Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   What's holding back the next stimulus? Republicans want to include protections for businesses and hospitals etc.. that may be sued for not protecting their employees, patients, and customers   (cnn.com) divider line
    More: Sick, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Democratic Party, United States Senate, Steny Hoyer, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican Party, much of the year  
•       •       •

862 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Dec 2020 at 7:18 AM (7 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



66 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-12-03 11:53:33 PM  
Fark the stimulus. The GOP refuse to give money directly and only to politically connected corporations AND give blank immunity from COVID.

Democrats should refuse to vote on such a bill even if Pelosi were to order them to vote for it, they should tell her to get farked.
 
2020-12-04 12:07:29 AM  

lolmao500: Fark the stimulus. The GOP refuse to give money directly and only to politically connected corporations AND give blank immunity from COVID.

Democrats should refuse to vote on such a bill even if Pelosi were to order them to vote for it, they should tell her to get farked.


Q. Currently the proposal includes unemployment but not direct stimulus. If that is the only way to get additional unemployment $ out, should she still say f*ck it? Would the families that need that $ agree with you? Just to make Mitch look bad? Because it won't be Mitch taking the fall, the media will spin it as the Dems caused it to fail.
 
2020-12-04 12:20:02 AM  
Mitch McConnell doesn't have to run for office again until 2026. In the meantime he wants everyone currently in or about to about to enter office to face angry voters at the polls, assuming republicans will always vote republican anyway, and farking people out of stimulus cash is merely his opening gambit in that particular powerplay.
 
2020-12-04 12:36:17 AM  
Sounds like something that should be a stand-alone amendment to the bill with the Senate voting first.
 
2020-12-04 12:38:37 AM  
Headline is 21 words too long
 
2020-12-04 12:48:36 AM  
All lives matter!-unless you're a random person trying to exist without dying.
- Republicans
 
2020-12-04 2:05:11 AM  

GardenWeasel: lolmao500: Fark the stimulus. The GOP refuse to give money directly and only to politically connected corporations AND give blank immunity from COVID.

Democrats should refuse to vote on such a bill even if Pelosi were to order them to vote for it, they should tell her to get farked.

Q. Currently the proposal includes unemployment but not direct stimulus. If that is the only way to get additional unemployment $ out, should she still say f*ck it? Would the families that need that $ agree with you? Just to make Mitch look bad? Because it won't be Mitch taking the fall, the media will spin it as the Dems caused it to fail.


So your strategy is just give up and lick Moscow Mitch boots?
 
2020-12-04 4:10:49 AM  
Nancy Pelosi should call McConnell's bluff.  Offer him his corporate immunity deal that he wants under one very specific condition.  Corporations and employers get immunity from being sued if America gets single payer insurance.  Not that M4A shiat where for-profit companies will still control insurance and screw the system.  Go to a true single payer, not-for-profit insurance model.
 
2020-12-04 5:23:43 AM  
"What it comes down to is that there is a lot of money in this package that is going to be hard to steer away from citizens, hospitals, and local governments. Until we have a draft that just lets insurance companies and major hospital groups just wheelbarrow money into their coffers, I'm not sure wecan come to an agreement. I mean, relief for people? Who thinks like that?"
 
2020-12-04 6:01:59 AM  
Not a news flash, we've been hearing it all year.
 
2020-12-04 6:09:32 AM  
And maybe certain "news" networks who downplayed the pandemic or called it an outright hoax at times and spewed faulty medical advice to their massive and gullible audiences? Surely they'll get a pass as well?
 
2020-12-04 6:35:21 AM  
The only way I could conceivably be talked into federal immunity for negligent acts relating to COVID-19 would be setting up something comparable to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for negligence claims while maintaining liability for businesses and employers for reckless/intentional/knowing conduct relating to COVID-19.

However, the GOP would instead prefer to fark over the proles outright, so that ain't happening.
 
2020-12-04 7:20:05 AM  

lolmao500: GardenWeasel: lolmao500: Fark the stimulus. The GOP refuse to give money directly and only to politically connected corporations AND give blank immunity from COVID.

