America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,194 comments
  • 1,746,171 views
Republicans appear ready to suspend the filibuster in the Senate for debt ceiling raises because they think it will benefit them politically, and my point about Republicans not being trustworthy to honor keeping the filibuster if they have a majority and want something is proven immediately.

Granted, I like this development. The weaker the filibuster the better. But it very much shows that Republicans do not value the filibuster beyond its utility to them to get their agenda through or block it from their opponents.
 
Last edited:
I was just thinking about posing that question here...yesterday?

"In the event that Republicans retake the Senate in '22, how long does the filibuster remain when they don't have the votes to clear it?"

Edit: And this isn't criticism of Republicans. This is criticism of Democrats who still treat Republicans as though they're acting in good faith.
 
Last edited:
I wonder which attitude towards Russia-Ukraine will prevail on the right:

Putin has a right to defend Russia's western border, and it's Biden's fault if things escalate.

Putin must be stopped from invading Ukraine, up to and including pre-emptive nuclear strikes, and it's Biden's fault for not escalating the situation.

Of course, it's not beyond reason (righty reason™) for both views to be held simultaneously, as long as it's Biden's fault I suppose.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
I wonder which attitude towards Russia-Ukraine will prevail on the right:

Putin has a right to defend Russia's western border, and it's Biden's fault if things escalate.

Putin must be stopped from invading Ukraine, up to and including pre-emptive nuclear strikes, and it's Biden's fault for not escalating the situation.

Of course, it's not beyond reason (righty reason™) for both views to be held simultaneously, as long as it's Biden's fault I suppose.
Click to expand...
I imagine they'll all wait to see how things play out before they pick which one they like most.
 
Well, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) is a ****ing clown.
www.thedailybeast.com

Senators Brand Instagram as the ‘New Tobacco’ for Teens

Senators went after Instagram's CEO on Wednesday, saying that legislation would be coming to police the app's mental health effects on teens.
www.thedailybeast.com www.thedailybeast.com
"You're the new tobacco, whether you like it or not, and you've got to stop selling the tobacco."

Ted Cruz also further clowned himself jumping onto the narrative that the Instagram harms children. He talked about how he oversaw an exercise in which a test account was created, simulating a teenage girl, and while the initial experience provided by the platform was innocuous, the experience changed when a major female celebrity was followed and the platform provided content that may cause a teenage girl to feel poorly about her appearance. * GASP * Engagement dictates experience, exactly as it does on the internet as a whole.

Any "harm" from online engagement, and this is already a stretch given the complete lack of physiological effects (which is in stark contrast to consumption of tobacco products, to borrow the hackneyed analogy), is entirely self-inflicted, and if children can't be expected to moderate their own engagement, parents need to accept responsibility.

Of course, much hand-wringing by Democrats was to be observed, as is to be expected, but Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) stuck out as a surprising and possibly unintentional voice of reason. "Instagram sees dollar signs when it sees kids; parents should see a 'STOP' sign when they see Instagram."
 
Rossell2
Instagram is the new tobacco says the people that failed to ban tobacco.
Click to expand...
In order to fail, an attempt must first be made.

That isn't to say an attempt to ban tobacco should be made, just that none has been. Sweeping tobacco prohibitions would be no less idiotic than those on "illicit" drugs (they're illicit purely because they're prohibited). Of course an attempt hasn't been made due in no small part to the tobacco lobby.

Now just because "big tech" is under fire from both Democrats and Republicans, it shouldn't be assumed that they want the same thing.

Democrats are hand-wringing. That's what they do. They're doing what they think needs to be done to ensure children are safe online. Safety from predators is fine. But they want to protect kids from themselves online, which is misguided at best and aggressively stupid at worst, and they want to punish private industry to do it.

Punishing private industry is where Republicans come in. Ostensibly the party of "limited government regulation of the economy," grievance has them jumping on the regulation bandwagon because of perceived anti-conservative bias, even to their detriment when it comes to cracking down on misinformation of which they're beneficiaries.
 
Last edited:
TexRex
I stand by it. Idiotic.
Click to expand...
The only thing that gives me any pause, is that very little is done regarding second hand smoke for kids. Not that this should necessitate banning cigarettes, but it's an area where smoking directly impacts others (probably pot smoking too). To the extent that evidence supports injury, it ought to be addressed.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
The only thing that gives me any pause, is that very little is done regarding second hand smoke for kids. Not that this should necessitate banning cigarettes, but it's an area where smoking directly impacts others (probably pot smoking too). To the extent that evidence supports injury, it ought to be addressed.
Click to expand...
Liability? Enforcement would probably be a cluster****.
 
