ewsieg

Of course Cruz did it for political points. So they couldn't vote to extend it, because they had already voted not to extend it. Got it. Wonder why Democrats got this extended prior to the election when it's obvious that rail cargo workers simply can't have generous (aka any) sick leave. Wonder why they just didn't deal with it then, since it was obviously what they should do. Things that make you go hmmm.

A strike would have definitely hurt the economy. No doubt about it. But again, in the end, Union railway workers have zero paid sick time and all the money they sent in to elect democrats resulted in nothing to show for it. But hey, maybe next time right? I'm not going to play the 'If Trump/GOP were in power' game, but I do wonder if this would have gotten more coverage in the press and if that coverage would point out the fact that railroads are generating record profit right now. Things that make you go hmmm.

Yeah, my bad. I hadn't seen the exact numbers and didn't catch which ones you were talking about. So congress could have voted to extend the deadline. Or they could have allowed the unions to strike. There was one sticking point, the employees wanted paid sick days. I know, absolutely unheard of if you're a union employee. That type of benefit has only existed in the white collar world traditionally (/sarcasm). So what did the dems do, they split up the 'ask'. 1) vote on if the union has to agree to terms without sick days (overwhelmingly passed by both sides) 2) vote to see if we should add paid sick days (didn't get the 60 votes needed). So the Dems get to claim they tried, while knowingly giving the railroads a win. There are many different scenarios a union friendly congress/executive branch could have handled this which would have given the employees a better chance to get some paid sick days.

Editing as I realize you posted the sick leave numbers. But, they didn't need to have separated votes. They did so precisely so the left could claim a win, without actually delivering for unions. The actions from a democratic controlled congress and president means that the Unions are f'd while they get to tell their supporters that once again that you need to vote for them in order to support unions.

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/12/01/ted-cruz-john-cornyn-bernie-sanders-railroad-union/ Even Ted Cruz voted in support with Unions. This is a big reason why Democrats have been losing blue collar support.

I think you could argue is that you're describing another symptom to the politics argument. There were legitimate concerns against a full lockdown, such as the economy, education, and even other health issues as mentioned above. I absolutely remember many on the right arguing that by not exposing ourselves to each other and by proxy germs/viruses, that would cause other health care issues down the road. There was no debate by either side to come to any agreement, which only hardened folks to go all in on their side. If you wanted kids back in school, you obviously wanted to kill teachers which isn't surprising because the Right already hates teachers/unions. If you wanted to error on the side of caution and stay locked down longer, of course you do, you want the government to take care of you already, what else should we expect from you. You were labeled based on what the other side expected you to be based on that opinion because that helps reinforce your own believes. As such, legitimate issues were never negotiated to a point that for most of our citizens, if they didn't agree with the outcome, they at least understood it.

Who do you folks follow that you're constantly seeing MTG on Twitter. I see her trending occasionally, I stay away from that.

I feel like a GQP'er monitoring a precinct. I see stuff happening, but I don't understand it. I understood why the goal that was waved off was offsides, but surprised that the first goal wasn't questioned. From the gif's I see on it, it looks blatantly offsides (at least from the angle I saw). I never realized that you would voluntarily play a man down. I get wanting to keep your best player in, but is it that much of a drop off that playing the 12th best player in your country that you'd prefer to play short handed? That seemed insane to me.

You guys seem to forget that Ukraine is already conquered if the US didn't get involved. We absolutely were a vital role in determining that this war did not end quickly. We are still a vital role going forward. You seem to equate everything I say to appeasement or chalk it up as there is simply nothing we can do. Like we are complete bystanders. I have no problems putting more pressure on Russia, heck, why stop at Russia. Put India in the spotlight for how they are getting around sanctions with Russia. Feel free to go after everyone with all tools possible to put as much pressure on Russia as possible.

Again, what is victory? If they retake all of their land (including Crimea) by force, they'll still have a neighbor that has stated they should not exist, right? So what if they push into Russia and Russia waves the white flag. What if Russia agrees never to invade Ukraine again? They've made agreements before, how can you trust them?

