Here we go again.Plot twist! Kamala Harris isn't a real American either!
Trump weighs in after campaign adviser floats false birther theory about Harris' eligibility to be vice president
The dean of Berkeley Law School, a constitutional law expert, called the notion that Harris is ineligible "a truly silly argument."www.cbsnews.com
Joe Biden announces Kamala Harris as running mate.
- Thread starter Worgen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
- Status
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,802
- 3,383
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
How creative.Plot twist! Kamala Harris isn't a real American either!
Trump weighs in after campaign adviser floats false birther theory about Harris' eligibility to be vice president
The dean of Berkeley Law School, a constitutional law expert, called the notion that Harris is ineligible "a truly silly argument."
Translation: one idiot who is a known right-wing grifter and attention ho published an op-ed in Newsweek, and it got tweeted about by another idiot right-wing grifter. This, for some reason got attention in CBS News, that reason being absolutely unrelated I'm sure to an effort to preemptively astroturf, discredit, and disregard criticisms of Harris by association, much as criticism of Obama for eight years was disregarded as right-wing conspiracy theory.
It's as much bullshit as the "no, Kamala's really the most liberal Senator because we deliberately misinterpreted and misframed a study done by political hacks, which measured partisanship not real position on left-right axes!" article storm from yesterday.
I don't think the policy of importing migrants to lower wages and crush unions was popular with the unions...or workers...
Not even Native Americans? Then again, I've heard those sometimes get told to go back to their own country, so maybe you're right.
The latter assumes that the GOP will leave a nation that allows free and fair (ish) elections. Might have lost 2020 when they lost 2016.
Also, people said that Clinton losing 2016 would force the Dems to change, we all know how well that worked.
True, but that implies they consider getting things done to be a high priority.
You know what, I'm fine with that. Being an American citizen by birth is a requirement to be eligible, so demanding proof of such is not unreasonable. We should demand Biden, Trump, and Pence to provide such evidence as well. It's not like the proof should be difficult for any of them to provide.Plot twist! Kamala Harris isn't a real American either!
Trump weighs in after campaign adviser floats false birther theory about Harris' eligibility to be vice president
The dean of Berkeley Law School, a constitutional law expert, called the notion that Harris is ineligible "a truly silly argument."
I have no doubt whatsoever that I will be able to vote and my vote will be counted. I won't be "purged" from the rolls, as my entry on the rolls was updated with my current address when I moved and I don't skip multiple elections in a row (I don't skip any, haven't since I was 18), so removing me would be a NVRA violation, and I know this and would gladly sue over it if they tried. My polling place is 11 blocks from my home, and I intend to stop there on my way home from work (putting me at the polling place at ~5PM), wearing my mask with N99 filter in place. We use voting machines that produce a printed paper ballot that gets processed by a second scanner machine, leaving a paper trail.
You know who actually sets wages? Employers. If wages have been depressed, blame the people who have decision-making power over them, and who choose to depress wages even when it's not necessary to do so. Do not blame people who have no power over how much other people are paid.
Unions, meanwhile, have been consistently and intentionally undermined by government policy.
This is misdirection and scapegoating to let the ones with actual power over these areas of policy off the hook.
You think it not newsworthy that a a campaign advisor for the President is peddling racist conspiracy theory? That news outlets should ignore high-level racism like this in case some mook conflates it with unrelated criticism?
I blamed the lefties pushing for more work migrants, by extension the government officials that think it's the correct path. A bunch of elitists that think they ought to run the country instead of the people who live there.
Have you ever had the pleasure of being an employer? There isn't a graph for you to find the right pay for the job, unless it's a position within government orgs. The economy dictates the correct pay, while you bargain with your employees. The economy isn't a person or institution, but a collection of events and numbers you can follow. One of the things you can follow is that when there is ample labor, you're able to depreciate the labor costs - because if the employees are dissatisfied, you can tell them to fuck off and then find new employees. It's cheaper to have a higher turnover for workers than having high wages for long-lasting workers.
What's the longest you held down a job? Unions fight for job security, work conditions and better pay. Unions are often there for low-skilled jobs because it's easier to find replacements. Policemen, Coal-miners, teachers - how much is a bachelors degree worth nowadays anyway? You pump the market with many applicants, and employers can replace departments wholesale. Even the government of the UK does it, for example with the NHS, it encourages foreign medical workers to move to the UK instead of investing into the education of their citizens.
Is it newsworthy that Corbyn's close advisors were antisemites?
And yet the only candidates who actually do have this demanded of them are people of color...
You appear to be defending the actions of employers depreciating wages, while simultaneously blaming migrants for depreciating wages.
Employers don't have to depreciate wages if there's ample labour. They choose to, in order to maximise profit. The migrants have not forced them into it; the employer's decision to place profit over the living standards of their own workforce is their own damn fault.
Yes, I'm aware of what the role of a Union is, thank you. Their power has been consistently undermined by government policy (I.E., restricting their ability to strike, or restricting union dues). The presence of migrants in a job pool hasn't cost them power at all: intentional government policy has.