Last edited:
If anyone is into bad takes, here's one about Jussie Smollet's guilty verdict courtesy of MSNBC:

Jussie Smollett being found guilty of hoax will hurt LGBTQ folks reporting hate crimes
Jussie Smollett guilty verdict will be used by Trump supporters to prove Democrats wrongly label them villains.

The primary thrust of the story is not that Jussie is a POS for staging a fake hate crime (which the author doesn't really convincingly acknowledge) but rather the verdict will give the culture-war-right too much ammo. Honestly though, it's articles like this that give the ammo....

Here's a better headline: Jussie Smollet staging a hate crime will hurt LGBTQ folks reporting hate crimes.
 
Last edited:
Eunos_Cosmo
If anyone is into bad takes, here's one about Jussie Smollet's guilty verdict courtesy of MSNBC:

Jussie Smollett being found guilty of hoax will hurt LGBTQ folks reporting hate crimes
Jussie Smollett guilty verdict will be used by Trump supporters to prove Democrats wrongly label them villains.

The primary thrust of the story is not that Jussie is a POS for staging a fake hate crime (which the author doesn't really convincingly acknowledge) but rather the verdict will give the culture-war-right too much ammo. Honestly though, it's articles like this that give the ammo....

Here's a better headline: Jussie Smollet staging a hate crime will hurt LGBTQ folks reporting hate crimes.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, his verdict probably will be used by the right as a springboard for some Olympic calibre mental gymnastics to prove that all hate crimes are made up. Articles like this certainly won't help though.
 
It's real simple: "Don't cry wolf."

That's it...sorry about what ever label you wear, but it's such great and sage advice that we tell it to FOUR YEAR OLDS!
 
Last edited:
Pupik
It's real simple: "Don't cry wolf."

That's it...sorry about what ever label you wear, but it's such great and sage advice that we tell it to FOUR YEAR OLDS!
Click to expand...
Crying wolf when there is no wolf is bad. Paying two guys to dress up as wolves and attack you is worse.
 
TexRex
Well, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) is a ****ing clown.
www.thedailybeast.com

Senators Brand Instagram as the ‘New Tobacco’ for Teens

Senators went after Instagram's CEO on Wednesday, saying that legislation would be coming to police the app's mental health effects on teens.
www.thedailybeast.com www.thedailybeast.com
"You're the new tobacco, whether you like it or not, and you've got to stop selling the tobacco."

Ted Cruz also further clowned himself jumping onto the narrative that the Instagram harms children. He talked about how he oversaw an exercise in which a test account was created, simulating a teenage girl, and while the initial experience provided by the platform was innocuous, the experience changed when a major female celebrity was followed and the platform provided content that may cause a teenage girl to feel poorly about her appearance. * GASP * Engagement dictates experience, exactly as it does on the internet as a whole.

Any "harm" from online engagement, and this is already a stretch given the complete lack of physiological effects (which is in stark contrast to consumption of tobacco products, to borrow the hackneyed analogy), is entirely self-inflicted, and if children can't be expected to moderate their own engagement, parents need to accept responsibility.

Of course, much hand-wringing by Democrats was to be observed, as is to be expected, but Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) stuck out as a surprising and possibly unintentional voice of reason. "Instagram sees dollar signs when it sees kids; parents should see a 'STOP' sign when they see Instagram."
Click to expand...
I feel like it's hardly Instagram's fault that all types of media find great value in making everyone feel bad about their appearance. Teenage girls are particularly vulnerable for cultural reasons that are also ********, but going after Instagram seems like shooting the messenger.

It only works because we live in a society that absolutely agrees with the idea that all teenage girls should be virginal but sexy, chaste but sexually available, available for everyone's viewing pleasure and constantly working hard to put forward their best appearance. Instagram just removes the veil so that it's much harder to pretend that these aren't the messages that we as a society send to teenage girls.
 
