Post New

Back when I gave a shit - I could name EVERY Senator. Congressmen, etc who was walking in but now it's like 25% --- and oddly it's really nice to see some of the old face regardless of party.

Love the hockey team though I couldn't see my Larkin up there! And I know he was in the Oval maybe he was in a less visible place up there.


So far, it's fun.

I go from loving some of it.....

To just "WTF is going on here" moments .... :)

Heh. I’m traveling, so can’t watch it live, but I guess democrats won’t stand for US citizens because they’d rather have illegals here? Or something.

Glad these future campaign commercial moments are still coming.

I’m watching the Godfather 2 on Paramount channel.

If I have to watch a crime boss, I’d rather watch one that can act.

I’m watching the Godfather 2 on Paramount channel.

If I have to watch a crime boss, I’d rather watch one that can act.

Oh..you mean the wimpy shrimp so called tough guy Robert De Niro who was crying
during an interview with Katie Couric on Monday? LOL.

I started watching "Masters of the Sky" tonight. Seems good so far. Not quite as gripping as "Band of Brothers", IMO. But just as brutal in its way (e.g. seeing Forts plummeting from the sky in flames).

I have no interest in anything the Felon has to say. It will probably be a lie anyway. "Masters of the Sky" is based in actual history.

I have no interest in anything the Felon has to say.
***

Which is our right as citizens in a "democracy!" - we may indeed tune out our leaders when we please.

Did you do this in Trump's first term? During the 1/6 transition period? OR ---just the 2nd term when he got elected again?

Either way - that - is the historical timeline.

And nobody seems curious about why it happened.

Curious, that.

I watched the whole, record long, speech. Actually, pretty light on policy. Probably less whining than about 99% of his speeches. Two Medal of Honor presentations, and a medal for a Coastie.

There are some things that we all should be able to agree on. When he talked about passing the legislation to ban Congresspeople trading on insider information, I saw Elizabeth Warren applauding. But that was the only time. When he said the government's first priority should be protecting citizens, not illegals, almost all the Dems stayed seated. Couldn't believe it. We should all be able to agree on that. Just as we should all be able to agree that local authorities should cooperate in enforcing immigration laws. If there is some aspect of the law they don't like, change the law, don't ignore it.

On the tariffs, he said the silent part out loud. When he started that tariff program, a year ago, I said, on the Fool, that he was trying to turn the clock back to 1910, when much of the government's revenue was raised by tariffs, and there was no income tax.

Congressional action will not be necessary. It’s already time-tested and approved. And as time goes by, I believe the tariffs, paid for by foreign countries, will, like in the past, substantially replace the modern-day system of income tax, taking a great financial burden off the people that I love.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/25/us/politics/sta...

The "Trump Accounts" he is touting are a warmed over version of Obama's "MyRA". iirc, enrollment in the "MyRA" was low, and the costs high. Trump cancelled the MyRA program in 2017. Now, he reintroduces it, and calls it his own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyRA

Steve

Actually, pretty light on policy. Probably less whining than about 99% of his speeches.

Lots of having people in the gallery stand up/sit down, with a bunch of Republicans clapping like trained seals.

Yeah, not much policy.

Lots of lies, though.

Lots of having people in the gallery stand up/sit down, with a bunch of Republicans clapping like trained seals.

Did you watch the Dem rebuttal? They had to have "applause" signs out of camera view. The audience always started and stopped clapping together. The applause never tailed off, like it would if it wasn't stage managed.

Lots of lies, though.

Well, of course. Would not be a Trump speech, without the "alternate facts" that his first press secretary admitted to.

Steve

Actually, pretty light on policy.

There was another bit I liked: requiring AI data centers to generate their own power. That would be cheaper than subsidizing the existing utility companies to beef up their grid and generation capacity to meet the demand. Especially as I expect a lot of those data centers to be aborted, which would leave the utilities with a big investment in capacity that they no longer need. Used to be a day when a lot of factories generated their own power. The downside is the noise the neighbors would need to endure from gas turbines running 24/7. How loud is a turbine plant from a couple hundred yards away?

Steve

"The downside is the noise the neighbors would need to endure from gas turbines running 24/7. How loud is a turbine plant from a couple hundred yards away?"

I'm sure that is rhetorical question,but there are utube vids that interview close-by neighbors of data centers, in Georgia and Texas, if memory is correct. The DC's put out a perpetual noise that is loud enough to be a problem. One neighbor said they wore earplugs inside their home. The decibel level was measured, and it was a problem.

