181–190 of 299 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Frankly, it's time to look into seeing how recall elections work in various states. "Our legally elected representative directly refuses to represent us" should be plenty of grounds.
The Constitution forbids states from recalling Congressional representatives.
My concern is that we will end up in a state of perpetual government "shutdown". The republicans, instead of reopening the entire government, will simply choose agencies to fund in order to keep the pain felt by the American people just low enough so they don't get fired (ala office space). Once that happens, Congress has basically iced itself out. Oversight from unfriendly government agencies? No worries, they're sh…
There is only limited legal ability to fund departments outside of an appropriations law. Republicans could pass one if they eliminated the filibuster, but that's a nuclear option they haven't leaned on yet. The executive branch is applying various tricks to keep some absolutely critical departments going but they can't just fund anything they like. At least, not according to the Constitution, which is very explicit…
Trump has already shown his willingness to flout that. If he does it again, who's going to stop him? Congress?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/24 Passed by Congress in January 2019 and signed by Trump. " Employees furloughed as a result of a lapse in appropriations shall be compensated for the period of the lapse on the earliest date possible after the lapse ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates. "
Note that the White House issued a memo contradicting GEFTA, and the OMB removed references to it. Federal workers are spooked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, if I heard you say that, I would probably think you had a "bad attitude" as well. Yes, getting paid is an important part of your job, but presumably you could get paid at many different places, and you choose the one you work at because it has additional benefits on top of a purely transactional relationship. It's like telling your girlfriend you're dating her because she's really hot. I'm sure that factored…
There are a few privileged folks that get to work a job for those other benefits. The majority take whatever they can get because they need to eat.
My concern is that we will end up in a state of perpetual government "shutdown". The republicans, instead of reopening the entire government, will simply choose agencies to fund in order to keep the pain felt by the American people just low enough so they don't get fired (ala office space). Once that happens, Congress has basically iced itself out. Oversight from unfriendly government agencies? No worries, they're sh…
I suspect this shutdown will last a while, but I don’t think Republicans will have enough votes to open anything without Democrat buy-in. R needs 20% of the Ds to vote for R bills to get anything budget-changing passed (except the 1 Reconciliation per year that only requires a simple majority). Short of Dems feeling some insane pressure (eg. Military threats or somehow defunding of core government tasks like police,…
> The nuclear option can be invoked by a senator raising a point of order that contravenes a standing rule. The presiding officer would then overrule the point of order based on Senate rules and precedents; this ruling would then be appealed and overturned by a simple majority vote (or a tie vote), establishing a new precedent. The nuclear option is made possible by the principle in Senate procedure that appeals from rulings of the chair on points of order relating to nondebatable questions are themselves nondebatable. The nuclear option is most often discussed in connection with the filibuster. Since cloture is a nondebatable question, an appeal in relation to cloture is decided without debate. This obviates the usual requirement for a two-thirds majority to invoke cloture on a resolution amending the Standing Rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that seems like a pretty major problem. It isn’t even clear really how negotiations should start, without any ability to make binding deals.
Impeachment. Negotiations should start with impeachment. The President is not faithfully executing the laws passed by Congress, and the Supplicating Council has decreed that the only remedy is impeachment. It's time to impeach and convict.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, if I heard you say that, I would probably think you had a "bad attitude" as well. Yes, getting paid is an important part of your job, but presumably you could get paid at many different places, and you choose the one you work at because it has additional benefits on top of a purely transactional relationship. It's like telling your girlfriend you're dating her because she's really hot. I'm sure that factored…
I didn't say it was the only reason to take a job, and I clarified that even at the time. It's perfectly fine to factor in other benefits to the job, (e.g. how much you like the work, how much you like your coworkers, etc.). I actually quit that BigCo and took a paycut to work at a different company because it was soul-draining. When I say "we all do this for the money", I'm saying that this is a necessary component…
My point is that if you go around and tell everyone at work that you're doing it because of the money, you're... not coming off particularly well? A statement like that comes off a bit odd and socially tone-deaf? And yes, I understand that it's true that you would quit your job if they stopped paying you, but things can be true and still not a great idea to say out loud. It can be an objective fact that my manager is ugly; it's not a good idea to say this during a meeting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, if I heard you say that, I would probably think you had a "bad attitude" as well. Yes, getting paid is an important part of your job, but presumably you could get paid at many different places, and you choose the one you work at because it has additional benefits on top of a purely transactional relationship. It's like telling your girlfriend you're dating her because she's really hot. I'm sure that factored…
Would you have have chosen to work at your job if you were never going to get paid?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got in trouble at a BigCo because I said "we all do this for the money", and they claimed that I had a "bad attitude". But I don't think I was wrong. Work is fundamentally a business transaction; I sell my time and expertise and they give me money and benefits. Ultimately for any job I've had, even jobs that I really loved, if they stopped paying me I'd stop showing up [1]. It's nothing personal, that's just the tr…
It's not just wrong, if a company is registered as "commercial" (as opposed to non-profit or public-benefit), then "for the money" is a legal obligation. Shareholders can literally sue the management if they don't pursue the obligation.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. It’s not remarkable.
Now cite even a single case where shareholders sued and won. In reality, the “obligation” you are referencing has basically only ever been relevant in situations where the board or management is taking bribes. I’m not aware of any cases where shareholders won because the company was too nice to customers, the environment, or whatever.
For whatever reason, “shareholders” live rent free in the heads of Internet commentators, but it’s hard to understate their actual influence.