Democrats should refuse to vote on such a bill even if Pelosi were to order them to vote for it, they should tell her to get farked.

Q. Currently the proposal includes unemployment but not direct stimulus. If that is the only way to get additional unemployment $ out, should she still say f*ck it? Would the families that need that $ agree with you? Just to make Mitch look bad? Because it won't be Mitch taking the fall, the media will spin it as the Dems caused it to fail.

So your strategy is just give up and lick Moscow Mitch boots?


Do you normally view compromise as "licking boots"?
 
2020-12-04 7:25:18 AM  
People will not be happy without direct payments to people. How would this stimulus help average person? They don't even have previsions to help with food issues.
 
2020-12-04 7:27:56 AM  

lolmao500: Fark the stimulus. The GOP refuse to give money directly and only to politically connected corporations AND give blank immunity from COVID.

Democrats should refuse to vote on such a bill even if Pelosi were to order them to vote for it, they should tell her to get farked.


I can't afford to wait another year for COVID relief. My family and I have been drowning since the enhanced UI benefits were cut in July and I know damn well I'm not the only one. If this gets us SOMETHING in the meantime, we should take it and renegotiate a new bill once Biden is in office. Or hell let him take as much executive action as he needs.
 
2020-12-04 7:28:35 AM  
"Republicans want to avoid a scenario where massive, class-action lawsuits emerge as a result of Covid outbreaks. Democrats don't want to protect businesses that are shrugging responsibilities to provide safe working conditions for employees or customers amid the pandemic."

Divide seems pretty clear - one side is for helping American people and the places live - and one side is about avoiding accountability to the American people in support of business and corporations.
 
2020-12-04 7:32:14 AM  
I don't give a shiat. It does nearly nothing to help the people that are struggling. The only ones getting bailed out are "small businesses"(legislators and their lackeys), big corporations, and airlines. Because the real victims in this pandemic are the airlines, who took the first bailout after extorting with job loss, and then laid people off anyway because fark them.

If this doesn't pass, some businesses close. Give the money to people who can use it, and to protect real small businesses who cannot function during the pandemic, and you'll see things survive and the economy not get sunk.

Give it all to the rich people, like always, and you'll see nothing. More extortion and more job loss because profits are the only real solution to a pandemic.
 
2020-12-04 7:32:36 AM  

qorkfiend: lolmao500: GardenWeasel: lolmao500: Fark the stimulus. The GOP refuse to give money directly and only to politically connected corporations AND give blank immunity from COVID.

Democrats should refuse to vote on such a bill even if Pelosi were to order them to vote for it, they should tell her to get farked.

Q. Currently the proposal includes unemployment but not direct stimulus. If that is the only way to get additional unemployment $ out, should she still say f*ck it? Would the families that need that $ agree with you? Just to make Mitch look bad? Because it won't be Mitch taking the fall, the media will spin it as the Dems caused it to fail.

So your strategy is just give up and lick Moscow Mitch boots?

Do you normally view compromise as "licking boots"?


That's what it appears you love to do, Trumper. You just can't get enough of that Republican boot polish, yum yum!
 
2020-12-04 7:34:16 AM  

Brosephus: Nancy Pelosi should call McConnell's bluff.  Offer him his corporate immunity deal that he wants under one very specific condition.  Corporations and employers get immunity from being sued if America gets single payer insurance.  Not that M4A shiat where for-profit companies will still control insurance and screw the system.  Go to a true single payer, not-for-profit insurance model.


We all know that would be a non-starter and the idiot gop voters wouldn't give a shiat. It would just end up back on Pelosi's desk as another failed libby-lib power play.

The only hope is those two GA senate races coming up blue, AND convincing the moron centrist Dems in the senate to farking toe the line or have them arrested and sent to Gitmo. That's seriously where I'm at right now with this bullshiat.

Of course, the preference would be instead to do that with turtle, ladybugs, cotton and the rest of the traitors but that might be seen as being too political for the mainstream.

The fact that these cocksuckers keep getting re-elected tells me everything we need to know about this shiathole country.
 