I would not trust anything coming out of the Trump admin as far as
forcing the DC's to generate their own power. 1 well placed
"contribution" to some Trump coins would surely end that requirement.

I did not watch 1 second of Trump and his sotu. Can't stand
listening to his perpetual victimhood,and can't stand people buying into his obvious bs.

For those who lack Steve's stamina, fortitude, masochism here is a transcript.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-transcript...

it was indeed very light on policy.

Sometimes - I wonder - if the other side took away --- capitulated----- on issues of pronouns and illegals --- and fought him hard on health insurance, schools, wages, jobs ---- how different things would be.

But I've concluded I'm the only one who thinks that.

Last night, America got precisely what it deserves.

And it's STILL too good for you people.

Lots of having people in the gallery stand up/sit down, with a bunch of Republicans clapping like trained seals.

SNIP
“According to reports, more than 70 Democrats chose not to attend the speech, but most did, and several times over the course of the evening, they made a choice. They sat. They scowled. They heckled. While Republicans rose time and again in applause, the left side of the chamber looked like a group of children being punished.

And Trump noticed.

He called them out — repeatedly — for refusing to show even the most basic bipartisan enthusiasm for moments that should have been beyond politics. But nothing cut deeper than one specific challenge he laid down for every lawmaker in that room.

"One of the great things about the State of the Union is how it gives Americans the chance to see clearly what their representatives really believe," Trump said. "So, tonight, I'm inviting every legislator to join with my administration in reaffirming a fundamental principle. If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens."

Republicans exploded. They stood, clapped, and whistled for a solid two minutes. It was the kind of raw, spontaneous reaction you can't manufacture.

Democrats didn't move.

Not a shuffle. Not a courtesy clap. Nothing.

Trump let their refusal to stand do the work for a moment.

Then he turned the knife.

"Isn't that a shame? You should be ashamed of yourself, not standing up," he said.

Oh, but he wasn’t done.

He kept going. "That is why I'm also asking you to end deadly sanctuary cities that protect the criminals and enact serious penalties for public officials who block the removal of criminal aliens, in many cases, drug lords, murderers, all over our country. They're blocking the removal of these people out of our country! And you should be ashamed of yourself."

Read More,
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/02/24/this-...

America was watching, they saw for themselves democrats are not on the side of American citizens.
I laughed out loud when President Trump got under the skin of Omar and Tlaib.
They were angry and shouting at him.

For those who lack Steve's stamina, fortitude, masochism here is a transcript.

LOL As I have said before, Trump is much like the honchos I worked for over the years. I am used to needing to pay lip service to their delusional nonsense, for years at a time.

Steve

The first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens."

"That is why I'm also asking you to end deadly sanctuary cities

Like I said, there are things we should be able to agree on. I have no problem saying that, on these points, I can agree with LM, and the author of this article.

Steve

The DC's put out a perpetual noise that is loud enough to be a problem.

Even without an on-site gas turbine power plant, I'm sure there is a lot of noise from the cooling system needed to dissipate the heat generated by the electronics.

I would not trust anything coming out of the Trump admin as far as
forcing the DC's to generate their own power. 1 well placed
"contribution" to some Trump coins would surely end that requirement.

Lessee who the "contributors" could be:

A number of utility companies, who would sell a lot more power, but also would need to invest in central power plants, and a much stronger grid, to deliver the power.

A number of data center companies, who don't want the extra expense of building their own power plants.

GE Venova, which, under Trump's decree, would sell flox of on-site plants to the data center operators, instead of a few, much larger, central power plants to utility companies.

Ding, ding, ding: the "contributor" is GEV. GEV shares have more than tripled over the past year. I'm pretty sure GEV's bean counters have figured out that mass producing small, data center sized plants, will deliver more profits, faster, than a few large, central, plants.

Steve

According to reports, more than 70 Democrats chose not to attend the speech, but most did, and several times over the course of the evening, they made a choice. They sat. They scowled. They heckled.

Hell yes!

This president has made a mockery of his office and deserves nothing less than full throated contempt.

Steve203: Like I said, there are things we should be able to agree on. I have no problem saying that, on these points, I can agree with LM, and the author of this article.

Well, sure... but you'd be wrong.

Sanctuary cities often improve public safety. Without fear of deportation, immigrants are more likely to report abuses, crimes, and cooperate with investigations.

Counties with sanctuary policies have, on average, fewer crimes committed compared to non-sanctuary counties.