All I've been calling for is a push to get to a negotiation table to see if either side is there. Anytime I've mention that, i'm reminded that it's akin to appeasement and didn't I learn anything from Hitler. Add in the fact that there are legitimate reasons why some would have a vested interest in a long term proxy war and it makes me worry that we may miss out on an opportunity to see Russia leave all land (except Crimea, that is noted) and help ensure Ukraine sovereignty without more bloodshed. At this time, I don't see Russia stopping now, which I wholeheartedly agree that means Ukraine won't nor should stop now either. This war will grind to a halt in terms of the battle lines and Russia is going to spend the Winter bombing. Likely we didn't miss a chance recently as Ukraine's offensive again showed how weak this Russian army is, but I wish it would have been entertained, at least a little bit more openly. Russia will regroup and I suspect this Winter's bombings will take a toll on many Ukrainians, but if Ukraine comes out strong again in the spring, that's when I hope an additional push towards peace is offered. If Russia tries to sell that it has regrouped and takes losses early, maybe that would be the finally push needed for the Kremlin to push back on Putin.

Bingo! Let's ignore Ukrainian losses while propping up Russian losses for propaganda. Really keep the population excited that while we truly do want Ukraine to win, ultimately no matter what losses they have, we will win. It'll help us in the long run, so keep fighting Ukraine. No mercy! Continue to fight until we get everything we want!!!! Everyone knows that the only way to achieve peace is you annihilate your enemy, peace can not come unless you get everything you want. Look what happened when we negotiated with Germany...... Hitler! Go back to our birth of our nation, we never stood a chance until we removed King George....oh wait, that didn't happen. I'm sure there is something to explain that because we all know the only way to get peace is to get everything you want plus more.

Wait, so let's say Russia used a negotiation to get to an off ramp on this war and got out of it nothing outside of let's say countries agreed to drop (some) sanctions once the full retreat was complete, you'd have no contested area's within what was considered Ukraine in 2021, which actually wasn't the case in 2021, you'd have full Ukraine sovereignty, you'd have the world knowing that Russia essentially just retreated with their tale between their legs, and you'd have Ukraine being able to build back their country that they fought for and Russia would know that Ukraine has the support of the world going forward. That's not enough? Instead the correct answer is what then? This war has to continue until Russia has a government change?

Absolutely, but the 'rah rah' attitude of some could also negate peace from coming sooner rather than later. It's important to remember the cost of continued fighting. On this site I advocated for Ukraine opening up talks with Russia months ago with the demand being that Russia withdraws to 2021 boundaries first and foremost. That mere idea of something like that was viewed as a huge win for Putin. I understand the idea of wanting to punish Putin for what he did. From the US perspective there are many pros we see in watching them falter as well. I just want to remind folks there are cons as well.

Hate to interrupt your pep rally, but winning comes with a cost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War Also note the estimated hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians that were forced to relocate to Russia and are never coming back. This winter will slow this war down. There hopefully be attempts to revert back to 2021 borders at a negotiation table to avoid more bloodshed.

Can't remember which podcast I was listening to last week but they were talking about Pelosi and her background. Family was a political family in Baltimore with mafia ties. As such, she was constantly looking for a way to help someone out so she could in turn get some help when she needed it. They pointed out an example with Ilhan Omar and Pelosi working to ensure she could wear her hijab. So when progressives were after Pelosi, Omar never pushed like others as Pelosi had her back. I've heard from several past, but recent GOP reps talk about McCarthy and they seem him as nothing but a power hungry rep that has no conviction and they have no respect for. If true, it'll make Pelosi's straddling the edge over the last two years look like a cake walk.

I think the hope is that behind closed doors, enough House republicans tell McCarthy that they won't vote with him to do this and he needs to just pretend he never said this and move on. I suspect that McCarthy is going to have 2 years of complete hell in trying to walk a tightrope from long standing GOP folks that are done with Trump and those of the MTG ilk that are positioning themselves for a role in a party still carried by Trump.

Did you not watch Tru Blood. There definitely were some cool vampires. This dude is speaking the truth!

Outside of the fact that the Taliban already had violated the agreement which would allow him other possibilities. Correct, I mean outside of the advice of his military that wanted him to stay and roughly 30-40% of Afghani's that did not want to be subject to Taliban rule (of which many helped fight against). Ahh, ok, you've talked yourself into a way where you realize you can't blame it all on Trump, but your head would explode at the thought that Biden had any role in it, so it's the fault of intelligence and the military which didn't want to leave because of such concerns. Got it.

