Political Discussion

nolalady said:
As for the governance, the last thing most of these billionaires want to do is rule in the spotlight. My guess is that it will be more of the same where they get someone else to do their dirty work--and who better to do that than politicians? I'm most concerned by Amazon and Google's most recent stunts where they are suppressing union activity. Amazon is making their workers go on supershifts and people at major pharmacies (Walgreens and CVS) are complaining over their work conditions because they are required to keep up with their other job duties while also vaccinating people. Uber and Lyft got away with taking away worker protections. As I see retail jobs get worse and worse and companies blatantly violating human rights, I know that it's not long before my benefits vanish too.
Click to expand...

Last year I remember either watching a story on NBC's nightly news or reading a report somewhere about pharmacists who work at retail chains like CVS.

They are saying they are being over worked. Staffing levels have been cut away over the last few years and pharmacists are now being asked to do too much and have too much pressure on them to be able to be able to fulfill prescriptions safely. They are very worried that these working conditions will lead to mistakes.

Not only could mistakes be potentially dangerous, but the pharmacists are personal held responsible for them and not CVS or a like. Being over worked and high stress is not an excuse that can be used as defense when your license is being reviewed / revoked.

Like many retailers, CVS is staffing at the bare minimum that they can get away with. Not what is considered adequate.

Having to vaccinate all these people now is just insane. They should have staff who's only responsibility is to do these vaccinations.

I remember when I got my flu shot at CVS I made a 10 am appointment online for Saturday morning a week in advanced. There was one other person who had a 9:30 appointment already waiting when I got there. There was just the pharmacists and one pharmacists tech running the register. They were slammed. And on top of the register, they also have a drive through window that the pharmacist and was trying to manage while doing consultations and filling prescriptions for those who were waiting. We had to wait until 11:15 before he was able to step out from behind the counter and give us our vaccination. He apologized. People walking in and asking for a flu shot were turned away. They were told they are too busy today.
 
Joe Mac said:
The problem is what is the normal person anymore? Below 50 do they even exist anymore? The middle is being squeezed out of existence and we have ever increasing numbers of people living below the poverty line. And this isn’t just America and the American dream this is happening globally, corporations such as Amazon and the larger multi nationals are effectively our governments now and we’re all sleepwalking into it in a blur or consumption. Is a job even worth it if you’re not able to live of it?
Click to expand...

Everyone else had great thoughts and I have a bit of a different spin on it too.

I think social media and the internet has obscured a lot of this. Like, the surface criticism is that social media is the highlight reel and highlight reels don't include making the decision between lights and food. It doesn't include admitting you're behind the highlight reel your peers are putting out there. It doesn't include complaining about your job conditions (as your employer may see it). It includes the little luxuries your may have, it includes that vacation you may have sacrificed a ton for, but it won't include the squeeze.

I think of my girlfriend when she was living on her own in Boston. Full time job, 50+ hour weeks, she was making enough for a moldy, one-bedroom studio outside of the city. Her insurance was trash and she still has a bum ankle that acts up when it rains because she couldn't afford (professionally or financially) the urgent care visit to treat it professionally. She was miserable, trying to catch three forms of transport to avoid parking in the city. I look on her socials and it has pictures of shows we went to (I often paid for it or she used all her free money in a month for a nosebleed seat), or a picture of her dog she saw a few times a year, or a picture of a book she's re-read four times. You'd have no idea. Because if she did post honestly: she'd be whiny, her parents would lecture her on money management (there was nothing she could do with that job and her living situation that doesn't cause her to lose her car), she'd be a downer.

Social media is the "you look better when you smile" amplification and it becomes way too easy to say "You can't complain about this because LOOK AT THIS TIME YOU DID X" or you feel shamed into not talking about it. And I say this as the mythical person with a decent paying job for where I live, acceptable insurance (not good but acceptable), good health options, and minimal student debt. I had a ton of privilege to get there, my single mom made unspeakable sacrifices to get me in that position, and I had a TON of luck with some natural skill to get here.

Quick Edit: You know what? It's not unspeakable. It's the whole issue at hand. She never accumulated savings and worked her ass off as a single mother (for much of my childhood) to put me through private school and help pay for part of my college and let me live with her longer than I should have at below market rent prices. She's now in her 50s with no savings due in large part to her lifting me up. So it's not unspeakable, it's a problem, and I shouldn't have said that.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Last year I remember either watching a story on NBC's nightly news or reading a report somewhere about pharmacists who work at retail chains like CVS.

They are saying they are being over worked. Staffing levels have been cut away over the last few years and pharmacists are now being asked to do too much and have too much pressure on them to be able to be able to fulfill prescriptions safely. They are very worried that these working conditions will lead to mistakes.

Not only could mistakes be potentially dangerous, but the pharmacists are personal held responsible for them and not CVS or a like. Being over worked and high stress is not an excuse that can be used as defense when your license is being reviewed / revoked.

