U.S. Politics: John Boehner Discovers Teh Intrawebs

[Altherion]

Then there is the 'local reality' issue. Local level, big issues are schools, roads, and jobs. People want to send their kids to good schools, want to drive on roads without too many potholes, and they want jobs that pay fairly well. GOP ideology seems more and more opposed to education, dislikes spending money on infrastructure (roads), and is downright antagonistic to labor. It might take a while, but that will have an effect.

By the time it takes an effect, they will have pivoted to a different set of positions. The ideologies of the two parties are not constant even on the time scale of a couple of decades. If the demographics change, the ideologies will follow them to whatever they need to be to win around half the time.

[ThinkerX]

Related to my earlier posts:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oil-workers-in-us-on-first-large-scale-strike-since-1980/ar-AA8QdNb?ocid=msnclassic

(Bloomberg) -- The United Steelworkers union, which represents employees at more than 200 U.S. oil refineries, terminals, pipelines and chemical plants, began a strike at nine sites on Sunday, the biggest walkout called since 1980.

The USW started the work stoppage after failing to reach agreement on a labor contract that expired Sunday, saying in a statement that it “had no choice.” The union rejected five contract offers made by Royal Dutch Shell Plc on behalf of oil companies including Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. since negotiations began on Jan. 21.

The steelworkers’ union hasn’t called a strike nationally since 1980, when a stoppage lasted three months. A full walkout of USW workers would threaten to disrupt as much as 64 percent of U.S. fuel production. Shell and union representatives began negotiations amid the biggest collapse in U.S. oil prices since 2008.

“The problem is that oil companies are too greedy to make a positive change in the workplace,” USW International Vice President Tom Conway said in the statement. “They continue to value production and profit over health and safety, workers and the community.”

Probably most of those workers identify with the republican party. A fair number are probably of the 'Obama is a terrorist Islamic socialist' persuasion. The republican party is pro-corporate all the way. Yet, the workers on the field went against republican ideology anyhow.

I figure we can expect a lot more of this. Fed up people bypassing large sections of the political system.

[Shryke]

Related to my earlier posts:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/oil-workers-in-us-on-first-large-scale-strike-since-1980/ar-AA8QdNb?ocid=msnclassic

Probably most of those workers identify with the republican party. A fair number are probably of the 'Obama is a terrorist Islamic socialist' persuasion. The republican party is pro-corporate all the way. Yet, the workers on the field went against republican ideology anyhow.

I figure we can expect a lot more of this. Fed up people bypassing large sections of the political system.

Huh? They aren't bypassing large sections of the political system. They are just voting for the GOP (if they do) based on other factors.

I mean, what is basically the union/progressive split on the left was a big fucking deal and built mostly around social issues.

[ThinkerX]

Huh? They aren't bypassing large sections of the political system. They are just voting for the GOP (if they do) based on other factors.

I mean, what is basically the union/progressive split on the left was a big fucking deal and built mostly around social issues.

Allow me to rephrase that.

In this situation, the republican leadership is firmly behind the corporate leadership. Witness Reagan's union busting back during the 1980's.

These workers, despite large numbers of them normally voting republican, are opposed to this particular manifestation of republican ideology and are acting accordingly. They still identify as republicans, still watch Fox News, and still regard Obama as one step lower than dirt.

[Suttree]

Obama budget blueprint released.

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday released an aggressive $4 trillion budget blueprint for next year that proclaims victory in the long, difficult climb from recession and relies on large tax increases to fund efforts in education, infrastructure construction and work force development that he says have waited far too long.

The fiscal 2016 budget rests on two major presidential pushes that have virtually no chance in Congress: large tax increases on multinational corporations and the rich, and the passage of a comprehensive immigration law that would lift the economy with millions of new and newly legalized workers.

But buried in the budget are kernels of proposals that could take root with a Republican Congress. Both parties are eager to release the military from constraints imposed by automatic spending cuts, known as sequestration, approved in 2011. Both understand that the highway trust fund will once again reach empty in June, making its replenishment — and the revitalization of the nation’s crumbling infrastructure — priorities for the coming year.

Those two issues alone could force the White House and the Republican leadership to the negotiating table, with Mr. Obama’s new budget the starting point for negotiations in the coming months.

That large tax increase on multinational corporations would seem to be a no brainer. Guessing the GOP will predictably be screaming bloody murder though.

[DanteGabriel]

Hey, weren't some people trying to characterize anti-vaxxers as liberals? Looks like some prominent Republicans are at least anti-vaxx curious:

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Monday said that most vaccinations ought to be voluntary, a stance that goes beyond his old rival New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's ® view on parental choice in immunizations.