Median household annual income is, on average, higher in sanctuary counties compared to non-sanctuary counties. The poverty rate is lower. The unemployment rate is lower.

Protecting immigrant neighbors is economically advantageous.

And then there's the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment thingy.


https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-effec...

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sh...

https://freedomandcitizenship.columbia.edu/living-...

Protecting immigrant neighbors is economically advantageous.

Then change the law. Don't ignore it. If there is no consensus to change the law, then democracy has spoken, and comply with the law as it is.

Steve

Then change the law. Don't ignore it.

Yes, which is what sanctuary cities are doing. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the federal government cannot require state or local governments to enforce federal regulatory programs.

Pete

Then change the law. Don't ignore it. If there is no consensus to change the law, then democracy has spoken, and comply with the law as it is.

Democracy speaks in many ways. It speaks in setting the laws that are on the books. But it also speaks in how those laws are enforced.

Consider marijuana. Possession and sale of marijuana is a crime. A rather serious federal crime. Legally, it's no different htan dealing heroin. Yet the federal government simply doesn't enforce that, for the most part. Not because the law has been changed, but because voters have elected legislators and Presidents who do not allocate any priority to prosecuting people for possession and sale of marijuana. Both Democrats and Republicans. There's literally thousands and thousands of people who are blatantly violating federal drug laws - advertising their services - and making millions of dollars doing it, but President Trump and AG Bondi (like President Biden and AG Garland before them) are doing nothing about it. Even though those would literally be the easiest drug felony convictions anyone could ever get.

Law involves both the substantive statutes on the books and the processes and procedures by which it is enforced. Laws aren't enforced mechanically. Their implementation is shaped by the choices of governors, mayors, police commissioners, prosecutors, and attorneys general. Which is why so many (most?) of those people are elected at the state level - a recognition that the people also need to speak democratically to the folks who shape the application of the law, not just its content.

The criminal justice system is more than just the penal code - it's also the manifold choices of all the folks involved in how that penal code is implemented, and it's supposed to be that way.

Did any Dem stand up shout "YOU LIE!" like that Repug ahole did to Obama?

Well, they would have been absolutely correct if they had because, as always, Trump lied his ass off.

but President Trump and AG Bondi (like President Biden and AG Garland before them) are doing nothing about it. Even though those would literally be the easiest drug felony convictions anyone could ever get.

So, there is a consensus. Great. That is what we need wrt immigration.

We need to reach a consensus between the extremes of turning a blind eye, and attacking every brown person on the street.

Steve

We need to reach a consensus between the extremes of turning a blind eye, and attacking every brown person on the street.

Easier said than done, because there is a vast range of policies between those two extremes. Obama was the "deporter in chief," and was roundly criticized by Republicans for not doing enough; Trump's Administration isn't "attacking every brown person on the street," and is roundly criticized by Democrats for his draconian enforcement.

However much we might "need" to reach a consensus, it may simply be that there is no position that the various stakeholders can mutually agree to.

However much we might "need" to reach a consensus, it may simply be that there is no position that the various stakeholders can mutually agree to.

Both sides have become hardened in their position, instead of seeking a compromise. Trump is reaping the crop Fox Noise and luminaries like Tom Tancredo nurtured for years, which is based on racism. Bush 43 proposed a "guest worker" program, which treated the guest workers more like indentured servants. It was quickly shot down, probably because it still allowed brown people into the country.

Trump seems to have expanded beyond racism, to toxic xenophobia, with policies like the proposal I posted about to debank everyone who is not a citizen.

Steve

Did you do this in Trump's first term? During the 1/6 transition period? OR ---just the 2nd term when he got elected again?

Within a year of his first term. I already knew that we had elected a corrupt, unthinking, unintelligent POTUS. Hearing him ramble on with his lies and nonsense was just making me angry, so I tuned him out. My newsfeed filters almost everything he says ("not interested" is a nice feature of the Android newsfeed). The ignoring has carried on into his second term.

And nobody seems curious about why it happened.

I wouldn't say that. I think people are coming to incomplete or inaccurate conclusions. It's multi-faceted. There's not just one reason. It wasn't just "pronouns". It wasn't just "Comey violated FBI rules and announced an investigation". It wasn't just the Felon tapping into a base that people didn't realize was there (e.g. closeted racists). It wasn't just that blue collar workers didn't think the Dems represented them anymore. Etc. It was all of that, and more.

