LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=880)

sebastian_dangerfield 01-31-2018 03:02 PM

Re: Immigration
 
Quote:

In our country, being white means you don't have an ethnic identity, being male means you don't have a gender identity, and being straight means you don't have a preference identity. Engaging in politics when you have an identity is identity politics.
Sure you do. If you're at all skeptical of the "resistance" or question the politics of the Left, or suggest that identity politics is playing into Trump's hand (I liked the article below, by the way), you're part of the patriarchy, the oppressors, the bigots.

Obviously, I like toying with anyone's near-sacredly held beliefs (largely, because I don't think being invested more than 70% in any ideology, or belief, other than that people should be free, makes any logical sense). I understand that can be annoying. But questioning things is... um, good. It's a healthy way to think.

Question #metoo as perhaps going too far? "Heretic." Suggest there may some silver linings to this embarrassing buffoon's presidency? "Exile for you." Take issue with identity politics? "You're a white, privileged bigot apologist is what you are."

Here's a white, straight male identity for you to consider:

1. Hate Trump;
2. Also hate most Trump critics;
3. Also hate most Trump supporters;
4. Thinks its a pack of pawns fighting over scraps while, as Ty's article notes, the .0001, Left and Right, quietly runs away with it all.

Enjoy bickering on the sucker train.

Ty's article:
Quote:

eta: I didn't watch the SOTU or the response, but this seems like good commentary. Not having watched Trump, people's reactions make it seem like he didn't say much of anything unusual and so everyone gets a chance to repeat their priors, and in a few days the speech will have been forgotten and we will move on to whatever is next.

Adder 01-31-2018 03:24 PM

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512896)
Why shouldn't they be as fireable as everybody else?

Because one way you attract higher quality talent for lower wages - and many federal employees could make vastly more money in the private sector, especially lawyers - is to offer them greater job protections. Reducing those protections reduces the attractiveness of federal jobs.

Call me crazy, but I think finding good candidates is a bigger issue than being able to get rid of lower performers, especially in a tight labor market.

Quote:

It's $200 bil or so in direct cash, the rest is guarantees.
Yes, that's what you want. I don't think that's what he said last night, which was an improvement. We should not do what you want.

He said (paraphrase) "In partnership with state and local authorities, and, where appropriate, private financial interests." To me, that sounds like mostly not PPP, but open to it here and there.

Quote:

Streamlining the permitting process is also a brilliant idea.
It's a meaningless talking point. Most of the permitting issues are state and local that he has no power over. And most of the delays aren't the permitting process, but the political haggling over what people actually want and/or will tolerate.

Quote:

It's actually focused on speeding up the permitting issues at the local and state levels.
Yes, that's why what he said is bs.

Quote:

The municipalities and states move at the speed of molasses.
Yes, because that's where the people with conflicting interests are.

For some reason I blanked on including opioid in his list of nonsense. There not only his offered solution - drug warring on dealers, which means doctors and PHARMA, right? - ludicrous but his own policies have already made things worse. Scaling back Medicaid and making it harder for people to get treatment actively undermines our attempts to deal with the epidemic.

Adder 01-31-2018 03:28 PM

Re: Immigration
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512897)
(largely, because I don't think being invested more than 70% in any ideology, or belief, other than that people should be free, makes any logical sense).

"It's not logical to believe in any ideology except the one I believe." Do you read what you type?

Quote:

Question #metoo as perhaps going too far? "Heretic."
No, person who most likely has not even tried to come to grips with the amount of sexual violence and harassment that goes on in the world.

Quote:

Suggest there may some silver linings to this embarrassing buffoon's presidency? "Exile for you."
No. Let's find some. The ones you keep offering, unfortunately, are mostly in your fantasy.

And even then pretty weak sauce in context.

Quote:

Take issue with identity politics? "You're a white, privileged bigot apologist is what you are."
Yes, that's what that means.

Replaced_Texan 01-31-2018 03:31 PM

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
I guess the GOP really is a train wreck.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-31-2018 04:46 PM

Re: Immigration
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512897)
Thinks its a pack of pawns fighting over scraps while, as Ty's article notes, the .0001, Left and Right, quietly runs away with it all.

I know this both-sidesism comes from your heart, but it's super-annoying because it's more about your self-image than about what the Left or Right are doing. Obama passed the ACA and Dodd-Frank. Trump is trying undo both, and passed a massive tax cut to benefit the rich. Both sides are interested in redistribution, but only one side is profiteering. This is as obvious as the nose on your face, and if you don't want to see it, whatever.

Hank Chinaski 01-31-2018 04:56 PM

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 512898)
Because one way you attract higher quality talent for lower wages - and many federal employees could make vastly more money in the private sector, especially lawyers - is to offer them greater job protections. Reducing those protections reduces the attractiveness of federal jobs.

Call me crazy, but I think finding good candidates is a bigger issue than being able to get rid of lower performers, especially in a tight labor market.

When I was a civil servant, I was kind of bored, and in law school. So I started doing grievances for our employee union.