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham asked Paul whether vaccines should be mandatory after Christie's office tried to walk back the governor's remarks on allowing parents to have "some measure of choice" in vaccinating their children. Paul went a step further than his potential 2016 presidential opponent in his response.

"I'm not anti-vaccine at all, but particularly, most of them ought to be voluntary," Paul said. "What happens if you have somebody not want to take the smallpox vaccine and it ruins it for everybody else? I think there are times in which there can be some rules, but for the most part it ought to be voluntary."

...

As TPM previously reported, Paul was a member of a group of right-wing doctors called the Association Of American Physicians and Surgeons that promoted a number of debunked or conspiratorial medical theories. The AAPS opposes mandatory vaccines and has published at least one study that shows "alarming evidence" for a link between certain vaccines and autism.

Doug Stafford, a Paul adviser, told BuzzFeed on Monday that he didn't know if Paul was still a member of the group. He added that Paul does not endorse all the group’s views.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-vaccines-voluntary

[Sir Thursday]

Interesting to see that bi-partisan cooperation (and resistance) is still possible with the right policies. The Fast-Track vote on the TPP seems to have united the fringes against the middle:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/02/democrats_working_with_tea_party_against_obama_s_trade_deal_the_president.html

To try to block fast track and the TPP, liberal groups and labor unions are not organizing only among their own but are also reaching across the spectrum to conservatives skeptical of fast track and TPP...

Essentially, the left is saying to conservative Republicans: If you’re worried about executive overreach and global governance, then you really had better get upset about fast track and TPP...

This cross-ideological coloring makes the trade debate the most idiosyncratic and entertaining issue in the rut that is national politics today. But whether it will be enough to block fast track and TPP is another matter. The fact is there are a striking number of conservative Republicans who normally rail against Obama’s overreach and threats to national sovereignty but who are setting aside those concerns in this instance.

[Cuellar]

That large tax increase on multinational corporations would seem to be a no brainer. Guessing the GOP will predictably be screaming bloody murder though.

Suttree, the GOP probably won't have to do jack shit. The Lobbyists will be giving blowjobs and handjobs to all the Senators and Congressman, and like usually, this won't go anywhere.

[Paladin of Ice]

Hey, weren't some people trying to characterize anti-vaxxers as liberals? Looks like some prominent Republicans are at least anti-vaxx curious:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-vaccines-voluntary

Heck, in the middle of talking about how much good they do Rand Paul apparently felt the need to bring up that BS meme about vaccines causing mental disorders in children.

Yeah, you've "heard about it happening" Rand. And I've heard about dumbs conspiracy theories that state that NASA and all outer space travel is in fact a front to create a new age religion that will have the antichrist at its head, it doesn't mean I repeat obvious bullshit like that to the national media for a credulous audience that will believe I'm supposed to be an expert on the matter. :rolleyes:

On Monday, Sen. Rand Paul said that he'd heard of "many tragic cases of walking, talking normal children who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines" — a concern that has not been substantiated despite years and years of scientific research into the topic.

Throughout his comments during an interview on CNBC, Paul maintained, "I'm not arguing vaccines are a bad idea. I think they're a good thing." He called them "one of the biggest medical breakthroughs we've had," and added, "I think public awareness of how good vaccines are for kids and how they are good for public health is a great idea."

Yet his nod to the all-too-common — and unsubstantiated — belief that vaccines can cause mental problems in children seems to undercut that certainty.

This belief doesn't divide neatly along political lines, as I wrote earlier today. Indeed, on Twitter, several conservatives strongly disagreed with Paul's remarks — as many did with Gov. Chris Christie for vaccine-related comments earlier Monday.

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

Let's move the vaccination talk to a new thread, folks.

Thanks.

[/mod hat]

[YoungGriff89]

Hey, weren't some people trying to characterize anti-vaxxers as liberals? Looks like some prominent Republicans are at least anti-vaxx curious:

The same way I haven't met any liberals who look down upon skilled workers and act like they're better than them (you know, "go to college son so you won't have to be a garbageman or a guy working on the road") I have not met any liberals who are anti-vaccine. Liberals seem to be the only people who take public health issues seriously. I do however know plenty of Tea Party, small government types who vilify vaccines because it's something Obama might in some way, shape, or form support.

[Wise Fool]

Suttree, the GOP probably won't have to do jack shit. The Lobbyists will be giving blowjobs and handjobs to all the Senators and Congressman, and like usually, this won't go anywhere.

At least they'll all get what's coming to them.

[The Mance]

I have not met any liberals who are anti-vaccine. Liberals seem to be the only people who take public health issues seriously.