America was watching, they saw for themselves democrats are not on the side of American citizens.

The only significant bill Trump wanted passed by Republicans in Congress this year was the Big Beautiful Bill, which maintained low tax rates for billionaires and removed healthcare subsidies for middle and low income families (causing tens of millions of Americans to lose their healthcare).

Based on election results across America this year, I think American citizens are crystal clear about who is on their side.

Actions speak louder than words (or clapping).

It wasn't just the Felon tapping into a base that people didn't realize was there (e.g. closeted racists)

And people wonder why dialogue isn’t possible anymore.

"That is why I'm also asking you to end deadly sanctuary cities that protect the criminals and enact serious penalties for public officials who block the removal of criminal aliens

The only criminals seen were those on the podium. There is a MAGA gallows for them.

>>It wasn't just the Felon tapping into a base that people didn't realize was there (e.g. closeted racists)<<

And people wonder why dialogue isn’t possible anymore.

As noted before, I used to watch Hannity and O'Reilly, when I had cable, because I wanted to know what was being said at that end of the spectrum. Additionally, I had a coworker who had Hannity's radio program, playing on his work computer, apparently on auto-repeat, all day, every day. I have posted before, the clip of O'Reilly talking with John McCain, and ranting about the New York Times and the libs conspiring to overthrow the "white, male, power structure" of the US.

Yes, their screeds are racist. Hannity has some 3M viewers of his Fox Noise program, and about 20M listeners to his radio program.

Pat Buchanan reached out to that racist base in the 90s, with his "death of the west" screeds. I remember him raving at a convention about all the sorts of people "we don't want here". Fox Noise nurtured that base for years. Trump the God engaged with the birthers to verify, for himself, the depth of racism in the US. Then God and Savior Trump launched a blatantly racist campaign.

Steve

And people wonder why dialogue isn’t possible anymore.

I don't wonder. Most Reps can't admit reality that isn't consistent with their ideology. Like racism. You think the KKK is Democrat? Prior to 1964, they probably were. But since 1964, mostly no. That's reality (and the heart of the Southern Strategy used by Nixon, and to a lesser extent by Reagan when he started his campaign in MS).

That's reality (and the heart of the Southern Strategy used by Nixon, and to a lesser extent by Reagan when he started his campaign in MS).

This is the point at which Dope puts his fingers in his ears and says “Nya! Nya! Nya! Can’t hear you!”

And now France and Germany are SOILING themselves and making POLICY over "The death of the west" -- hopefully it's too late for them


As far as Nixon and Southern Strategy---- did Bill Clinton and Barack Obama go on the lecture circuit? OR --4 terms of Presidency between them?


Hint: They decided to run for President in America.... they actually understood it's a "democracy"!

I don't wonder. Most Reps can't admit reality that isn't consistent with their ideology. Like racism. You think the KKK is Democrat? Prior to 1964, they probably were. But since 1964, mostly no. That's reality (and the heart of the Southern Strategy used by Nixon, and to a lesser extent by Reagan when he started his campaign in

Amd yet, the most virulently racist people I know I’ve ever met are left wingers. They just can’t process when minorities don’t do what they’re told.

This is the point at which Dope

…normally would dropkick the left wing argument into the ocean but - why bother?

You people (you said steadfastly that ‘you people’ was racist once) just believe what you want to believe.

Really?

So, state and local governments don't have to follow OSHA regulations?

Good to know.

Albaby1
uses the kind of "logic" that
progressives use right up until
their mother, sister or daughter gets
raped and beheaded by an illegal alien.

Racism is a core tenet of progressive ideology.

uses the kind of "logic" that
progressives use right up until
their mother, sister or daughter gets
raped and beheaded by an illegal alien.

Will all who have had mothers, sisters or daughters raped and beheaded by illegal aliens, please step forward.

Thank you, null set.

Now, will all who have had mothers, sisters or daughters raped and beheaded by American citizens, please step forward.

….No sir, “raped and beheaded” is what the survey question specifies. “Raped alone” doesn’t count.

“Raped and sold to Jeffrey Epstein?” Nope. Sorry…. Has to be beheaded

Raped, hooked on heroin and killed by ex in a fit of jealous rage? Nope- sorry. Has to be beheaded….by an illegal alien

Now to be fair to marco, I am sure that some poor woman, somewhere in this country was raped and beheaded by an illegal alien.

Grok? What say you?

How many women were raped and beheaded in America by illegal aliens last year?