It was a joke, figured you'd see through that. I should have known better as we actually agree on what our policies currently are in Ukraine but me just stating my reservations is enough for you to believe I'm truly despicable. Yes, because when weighing the cost of staying there and waiting for possibly decades more before we could possibly build them to that point to the benefit we'd get out of it, we chose to get out. And since facts are important to you, Biden had just as much say in the final call that was made to remove troops as Trump did. Was this Trump's deal, yes, absolutely. But it was a deal that US already felt the Taliban was breaking by supporting terrorists before Biden pulled the trigger. Looks like our intelligence happened to be right about it when we killed al-Zawihri. Biden had no obligation to stick to it, but he chose to.

You're right that holding Afghanistan was a much harder task, but it was supportable... at a cost. It almost sounds like you're saying that the benefit didn't outweigh the cost in Afghanistan, but that it does in Ukraine because the circumstances are different. Facts such as Ukraine had already established a democracy, shaky as it might be, a democracy nonetheless and that it had trained soldiers in it's army differentiate it immensely from Afghanistan. Note - the original response I wanted to give to this was to pull up a video of someone being stoned to death in Afghanistan with a snarky comment.

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. You have changed my position. I would like to announce that I'm running for POTUS in 2024. My platform is simple, basic human rights need to be the priority. Self determination, collective security and the rule of law have been solid investments for civilization. As such, all focus should be there. Day 1, I'd end all entitlements. This would free up money to allow a 300% increase in defense spending, allowing us to be in more places at once, which would provide a solid investment for civilization. I have everyone's votes?

To follow up on what I said in my original post about agreeing with you on our stance in Ukraine now too, I hope our leaders will know when further support may be needed and move in that direction if it's deemed the best too. Arab Spring comes to mind. While we didn't arm it like we are doing with Ukraine, we had foreign policy that helped push countries to participate in it as it was for a just cause. I'd argue the direct benefits to the US would be far greater with a democratic middle east than whatever Russia could do to us, outside of mutual destruction. That backfired. It was absolutely a good cause, but it backfired. So just because something seems like the morally right thing to do, it doesn't mean that's how it's going to turn out. That said, many folks felt that if the US did take a bigger role in Arab Spring, we'd have a different turnout.

This is the problem. Merely pointing out that there is a cost to this war and pointing out some examples like the UN says could destabilize economies around the world, is offensive to you. (Note - take a look at what history at what happens to governments that can't feed their people). If you paid attention I have stated that I currently support what we are doing in Ukraine. Right now, the benefit outweighs the cost, in my mind. But I hope we have leaders that will continue to look for an offramp and be cognizant that the benefit may not always outweigh the cost. I don't remember you bitching when Biden pulled us out of Afghanistan. What's the difference? Oh, Ukrainians are white.... I got it.

He pointed out that it's a relatively small country that outside of the opportunity that presented itself of having a proxy war with Russia came this year, it had very little benefit to the US. Additionally he pointed out this has a bigger affect on the world. So... Ukraine, on the grand scheme of things is a small and corrupt country. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-corrupt-countries Corruption ranking is similar to Russia and Belarus https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=UA Ukraine GDP ~ 100 billion https://finance.yahoo.com/news/world-food-shortage-bad-to-worse-un-world-food-programme-102938562.html "Rising global food prices brought on by Russia's invasion of Ukraine and commodity shortages triggered by climate emergencies are threatening to “destabilize” economies around the world, a United Nations (U.N.) official warned." https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12092 "Sanctions that isolate Russia are a shock to the global economy, which was still struggling to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. The sanctions have likely contributed to disruptions in global supply chains, higher global commodity prices, and a slowdown in global economic growth." ******* And again, you can choose to ignore or stipulate what I feel I posted as facts. You can even choose to accept them and believe that despite the above concerns, the benefit of what we're doing in Ukraine is worth it. Please just don't pretend like this is a Win/win for every 'good guy' in the world and a 'lose/lose' for only the evil empire.