I have, unfortunately. Seems there is a substantial subset of organic-only, homeopath using, anti-gmo, all-natural all the time, liberals who are suspicious of vaccines because they are a product of Big Pharma/western medicine(!!!). No idea about the numbers, but the same ignorant, knee-jerk, mistrust pops up on both sides of the aisle.

[awesome possum]

This Republican believes in freedom. Freedom from tyranny and oppression, such as the tyranny and oppression of restaurant workers being forced by their evil bosses to wash their hands before handling food.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said Monday that he’s okay with the idea of service industry workers returning to work without washing their hands after touching their unmentionables, as long as customers are made aware of the situation.

Tillis made the declaration at to the Bipartisan Policy Center, at the end of a question and answer with the audience. He was relaying a 2010 anecdote about his “bias when it comes to regulatory reform.”

“I was having a discussion with someone, and we were at a Starbucks in my district, and we were talking about certain regulations where I felt like ‘maybe you should allow businesses to opt out,’” he said, “as long as they indicate through proper disclosure, through advertising, through employment literature, or whatever else.”

Tillis was, at the time, the minority whip of the North Carolina House of Representatives.

“She said, ‘I can’t believe that,’” he continued in retelling the story. “And at that time we were sitting back at a table that was near the restrooms and one of the employees just came out. She said: ‘For example, don’t you believe that this regulation that requires this gentleman to wash his hands before he serves your food is important and should be on the books?’”

“I said: ‘As a matter of fact, I think it’s one that I can [use to] illustrate the point,’” he remarked. “I said: ‘I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as they post a sign that says “We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restroom,”’” he recalled, as the audience chuckled. “The market will take care of that.’”

“That’s the sort of mentality that we need to have to reduce the regulatory burden on this country,” he added. “We’re one of the most regulated nations in the history of the planet.”

Maybe the US is one of the most regulated nations in the history of the planet but saying that the Burger King worker who makes your Whopper shouldn't be forced to wash his hands if he's sick or just took a dump is probably about the stupidest example one could make.

[Commodore]

Maybe the US is one of the most regulated nations in the history of the planet but saying that the Burger King worker who makes your Whopper shouldn't be forced to wash his hands if he's sick or just took a dump is probably about the stupidest example one could make.

The left always plays these games, that which is good shall be mandatory. If you question the compulsion, you are accused of being against the behavior itself.

Imagine a dystopian future where the hand washing rule did not exist. Do you think Burger King would abandon its "employees must wash hands" policy? What would their customers do if they did?

[awesome possum]

The left always plays these games, that which is good shall be mandatory. If you question the compulsion, you are accused of being against the behavior itself.

Imagine a dystopian future where the hand washing rule did not exist. Do you think Burger King would abandon its "employees must wash hands" policy? What would their customers do if they did?

Ahh yes, the right always plays these games. That which is said no matter how stupid or illogical or just plain awful, shall be defended blindly and continuously, if it is said by a fellow right winger.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

The left always plays these games, that which is good shall be mandatory. If you question the compulsion, you are accused of being against the behavior itself.

Imagine a dystopian future where the hand washing rule did not exist. Do you think Burger King would abandon its "employees must wash hands" policy? What would their customers do if they did?

Wait a second, just a few minutes ago in the vaccination thread, didn't you make the supposedly-libertarian case for mandatory vaccination by arguing:

(2) we are talking about contagion. Contagion is violence, and we don't allow people to exact violence on others.

How can mandatory vaccinations be justified under the idea that "contagion is violence" but mandatory hand-washing to prevent the spread of disease transmission not be justified under the same "contagion is violence" rationale?

[Inigima]

Imagine a dystopian future where the hand washing rule did not exist. Do you think Burger King would abandon its "employees must wash hands" policy? What would their customers do if they did?

I don't... because it's been regulated long enough that it's now the norm. I'm less confident that they'd institute the rule if the regulation had never existed. And this guy is still suggesting that the business be forced to post a sign saying they don't.

I also think there's a liability issue. Burger King has a greater incentive to force their employees to wash up, because if they don't mandate it they're fucked. If it's just corporate policy and they get lackadaisical about it, whoops! Too bad. As it is, roughly 50% of norovirus outbreaks are caused by foodservice workers.

And lastly, what great aim is served by not requiring it? Who wins? What benefit is achieved by allowing idiots to make people sick if they feel like it?

[The Iceman of the North]

And lastly, what great aim is served by not requiring it? Who wins? What benefit is achieved by allowing idiots to make people sick if they feel like it?

A natural culling of the lower classes?

[Commodore]

How can mandatory vaccinations be justified under the idea that "contagion is violence" but mandatory hand-washing to prevent the spread of disease transmission not be justified under the same "contagion is violence" rationale?

For the same reason we don't have laws mandating everyone cover their mouth when they cough?