Grok:
Based on extensive searches across government reports, news articles, and official DHS/ICE statements from 2025, there are no documented cases of women in the United States who were both raped and beheaded by illegal immigrants during that year. While there were several high-profile incidents involving murders, rapes, or decapitations committed by undocumented individuals, none involved the specific combination of rape and beheading of a female victim.

Ok, Grok, let’s ask a control question: How many women were decapitated by their husbands or domestic partners last year?

There is no publicly available national statistic or report that tracks or aggregates the specific number of women decapitated (beheaded) by their husbands or domestic partners (intimate partners) in the United States in 2025 (or "last year" relative to February 2026). Decapitation is an extremely rare and specific method of homicide, even within the broader category of intimate partner homicides (IPH), and official sources do not break down IPH data by precise cause of death or mutilation method like this.
Key context on intimate partner homicides against women in the US:

Intimate partner violence remains a serious issue, with firearms involved in most cases (around 60-65% nationally in recent years).
Broader IPH figures show that men kill hundreds of women annually in the US via intimate partner violence. For example, analyses of FBI data (e.g., from the Violence Policy Center's reports on 2023 homicides) indicate around 2,400+ females killed by males in single-victim/single-offender incidents, with a majority of those where the relationship is known involving intimate partners (often wives, ex-wives, girlfriends, etc.).
However, the overwhelming majority of these killings involve guns, stabbing, beating/strangulation, or blunt force — not decapitation.

News reports occasionally document individual cases of extreme violence involving dismemberment or decapitation in domestic contexts, but these are isolated incidents (e.g., a few high-profile cases in recent years in states like Texas or South Dakota, though not all fit the exact "husband/partner decapitating wife" scenario in 2025). There is no evidence of a pattern or elevated number suggesting more than a very small handful (likely 0–2, at most) in any given year, including 2025. No comprehensive tally exists because:

The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) or Supplementary Homicide Reports, CDC's National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS), and similar sources categorize by relationship and broad weapon type (e.g., firearm, sharp instrument), but not by rare specifics like beheading.
Global or US femicide reports (e.g., from UN Women/UNODC) focus on totals (e.g., thousands of women killed by partners/family annually worldwide, with hundreds in the Americas), but again, no method-specific breakdowns for decapitation.

almost all the Dems stayed seated. Couldn't believe it. We should all be able to agree on that.

We do agree with it.

I might have agreed with Adolf Hitler on something too.

That doesn't mean I would applaud him at an event, implying for Lani Riefenstahl's propaganda films he's a good guy deserving of the office.

Net-net, Trump's a piece of shit undeserving of public accolades.

I'll applaud the announcement of his demise.

Then change the law. Don't ignore it. If there is no consensus to change the law, then democracy has spoken, and comply with the law as it is.

But that's exactly what sanctuary locales are doing - following the law.

There are federal laws regarding immigration. Those are for the Feds to enforce, not the states. Further, there is a court case (cited previously in the last few days) that says that state and local law enforcement cannot be compelled to enforce federal law.

There are state laws regarding the incarceration and release of those accused and/or convicted of crimes. Notably, once a sentence has been served or bond has been posted, the person MUST be released. Continuing to hold a person after a judge has ordered their release is NOT following the law.

Where these two collide is the Feds asking for notification of the pending release of certain people - typically an undocumented foreigner. States and cities are not required to respond to these requests. They are free to pick and choose which detainees they will acknowledge to the Feds and which they won't. You can be pretty certain that almost every locality will let the feds know when a felon of foreign nationality is going to be released. Yes, even sanctuary cities. Those are people almost everyone on the right and left agree should be deported. Where these requests are unlikely to be honored is when someone merely accused of a petty crime is released.

You've already heard the arguments pro and con. A sanctuary city would not notify the Feds of that release, as they believe their locality is better off without that Federal intervention. If the Feds want to put the time in to read the publicly available information, they can pick up the person on their own. But the locality isn't going to hang on to that person a minute longer than legally allowed just to make it easy on the Feds. That would be using the local resources to enforce federal law, which some localities have chosen not to do. And that is following the existing law with no changes necessary. Other localities will gladly hold those folks for the feds. It's their choice. And they are also following the law, because the law only says a locality can't be forced to enforce federal law. That leaves open the option to enforce it anyway.