Like many retailers, CVS is staffing at the bare minimum that they can get away with. Not what is considered adequate.

Having to vaccinate all these people now is just insane. They should have staff who's only responsibility is to do these vaccinations.

I remember when I got my flu shot at CVS I made a 10 am appointment online for Saturday morning a week in advanced. There was one other person who had a 9:30 appointment already waiting when I got there. There was just the pharmacists and one pharmacists tech running the register. They were slammed. And on top of the register, they also have a drive through window that the pharmacist and was trying to manage while doing consultations and filling prescriptions for those who were waiting. We had to wait until 11:15 before he was able to step out from behind the counter and give us our vaccination. He apologized. People walking in and asking for a flu shot were turned away. They were told they are too busy today.
Click to expand...
And somehow this model is supposed to be profitable? I have been reading several articles about how smaller pharmacies and small pharmacy chains have responded way better than the big guys. It turns out that knowing your customer base and being entrenched in a community is not as scalable as either of the big guys want it to be.
This article is behind a paywall, but there are others floating around:

Turns out that if you treat employees and customers like people instead of chattel, things tend to go better all the way around.
 
Been watching the impeachment trial streaming on peacock. All commercial free and uncensored.

Glad to hear the precedence has been set multiple times in history that a former official can be impeached and tried. Still Trump's legal team is going to push for a January exception.

The other argument they have is the Constitution says that all impeached and convicted people / parties will be removed form office and barred from holding future office.

They are trying to argue that it's got to be all or nothing, and that since Trump is not in office, he can't be barred from holding future office.

But this too has come up in the past, and was decisively decided by the senate that this isn't all encompassing. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. This part of the constitution just says what the punishment of being impeached and convicted is limited too.
 
Trumps legal team is trying to say the constitution is flawed.

And that we are making impeachments the norm and not the rare exception. We are abusing the system and setting dangerous precedences.

The constitution says that all impeachment charges need to be brought together. This means that since this impeachment charge was not brought forward 13 months ago means it's invalid under the constitution now. A second impeachment is unconstitutional.

Also, calling what Trump did insurrection under the 14th amendment is absolutely ridiculous.

None of the rioters who breached the capital have been charged with conspiring with Trump. There for there is no incitement of insurrection.

Lastly. The people / voters know how to voice their opinion and just did. They voted for Biden. Because the people voted Trump out it should be a done deal.

Shaking my head. What next are they going to try.
 
Last edited:
Wow, this next defense attorney, shakes my head.

He's basically saying that this impeachment trial is brought to you by elitist democrats who are still angry over 2016 and are trying to disavow 74 Million voters. Trying to incite partisanship and rip this country apart.

And that if you choose to proceed with the trial you are a radical and taking a radical extremist view of the constitution.

Holy molely
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Wow, this next defense attorney, shakes my head.

He's basically saying that this impeachment trial is brought to you by elitist democrats who are still angry over 2016 and are trying to disavow 74 Million voters. Trying to incite partisanship and rip this country apart.

And that if you choose to proceed with the trial you are a radical and taking a radical extremist view of the constitution.

Holy molely
Click to expand...
I mean, he is the defense attorney. He has to start from this extreme in order to have any hope whatsoever. But, yeah, it does not bode well.
 
debianlinux said:
I mean, he is the defense attorney. He has to start from this extreme in order to have any hope whatsoever. But, yeah, it does not bode well.
Click to expand...

The vote happening right does not bode well at all.

They are voting on whether or not to proceed to trial. And based on the opening remarks about past precedences the vote to try a former officer in the past have always been definitive.

This vote is not definitive. It's pretty much going down party lines. Even Mitt Romney voted Nay so far.

They are watching to see if we can get 5 republicans to say yes. It's looking like we might only have 1 more republican vote yes than last time according to what Chuck Todd is saying.

He's saying, if they are not voting yes on a procedural vote, we know what way the conviction vote will go for sure.

We do not have the votes.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
The vote happening right does not bode well at all.

They are voting on whether or not to proceed to trial. And based on the opening remarks about past precedences the vote to try a former officer in the past have always been definitive.

This vote is not definitive. It's pretty much going down party lines. Even Mitt Romney voted Nay so far.

They are watching to see if we can get 5 republicans to say yes. It's looking like we might only have 1 more republican vote yes than last time according to what Chuck Todd is saying.

He's saying, if they are not voting yes on a procedural vote, we know what way the conviction vote will go for sure.

We do not have the votes.
Click to expand...
So this is dead in the water?
 
nolalady said:
So this is dead in the water?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. 6 Republicans voted to move forward with the trial in the procedural vote. This is one more vote than last year when 5 Republicans voted to move forward with the impeachment trial.

The vote was 56 yay 44 nay.

To convict we need 67 yay, or 17 republicans to vote to convict. We are just nowhere close to that. And the procedural vote is much easier to pass than the conviction. So we are likely to get fewer yays.