Since this is a complete non-sequitur, I'm not actually sure if you're talking to me anymore.
Have you ever started a business? Middle management, etc.? You pay the absolute bare minimum to get your employees. If you notice the job applicant doesn't understand the value of his own work, you can easily underpay them. It's not the fault of the employer, but the employee, for agreeing to the contract.
*what is stopping employers from lowering wages in your opinion?
Last edited:
Firstly, middle managers do not generally set wages. Secondly, plucky little startups with limited cashflow do not provide the bulk of employment in the UK: that would be enormous companies with more than enough money to pay their employees substantially better.
Paying employees the "bare minimum" is a scummy and unnecessary business practice, and you cannot complain about wage depreciation while defending it.
Wages are, in theory, the result of a negotiation between employer and employee, in which both have leverage. Except both do not have equal leverage: the employer has an immense amount more power, as well as the deciding vote. The employer has more than enough money, and can decide to do whatever they want; the employee, on the other hand, often has little choice but to accept whatever terms are on offer, because they desperately need the money to be able to pay the bills and keep the lights on.
In blaming the employee, you're blaming the one who has the least power in the negotiation. In absolving the employer, you're absolving the person who had almost all the power in the negotiation, and the one who actually made the decision.
Employers can take responsibility for their own damn decisions. They're the ones setting the wages, and 9 times out of 10 it's not out of necessity, but sheer profit. They can take goddamn responsibility for their own choices.
The minimum wage, and collective bargaining (via unionisation). Both of which have been relentlessly undermined by the Conservatives.
...no? It's basically an everyday occurrence of which everyone in the whole-ass country is aware and, frankly, doesn't give a shit about. It's confirmation bias and click-harvesting fodder. I'm more interested in...oh, say...the Trump administration announcing an end to methane emissions regulation that happened the same day but apparently got less reporting in mainstream news. This is the same bullshit that happens like clockwork for three and a half years, ever since "covfefe" -- the media reports stupid bullshit about Trump that makes the Trump-deranged tune in for their two minutes' hate, but lets actual toxic and harmful policy go completely unnoticed.
This is stupid rodeo clown bullshit and it's only getting oxygen because it can be subverted and exploited to shield Harris from criticism. That's it.
I thought small businesses (under 10 employees) were the bulk of UK employment. If you have sauce, please share. I should correct myself with middle managers, often it's project managers that have a say in their manpower and hiring (they have a budget for hiring). Scummy or not, whatever you think, there's no reason to pay someone more money for their work than its worth. I don't understand the fixation on power in the dynamic between the two. The leverage of the employee is his own worth, and the scarcity of labor in the market - which makes flooding it with low-skill migrants hard to find work. Lower working pool = higher wages. Union leverage = higher wages. You wouldn't answer, I suppose you don't want to dox yourself and I understand. Lets say you want to renovate your kitchen and you had to choose who to hire to do the job. Who would you pick? How much would you pay them? Would you pay them more than what they are asking? Would you try to haggle with them and bring the price down? You can also be an employer - you often are, without realizing it, yet you still don't allow them the humanity that they deserve.
You know a surefire way to make absolutely certain people don't give a shit about high-level racism? Ignoring it when it happens.
Oh yes, nothing toxic or harmful to American society about the ruling party spreading racist conspiracy theories, no-sir.
Sure, here ya go. Businesses with >10 employees account for about 15% of private-sector employment. Companies with <250 employees account for about 40%.
The point is that workers are not paid the value of their work, or even anywhere close to it. Executives rake in hundreds of thousands to millions, while those who actually generate the value-- producers, manual labourers, craftsmen-- make a pittance in comparison.
The power dynamic between the two is at the very centre of the dispute. I am saying responsibility rests with the one who actually makes the decision, and who has the most power and room to move. The state of the labour market does not force the employer to depreciate wages. They make that decision themselves-- for unnecessary reasons-- if the labour market will get away with it.
The solution is not to starve the labour market of labour by putting in controls on migration. That would not fix the problem: the power imbalance still exists, the employer can still depreciate wages if they choose, and they will. The solution rests in empowering the worker, regardless of details such as their country of origin.
Highly-specialised workers such as renovators and specific workmen can usually ask quite a lot more for their work than factory workers, producers, farmers, etc. The reason is because they're usually self-employed or in joint ventures with one or two people-- they set their own rates, rather than having wages dictated by executives.
Racist conspiracy theories that have now been seen and will be taken seriously by how many more people now, than they would have denied the oxygen of publicity?
You seem to forget that the individuals you're up against thrive on the Streisand effect; what brought Pizzagate and QAnon into the popular lexicon, was it the mere existence of them and their circulation through the wingnut-o-sphere, or was it the mainstream "debunking" article drawing attention to them from social circles which otherwise never would have known of their existence? The right-wingnut nature of these things aside, bear in mind any conspiracy theory thrives in an atmosphere of inordinate attention drawn to them by the press, which is treated by conspiracy theorists as proof they're onto something.
- Status