Joey D
Unfortunately, his verdict probably will be used by the right as a springboard for some Olympic calibre mental gymnastics to prove that all hate crimes are made up. Articles like this certainly won't help though.
Click to expand...
And here we go, exactly as I predicted. It would have been harder for outlets like Fox news to further the culture war if MSNBC had just run straight reporting on this. And of course the Fox Brigade has made it their sworn duty to inflame any situation they can get an angle on. I'm just so sick of all of this. I don't know how anyone has the energy to keep it going.

CNN, MSNBC downplay Jussie Smollett conviction, use verdict to bash conservatives

:banghead:

I don't get my news from either of the sources mentioned, but way too many people do...
 
Triggered.



Screenshot_20211214-023420_Chrome.jpg
 
Last edited:
What are peoples opinions on these factory workers, whose places of work got hit by tornados, that are now suing?

apple.news

Survivors of Kentucky candle factory destroyed by tornado sue company, allege 'flagrant indifference' — USA TODAY

An attorney for the survivors wants candle company officials to stop saying workers weren't told they couldn't leave the night the tornado struck.
apple.news apple.news

I don’t know if anyones filed a lawsuit yet in the case of the Amazon Facility, but there’s talk of it and some of the relatives are saying their loved ones shouldn’t of been working. I know OSHA is investigating, but some of that may be more due to how safe, or unsafe the designated shelter areas were.

My thoughts on it are this. I live approximately 60 miles from Edwardsville Illinois, where the Amazon Facility is located, and about 120 miles from Mayfield Kentucky.We get a fair amount of tornado “watches”, although it’s pretty rare for this time of year.

A tornado watch just means conditions are favorable, that doesn’t even mean you will get a storm, or even rain for that matter. Usually a watch will include very large areas, some times multiple states at once. A tornado warning means a tornado has touched down, the radar has picked one up, or a weather spotter has seen a funnel cloud/rotation. Basically a warning is immediate threat, especially if you are in its path. Also a tornado watch usually last for multiple hours , while a warning is maybe 15 minutes, or even less, to an hour tops.

You can’t send people home from work just because there is a tornado watch, that’s just not feasible because I’d say 95%+ of the time we get a tornado watch, we don’t even get a warning. I’ve been through countless of tornado warnings, and never even seen a tornado. When that tornado hit the Amazon facility the other night, I was at work and it didn’t even storm, it rained for 5 minutes and that was it.(where I work is maybe 40 miles as the crow flies from the Amazon facility, for reference) That’s how spotty these storms can be. In the spring time, during stormy season, we may have several tornado watches a week, or more. The problem with sending people home for a watch, you’d be shutting down huge areas, when the chance of a tornado happening is highly unlikely.

Now the problem with sending people home for a tornado warning, is they are so sudden that you’d be sending people out into danger at that point. Sometimes you only have a few minutes once that tornados been spotted, until it’s on you. That would be even a bigger liability, letting people leave in the middle of a bad storm, or right as it’s getting there.

I can see if people are suing because companies didn’t provide safe shelter spots, or didn’t let them shelter. That’s totally understandable, but to sue because they don’t think they should of been there because there was a chance of a tornado, or they didn’t let them leave once a warning was announced, I kind of have a hard time with that.
 
Last edited:
prousonhairy
What are people opinions on these factory workers, whose places of work got hit by tornados, that are now suing?

apple.news

Survivors of Kentucky candle factory destroyed by tornado sue company, allege 'flagrant indifference' — USA TODAY

An attorney for the survivors wants candle company officials to stop saying workers weren't told they couldn't leave the night the tornado struck.
apple.news apple.news

I don’t know if anyones filed a lawsuit yet in the case of the Amazon Facility, but there’s talk of it and some of the relatives are saying their loved ones shouldn’t of been working. I know OSHA is investigating, but some of that may be more due to how safe, or unsafe the designated shelter areas were.

My thoughts on it are this. I live approximately 60 miles from Edwardsville Illinois, where the Amazon Facility is located, and about 120 miles from Mayfield Kentucky.We get a fair amount of tornado “watches”, although it’s pretty rare for this time of year.

A tornado watch just means conditions are favorable, that doesn’t even mean you will get a storm, or even rain for that matter. Usually a watch will include very large areas, some times multiple states at once. A tornado warning means a tornado has touched down, the radar has picked one up, or a weather spotter has seen a funnel cloud/rotation. Basically a warning is immediate threat, especially if you are in its path. Also a tornado watch usually last for multiple hours , while a warning is maybe 15 minutes, or even less, to an hour tops.

