friday said that it will begin “extraordinary measures” next week to prevent the United States government from defaulting on its payment obligations, as lawmakers in Washington prepare for a potentially devastating fiscal showdown. God drat, McCarthy's a loving idiot. TLM3101 fucked around with this message at 18:29 on Jan 13, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
I am stoked for it, but just because I love to see disparate factions of the ruling class tearing at each other. It won’t really be exciting until they have the choppers out over it, though. I think that’s a decade or more down the road.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
Remember that the Dems had time this fall to pass a debt ceiling extension on their own and refused to
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:35
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Remember that the Dems had time this fall to pass a debt ceiling extension on their own and refused to It's such an insanely dumb thing. Same with some of the other decisions they made because they chose optics over good public policy. Multiple Senators were saying that they thought it would look bad if they voted to abolish the debt ceiling or just raise it by 900 trillion because then everyone will think they voted for 900 trillion in new debt, so they need to force Republicans to vote for it. When people saying there is a thing called "Beltway Brain" this is what they mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:38
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:I thought it would take a while longer before debt limit shenanigans would unfold with a GOP House in place, but it looks like the drama is already starting. COIN TIME 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:40
|
|
|
Biden’s never going to mint the coin Which is why I think more than likely we default
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:42
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Biden’s never going to mint the coin You think Biden is gonna gently caress with the money? Biden isn't going to gently caress with the money. That's why we have Biden in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Biden’s never going to mint the coin There is no way in hell Biden chooses default over anything else. Default is so indescribably bad for everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:11
|
|
|
Only 4 Republicans need to bail on the plan to raise the debt ceiling, so I don't think they are going to be forcing their Social Security plan and balanced budget amendment through the Senate and veto. I could definitely see some brinksmanship about it, though. Or a Dem cave on something smaller than that. There's also a constitutional argument that the 14th amendment makes the debt ceiling unconstitutional, but it has never been challenged.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
From what I understand, default isn't immediate and any economic consequences are going to unfold gradually instead of grinding the economy to an immediate halt. There''s quite lot of pain that could unfold before we ever get to a full-on default. We wouldn't need a default to get a government shutdown, for example. I don't think Biden lets us get to a full-on default, but the impasse could get pretty hairy for all of us before then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:16
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It's such an insanely dumb thing. Same with some of the other decisions they made because they chose optics over good public policy. I dunno, I feel like it's to the Dem's benefits to force the Republicans to vote for a clean ceiling increase, which they absolutely will because the alternative will get them screamed at by all their donors. Edit: this basically (which you also posted) Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Only 4 Republicans need to bail on the plan to raise the debt ceiling, so I don't think they are going to be forcing their Social Security plan and balanced budget amendment through the Senate and veto.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
Debt ceiling hostage-taking is a political loser for Republicans every single time and yet happens every single time. At this point a lot of them have openly expressed disinterest in this gimmick but the hardliners can't quit it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:From what I understand, default isn't immediate and any economic consequences are going to unfold gradually instead of grinding the economy to an immediate halt. It's really impossible to know, because the problem is that it will start a panic at some point. That will cause a cascade of bank runs and market collapses. Even minting the coin could cause a run on the dollar, which would cause it to cascade into the shipping and international commodity markets. You can't build enough cushioning if the right wing project decides to play chicken with a cliff. The might even get the coin declared unconstitutional or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:27
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:From what I understand, default isn't immediate and any economic consequences are going to unfold gradually instead of grinding the economy to an immediate halt. I think an immediate consequence would be a hit to the US credit rating. Hell that might even happen before Thursday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:29
|
|
|
Barrel Cactaur posted:You can't build enough cushioning if the right wing project decides to play chicken with a cliff. The might even get the coin declared unconstitutional or something. Now that can't happen. You can't say the president can't coin money when the constitution says he can. You'd have to have carefully stacked the body that does constitutional review with insane liars responsible to no one or something. Ah. Hm.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I think an immediate consequence would be a hit to the US credit rating. Hell that might even happen before Thursday. Nah, we hit Extraordinary Measures so often that it's priced in already. It's when they start doing daily revisions to the end of Extraordinary Measures (so, June +/-) that poo poo starts getting real.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
The US credit rating already took a hit, during the Obama administration we got downgraded from AAA to AADevor posted:Nah, we hit Extraordinary Measures so often that it's priced in already. It's when they start doing daily revisions to the end of Extraordinary Measures (so, June +/-) that poo poo starts getting real. This just means if we do actually fail to make a payment, the shock is going to be even greater
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2023 19:42
|
|