Yes, this is dead in the water. There will be a trial. But there will be no conviction like last time.
 
What really irks me is the democrats opened with at least 3 examples in history where a former official was impeached and tried by the senate.

And the procedural in all 3 examples were definitive and at least unanimous in one case. The senate deliberated and ruled that a former official can absolutely be impeached and convicted. Being a former official does not protect you. Resigning from office does not protect you.

But todays senate vote was anything but definitive. It weakly passed and was very much partisan.

This says to me they don't care at all about upholding their constitutional duties. Just opposing the other side and trying to stay on the good side of Trumps base for their support.
 
nolalady said:
And somehow this model is supposed to be profitable? I have been reading several articles about how smaller pharmacies and small pharmacy chains have responded way better than the big guys. It turns out that knowing your customer base and being entrenched in a community is not as scalable as either of the big guys want it to be.
This article is behind a paywall, but there are others floating around:

Turns out that if you treat employees and customers like people instead of chattel, things tend to go better all the way around.
Click to expand...

Apart from for shareholders investing solely for a sharp rise in share price or a quick buck from dividends. The stock maker is one of the major roots of all evil.
 
The Democrats opened up with "If this is not an impeachable offense then nothing is".

The Republican party is making it clear that if it's a member of their own party, then nothing is an impeachable offense.
 
Preview of the Senate trial two years from today, when Biden is on trial for saying that he was “very disappointed in my good friends from across the aisle” after Republicans filibuster election reform legislation, followed by “antifa” throwing a brick through the Lexington GOP headquarters and spray painting “Die Mitch Die” on a piece of plywood and propping it up against the building:

(I suppose I should warn, for the benefit of anyone who hasn’t seen this movie or at least doesn’t remember every line, that there’s a homophobic slur in here)

 
Listening to a political analyst talk about todays events.

What she is saying is the republican senators know Trumps base well. And the unconstitutional vote they cast was to protect their reelection chances and had nothing to do with whether or not the trial was constitutional.

On top of that, she says the power is where the money is. Until corporate America sends a message to law makers and holds them accountable nothing will change. Corporate America will just turn a blind eye or cut political donations for both democrats and republicans. But truth be told, they want republicans in power because it's better for their bottom line.


On another note, the constitution in terms of impeachment was based off a impeachment trial happening in the UK at the time they were writing our constitution of a former official. The constitution was written to allow this scenario to prevent people from holding other office positions.

Also, the first time there was an impeachment trial for a former officer in the United States it was very early on when the founders were still in Office. A senator was trying to negotiate the sale of Florida and Louisiana to the UK behind closed doors. Alexander Hamilton was president at the time. When this senator was caught, he immediately resigned and therefor was a former official when impeached. There was never a question of if this was constitutional or not. With full unity there was a vote to impeach and convict.

The other two examples also happened in the 1800's. One was a war secretary and the other was also a senator if I remember correctly. And these were for minor corruption. Both resigned right away when caught and both defenses revolved around it's not constitutional to impeach them because they are private citizens and no longer in office. In one of the case the senate deliberated for 2 weeks on the issue and decisively decided that resigning does not protect you from accountability. In a decisive bipartisan vote they voted that it was constitutional and held the trial.

Yes we have no precedence with a former president. The the historical intentions of the founders and past precedence set by the senate exist. All constitutional scholars or legal experts say it's absolutely constitutional. Clear as day.

But Republicans today are clearly sending a message that the constitution does not allow for them to try and convict a private citizen thus this is not constitutional. Yes, while the constitution says they can't try private citizens, it doesn't say they can only try sitting officials. The language is clear the constitution extends to former officials when it references people and parties instead of referencing officials like in other places.

Yet the Republicans will claim it's not constitutional, and this is just the democrats pulling a political stunt. And that they are still angry over 2016 and this is just about preventing Trump from running again in 2024 because they know they will have a hell of the time trying to beat him if he does.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
On top of that, she says the power is where the money is. Until corporate America sends a message to law makers and holds them accountable nothing will change. Corporate America will just turn a blind eye or cut political donations for both democrats and republicans. But truth be told, they want republicans in power because it's better for their bottom line.
Click to expand...
And this is the problem right here. Why did we give all of this power to corporate boards? It should be voters that have this power, not corporate America.
 
nolalady said:
And this is the problem right here. Why did we give all of this power to corporate boards? It should be voters that have this power, not corporate America.
Click to expand...

We were having a discussion about this at work yesterday. A few of us were 15 minutes to a zoom call first thing in the morning and were discussing this topic.

Basically to summarize, we fully expect corporate governess over America and Europe to develop in this century. A full financial collapse as more than half of Americas and Europe's population is put into poverty. Then China will step in and buy countries. Whether it's the actual territories themselves or the majority of private access and business. And we exit the 21st century with China being the world super power that the United States once was. And the world will be a darker place is censorship and surveillance as well as more authoritarian goverments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top