You can’t send people home from work just because there is a tornado watch, that’s just not feasible because I’d say 95%+ of the time we get a tornado watch, we don’t even get a warning. I’ve been through countless of tornado warnings, and never even seen a tornado. When that tornado hit the Amazon facility the other night, I was at work and it didn’t even storm, it rained for 5 minutes and that was it.(where I work is maybe 40 miles as the crow flies from the Amazon facility, for reference) That’s how spotty these storms can be. In the spring time, during stormy season, we may have several tornado watches a week, or more. The problem with sending people home for a watch, you’d be shutting down huge areas, when the chance of a tornado happening is highly unlikely.

Now the problem with sending people home for a tornado warning, is they are so sudden that you’d be sending people out into danger at that point. Sometimes you only have a few minutes once that tornados been spotted, until it’s on you. That would be even a bigger liability, letting people leave in the middle of a bad storm, or right as it’s getting there.

I can see if people are suing because companies didn’t provide safe shelter spots, or didn’t let them shelter. That’s totally understandable, but to sue because they don’t think they should of been there because there was a chance of a tornado, or they didn’t let them leave once a warning was announced, I kind of have a hard time with that.
Click to expand...
There are a myriad analogous scenarios with respect to natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, and even forest fires. There are other analogous situations too, like active shooters, bomb threats, and covid outbreaks.

I think, legally, the company is held to a standard for accounting for the well being of its employees. The standard in US law may be situational and may be somewhat arbitrary. If the company can be found to have acted negligently for providing employee safety they may be liable for having caused harm. That's true in sexual harassment as well as workplace injury. I doubt that certain companies would be required to have a tornado shelter because the facility simply isn't in an area where tornados occur. Meanwhile, appropriate earthquake safety measures may not be required in the middle of Kansas.

I don't think that the standard is sending people home if there's an emergency. I think the standard is providing safety for employees, and in some cases that may mean sending people home. In the case of a tornado though, that's hard to see.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
There are a myriad analogous scenarios with respect to natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, and even forest fires. There are other analogous situations too, like active shooters, bomb threats, and covid outbreaks.

I think, legally, the company is held to a standard for accounting for the well being of its employees. The standard in US law may be situational and may be somewhat arbitrary. If the company can be found to have acted negligently for providing employee safety they may be liable for having caused harm. That's true in sexual harassment as well as workplace injury. I doubt that certain companies would be required to have a tornado shelter because the facility simply isn't in an area where tornados occur. Meanwhile, appropriate earthquake safety measures may not be required in the middle of Kansas.

I don't think that the standard is sending people home if there's an emergency. I think the standard is providing safety for employees, and in some cases that may mean sending people home. In the case of a tornado though, that's hard to see.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. These people wouldn't have been any safer at home if the Tornado hit their house. Their ought to have been accessible storm shelters instead. I remember just about every academic building in Texas I spent any time in had some sort of storm shelter, even if that meant just the basement.

Concrete tilt-up structures (typical for warehouses) are absolutely horrid for tornados, they should be required to have storm shelters in high wind regions, IMO.
 
prousonhairy
What are people opinions on these factory workers, whose places of work got hit by tornados, that are now suing?

apple.news

Survivors of Kentucky candle factory destroyed by tornado sue company, allege 'flagrant indifference' — USA TODAY

An attorney for the survivors wants candle company officials to stop saying workers weren't told they couldn't leave the night the tornado struck.
apple.news apple.news

I don’t know if anyones filed a lawsuit yet in the case of the Amazon Facility, but there’s talk of it and some of the relatives are saying their loved ones shouldn’t of been working. I know OSHA is investigating, but some of that may be more due to how safe, or unsafe the designated shelter areas were.

My thoughts on it are this. I live approximately 60 miles from Edwardsville Illinois, where the Amazon Facility is located, and about 120 miles from Mayfield Kentucky.We get a fair amount of tornado “watches”, although it’s pretty rare for this time of year.

A tornado watch just means conditions are favorable, that doesn’t even mean you will get a storm, or even rain for that matter. Usually a watch will include very large areas, some times multiple states at once. A tornado warning means a tornado has touched down, the radar has picked one up, or a weather spotter has seen a funnel cloud/rotation. Basically a warning is immediate threat, especially if you are in its path. Also a tornado watch usually last for multiple hours , while a warning is maybe 15 minutes, or even less, to an hour tops.