--Peter

"Net-net, Trump's a piece of shit undeserving of public accolades."
-------------

I didn't watch 1 second of sotu, I'd be happy if I never heard Trump's voice again,ever. And I haven't kept up with the posts about the sotu. But I have a vividly clear memory of Blowbert and MTG acting like the biggest pair of spoiled-brat, entitled rich-kid
assholes during a Biden sotu. All of that was condoned by MAGA, cannot remember 1 bit of pushback against them for acting like pathetic POS nasty teenagers on the national stage.

So all non MAGA Americans are supposed to be taken aback by Dems not giving Trump applause at his sotu? Yeah, MAGA, stuff that hypocrisy where the sun don't shine.

So all non MAGA Americans are supposed to be taken aback by Dems not giving Trump applause at his sotu? Yeah, MAGA, stuff that hypocrisy where the sun don't shine.

That space is already crowded with MAGA politicians who have bent the knee at MaraLago

But that's exactly what sanctuary locales are doing - following the law.

If they were following the law, they would not need official statements/ordinances/laws declaring the area a "sanctuary city", unless it is entirely PR, to attract more illegals to the area, so the "JCs" can obtain more cheap, exploitable, labor.

Steve

almost all the Dems stayed seated. Couldn't believe it. We should all be able to agree on that.

I have to admit, I would not have been seated throughout the speech.

Then again, I wouldn’t have gone in the first place. Like you couldn’t tell exactly what he was going to say and do in his endless performance art anyway? I might have tried to do something more productive with my time, like take a nap, or feed the dog.

If they were following the law, they would not need official statements/ordinances/laws declaring the area a "sanctuary city"

It is the equivalent of Red states claiming they are "union free".

It is the equivalent of Red states claiming they are "union free".

There are laws behind most of the "right to work" states. The laws prohibit "closed shop" clauses and prohibit workers being required to pay dues, if they aren't in the union. I have seem some laws that purport to prohibit any third party, like a union, negotiating pay and working conditions on behalf of an individual employee.

Steve

Amd yet, the most virulently racist people I know I’ve ever met are left wingers

Have you been living in a quansit hut in the desert for 60 years? The most racist folks I ever met, at least in their speech and mannerisms were some Southerners. Speech patterns could erupt where nigger was every fifth word. Vile dark hatred and turning to me as if lecturing me that if I interfered with their racism I'd get my ass kicked. People who were great, would help you, be good friends but don't fuckin interfere with their racism. And it was true again 10 hears later when you poltitely tell them you aren't interested in racist jokes - they want to beat the crap out of ya. Ya can't be experienced if you don't know that, so this is just poor propaganda on your part. Race baiting.

The most racist folks I ever met, at least in their speech and mannerisms were some Southerners.

The most bigoted, on every topic, arrogant, self-entitled, person I ever knew was an employee of mine at RS. He was also a "born again Christian fundamentalist", when that was so fashionable, in the late 80s.

Steve

I have seem some laws that purport to prohibit any third party, like a union, negotiating pay and working conditions on behalf of an individual employee.

That eliminates management from offering benefits via third parties for employees. Insurance, for example, would be prohibited by an insurance company to employees because they ARE "negotiating pay AND working conditions" for each and every individual employee.

It would also violate the First Amendment (freedom of association) by all workers.

That eliminates management from offering benefits via third parties for employees.

It may have been the Texas statute that I read. It has been years, since I read it, but you can bet that the clause was crafted to take away all bargaining leverage from the employee, leaving the "JCs" will all the "cards".

It would also violate the First Amendment (freedom of association) by all workers.

As we all know, the "Bill of Rights" only constrains the Federal government. Some of those rights, have been extended to constrain state governments, by the judicial process of "incorporation".

In a private company, if you squawk, you get a lecture on "at will employment", meaning management does whatever it pleases to you, and your only option is to quit.

Steve

Amd yet, the most virulently racist people I know I’ve ever met are left wingers. They just can’t process when minorities don’t do what they’re told.

I've met very few racists, or at least none that were overt. One person I knew hid it very well, but let slip once that "mixed marriages shouldn't be allowed because of the children". She was hard-core Republican, and religious. She couched it in "think of the children", but it was straight-up racism.

We could anecdote all day, but it's better to look at statistics. They are somewhat difficult to come by, but KFF and some others do have some data (which I quoted in a reply in the other thread).

I like studies also.
Like this one:

https://insights.som.yale.edu/insights/white-liber...

I like studies also.
Like this one:

Or, to avoid "Will you speak English?", as a response from poor white folks.

Notice that the study is by liberals? It does you no good to alienate your audience, especially if she's cute. :)

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.