The thing is, the gov "protections" aren't that big a deal. It seemed the supervisors only had to follow procedure and they could unfairly fuck people. The employees who were getting fucked we typically couldn't help, because the supervisor knew he was doing something wrong, so em was careful. Who could we help? The employee that should be getting fired, because their supervisor would often act hastily. That is, I don't think it is hard to fire gov employee now.

That said, I also knew NO ONE who was their because the job had firing security. Maybe some people, especially the clerical group, were there because layoffs were less likely. People in legal jobs might have been there for experience, because it does come quicker. And the bennies were great. I had 4 weeks from the start. And the thing is, I could use it. I remember big law telling me I got 4 weeks! Might as well have been 20, you can't use it all, and still keep your job.

But I never ever heard anyone there for "hard to get fired" rules.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-31-2018 04:59 PM

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by hank chinaski (Post 512902)
when i was a civil servant, i was kind of bored, and in law school. So i started doing grievances for our employee union.

The thing is, the gov "protections" aren't that big a deal. It seemed the supervisors only had to follow procedure and they could unfairly fuck people. The employees who were getting fucked we typically couldn't help, because the supervisor knew he was doing something wrong, so em was careful. Who could we help? The employee that should be getting fired, because their supervisor would often act hastily. That is, i don't think it is hard to fire gov employee now.

That said, i also knew no one who was their because the job had firing security. Maybe some people, especially the clerical group, were there because layoffs were less likely. People in legal jobs might have been there for experience, because it does come quicker. And the bennies were great. I had 4 weeks from the start. And the thing is, i could use it. I remember big law telling me i got 4 weeks! Might as well have been 20, you can't use it all, and still keep your job.

But i never ever heard anyone there for "hard to get fired" rules.

2

Did you just call me Coltrane? 01-31-2018 05:24 PM

Re: Paigow
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 512889)
Here's the thing about Paigow, she had high standards. Like when I met her she insisted we meet at the bar in the Algonquin Hotel where the Round Table used to be.

Also, minor trivia, I was FB friends with her and her sister. While Paigow wears her crazy on her face the sister is actually crazier- semi wealthy suburban mom who actually nuts in a dark way.

Maybe she was really the infamous Washingtonienne.

Hank Chinaski 01-31-2018 05:37 PM

Re: Paigow
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane? (Post 512904)
Maybe she was really the infamous Washingtonienne.

Slave knew how to pick em, for sure!

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-31-2018 05:38 PM

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 512902)
When I was a civil servant, I was kind of bored, and in law school. So I started doing grievances for our employee union.

The thing is, the gov "protections" aren't that big a deal. It seemed the supervisors only had to follow procedure and they could unfairly fuck people. The employees who were getting fucked we typically couldn't help, because the supervisor knew he was doing something wrong, so em was careful. Who could we help? The employee that should be getting fired, because their supervisor would often act hastily. That is, I don't think it is hard to fire gov employee now.

That said, I also knew NO ONE who was their because the job had firing security. Maybe some people, especially the clerical group, were there because layoffs were less likely. People in legal jobs might have been there for experience, because it does come quicker. And the bennies were great. I had 4 weeks from the start. And the thing is, I could use it. I remember big law telling me I got 4 weeks! Might as well have been 20, you can't use it all, and still keep your job.

But I never ever heard anyone there for "hard to get fired" rules.

That's been my experience at both the state and federal levels. At the municipal level and county level, less so. That's where I still can see, in a lot of places, "wired" hires who need to be moved on but who aren't. But it happens in ritzy school systems in the 'burbs just as much as or more than in cities supposedly run by political machines.

Thought of another way: Atticus still has a job.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-31-2018 05:59 PM

Re: Immigration
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 512901)
I know this both-sidesism comes from your heart, but it's super-annoying because it's more about your self-image than about what the Left or Right are doing. Obama passed the ACA and Dodd-Frank. Trump is trying undo both, and passed a massive tax cut to benefit the rich. Both sides are interested in redistribution, but only one side is profiteering. This is as obvious as the nose on your face, and if you don't want to see it, whatever.

Dodd Frank should be relaxed.

I had no issue with the ACA and do not agree with getting rid of it via stealth defunding without an equivalent replacement. I think that’s a huge blunder, and also inhumane.

The profiteering of the GOP is a rounding error in the bigger picture. Under either party, the money is funneling upwards. If you don’t see that both parties do little to effect real change, and only fiddle around the edges to the extent their corporate owners allow them to, whatever.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 01-31-2018 06:24 PM

Re: Immigration
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 512907)
Dodd Frank should be relaxed.

What would you change?

sebastian_dangerfield 01-31-2018 06:51 PM

Re: Immigration
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 512908)
What would you change?

Relax all the restrictions and rules on mortgage lending. Don’t throw them out. Just relax them. Make is easier to qualify and close. That’ll help the housing market in those blue states getting screwed by the SALT deduction cap.

Hank Chinaski 01-31-2018 06:54 PM

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
So Scott Baio got kicked out of the Playboy Mansion because he had sex with every month's Playmate one year, and that's supposed to be a record? BFD, with a loose definition, I had sex with every month's Playmate 1972-1975.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-31-2018 06:54 PM

Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 512900)
I guess the GOP really is a train wreck.

It’s going to be close... http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...democrats.html


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:03 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com