You can’t send people home from work just because there is a tornado watch, that’s just not feasible because I’d say 95%+ of the time we get a tornado watch, we don’t even get a warning. I’ve been through countless of tornado warnings, and never even seen a tornado. When that tornado hit the Amazon facility the other night, I was at work and it didn’t even storm, it rained for 5 minutes and that was it.(where I work is maybe 40 miles as the crow flies from the Amazon facility, for reference) That’s how spotty these storms can be. In the spring time, during stormy season, we may have several tornado watches a week, or more. The problem with sending people home for a watch, you’d be shutting down huge areas, when the chance of a tornado happening is highly unlikely.

Now the problem with sending people home for a tornado warning, is they are so sudden that you’d be sending people out into danger at that point. Sometimes you only have a few minutes once that tornados been spotted, until it’s on you. That would be even a bigger liability, letting people leave in the middle of a bad storm, or right as it’s getting there.

I can see if people are suing because companies didn’t provide safe shelter spots, or didn’t let them shelter. That’s totally understandable, but to sue because they don’t think they should of been there because there was a chance of a tornado, or they didn’t let them leave once a warning was announced, I kind of have a hard time with that.
Click to expand...
I live in Alabama which also gets a ton of tornado watches per year and several tornado warnings. I don't know if those people thought they could out run the storm if they were to try to go home. Unless they were specifically told they couldn't go to the shelter in their building and had to stay at their work stations, then I don't see that they have a valid lawsuit. As I type this over to my right taped to the door is our directions where to shelter inside our building. I would think most places of business especially a manufacturing plant has something similar.

But I think lawsuits like this are why school systems are so quick to either let the kids out or even cancel the entire day if there is a somewhat elevated chance that severe weather will be in the area. They just don't want to take the chance of having kids in school when a major storm hits.

Down here in Alabama we also have a problem with snow or ice. Since we see so little of it, school systems and some businesses treat it like tornadoes and will dismiss school if we have a chance of getting snow or ice. I'm 56 years old and we never got out of school for severe weather and there had to be at least 2 or 3 inches of snow on the ground already for them to let us out early. But we're a lawsuit happy society now.
 
Danoff
I don't think that the standard is sending people home if there's an emergency. I think the standard is providing safety for employees, and in some cases that may mean sending people home. In the case of a tornado though, that's hard to see.
Click to expand...
Sending people home for a tornado is a terrible idea because of the combination of high winds, flying debris, and especially the fact that tornados tend to arise without warning. Like @Eunos_Cosmo said, a designated storm shelter and the instruction to evacuate to there when a tornado is spotted is the best way to go.
 
TexRex
Fifth Circuit stay on OSHA vax/test mandate for companies with 100 employees or more dissolved by Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 panel vote. GWB/Obama appointed judges majority over Trump appointee dissent.
Click to expand...
Majority opinion written by Judge Jane Stranch, the Obama appointee.


FG6N1NcXEAY6k5x.png
Click to expand...
Screenshot-20211218-113822-Gallery.jpg
Click to expand...
giphy.gif

UKMikey
Triggered.



View attachment 1099339
Click to expand...

Okay but the highlight last week was this sketch with Billie Eilish and Kate McKinnon.

 
Last edited:
Marjorie Taylor Greene dressed as Wonder Woman for a sing along for an anti-LGBT Christian organization called "LMNOP", which stands for "Lifestyle of Mainstream, Normal, Ordinary People".

 
GranTurNismo
Marjorie Taylor Greene dressed as Wonder Woman for a sing along for an anti-LGBT Christian organization called "LMNOP", which stands for "Lifestyle of Mainstream, Normal, Ordinary People".

Click to expand...

Suffering Sappho! This is, like, the complete opposite of what Wonder Woman stands for. She was raised by a single mom.
 
UKMikey
Suffering Sappho! This is, like, the complete opposite of what Wonder Woman stands for. She was raised by a single mom.
Click to expand...
I'm certain you know this but I think it bears saying openly. They don't care. Things are what they need them to be to fit their worldview.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
442 443 444
Replies
13K
Views
606K
Imari
Imari
Dylan
2025 NASCAR Discussion Thread
Replies
14
Views
1K
Eggstor
Eggstor
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
443 444 445
Replies
13K
Views
715K
eran0004
eran0004
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
711
Dotini
Dotini

Latest Posts

Back