Raptorpat

Also I bumped the Sinema talk to the 2024 thread because it's her election year and I'm tentatively pegging this as a purely electoral play. She's made no indication that she's leaving the conference as there's no benefit to immediately burning all those bridges, so her independent enrollment is more akin to Angus King or Bernie Sanders. (Though I expect her to be highly transactional if she is in a position to leverage her seat for partisan control, or maybe just seek to join the GOP conference if it wins a majority without her.)

This is 100% the answer. Her OG strategy was that she needed to be a John McCain maverick to win in a red state but Mark Kelly just proved that's not true, so now her backup strategy to remain in office is to outright hold the party hostage.

what a beauty

belated hoggle birthday

Kamala can now leave the Senate chamber and see sky again, but the Dems now have to worry about the Tester/Brown/Manchin trio of races in 2024 without even getting into the actual swing state races. There's a realistic possibility of the Democrats holding the White House, flipping the House, but losing the Senate. But any discussion on that is better fit for the 2024 thread.

Does anyone know whether the gov preserved the right to argue against standing? I don't actually know where that all ended up, but that's where they should focus to preempt an argument on the merits.

because California though to be fair, Boebert in Colorado hasn't been 100% called by every major outlet (even though her opponent conceded weeks ago)

But that doesn't change the fact that there are lawful strikes where workers' rights are protected by the law, and unlawful strikes where they're not. And sometimes laws are passed or unions bargain away their right to strike and there is a separate dispute resolution process that supplants any prior right to strike.

lol

It would be an illegal strike, 75% the national guard would do the job in the interim.

the answer appears to be "activist investors" milking everything dry https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/11/rail-strike-why-the-railroads-wont-give-in-on-paid-leave-psr-precision-scheduled-railroading.html

I don't know enough about the issues to blame the union either way, but worth noting they negotiated an entire contract of things and this is just one of those things. Were the employers 100% unwilling to budge on sick leave from the start? Did the unions trade sick leave away for something they thought was more important, and then had no chips to trade for it back? Would it be a reasonable deal if the members didn't already want to burn it all to the ground? I dunno.

But technically the unions negotiated the agreement and four of them failed to sell their deal to their members.

Fortunately we know who is taking the blame.

That's because this website is unevenedge.com and if you type in unevenedge.freeforums.net it will take you to the old board

are you talking about the old UnevenEdge proboard? https://unevenedge.freeforums.net/

the part where the toad says "but look at us... we're adorable" and the lips aren't synced is killing me more than chrispratt

I would think the Republicans eviscerating the federal budget and/or shutting the government down to try to tarnish the current presidency in advance of 2024 would probably harm more people more than adopting status quo CRs.

three of the unions rejected it, so those technically have no deal

I believe only 5 of 8 (I think) unions have ratified the agreement with three holdouts (I think) and the deadline a few days out. So Congress going to vote to approve the contract and preempt a shutdown. Edit: just walked into this article that says part of the reason they didn't extend negotiations again (on top of the consensus that they stalemated), is that a Republican house would have leverage to impose a worse deal https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/29/bidens-congress-halt-rail-strike-00071251

improper apostrophe five point deduction