2020-12-04 7:38:39 AM  

GardenWeasel: Because it won't be Mitch taking the fall, the media will spin it as the Dems caused it to fail.


That's been a core issue for the Dems for at least the last 25 years, they can't control the narrative worth a damn.
Hell, they don't even try.
They live in a bubble where most people are well informed so they assume the same is true for the average American.
 
2020-12-04 7:41:41 AM  

lolmao500: Fark the stimulus. The GOP refuse to give money directly and only to politically connected corporations AND give blank immunity from COVID.

Democrats should refuse to vote on such a bill even if Pelosi were to order them to vote for it, they should tell her to get farked.


The problem is that this is the negotiated position. I know everyone wants the Democrats to magically talk the Republicans into another round of stimulus, but "a very short extension of UI and some state and local funding" is the compromise Republicans are willing to make.

The Republican starting position is immunity from liability for corporations, tax cuts for big business, and then go fark yourselves. They want blue states to go bankrupt. They want people to have to beg for whatever employers give them. They want employers to be able to threaten the loss of a job the employee can't afford to lose. They want public schools to get screwed. All they have to do is wait, and they get most of it. How do you negotiate with people who are happy not to pass anything, because it's closer to what they want than any bill you could pass?
 
2020-12-04 7:43:07 AM  
The purpose of the government--our government--should be to protect the people.  Banks, airlines, companies?  The wealthy?  They have money.  They don't need protection.  But for some reason a whole bunch of money-godamn pile of the stuff-landed on doorsteps, ended up in bank accounts, propaganda machines were fired up and we have an entire party that believes--that exists because they believe--that the rich and powerful need protection from us.  And the convinced great swathes of the country of that idea.  That money needs protection.  From us.

I get unreasonably angry when I hear that we're bailing out farkin' airlines.  If we need them, they'll survive.  If not?  Too bad.  Isn't that what the rest of us have to do?  Here's an idea: Give the money to the people.  Bailout the consumers.  The businesses that they deem valuable will survive--why should the ones that the people don't patronize?

/And sue the airlines.
//Absent them, this pandemic would probably still be somewhere (waves vaguely) over there.
 
2020-12-04 7:44:15 AM  
Republicans are really big on "personal responsibility" ...for the poors.
They're steadfastly against any sort of corporate responsibility in any way, shape, or form.
 
2020-12-04 7:48:22 AM  
Farking Republicans, that's what is holding back meaningful and responsible legislation for the People.

Why the fark do they feel the need to go so far out of their way to screw the People?


And, why the fark do these stupid people keep voting for these assholes that rule against their best interests, every time?
 
2020-12-04 7:50:50 AM  

hawcian: How do you negotiate with people who are happy not to pass anything, because it's closer to what they want than any bill you could pass?


"You shoot the hostage."

But you are exactly right, this is the fundamental problem.  The GOP has no interest in responsibly governing, and they have built a massive propaganda machine to shield them from paying the price.  If we don't win the 2 runoffs in GA, things are gonna get real ugly.
 
2020-12-04 7:53:33 AM  

gas giant: GardenWeasel: Because it won't be Mitch taking the fall, the media will spin it as the Dems caused it to fail.

That's been a core issue for the Dems for at least the last 25 years, they can't control the narrative worth a damn.
Hell, they don't even try.
They live in a bubble where most people are well informed so they assume the same is true for the average American.


Yeah, the problem is that Democrats live in a bubble
 
2020-12-04 7:53:57 AM  

RasIanI: "Republicans want to avoid a scenario where massive, class-action lawsuits emerge as a result of Covid outbreaks. Democrats don't want to protect businesses that are shrugging responsibilities to provide safe working conditions for employees or customers amid the pandemic."

Divide seems pretty clear - one side is for helping American people and the places live - and one side is about avoiding accountability to the American people in support of business and corporations.


They want immunity for big business? I want nothing for a business that didn't give fark all about its employees. I'm willing to entertain a limit on liability in a case where there's demonstrable evidence that an employer did all the right things to protect their employees - enforced mask use, encouraged distancing as much as possible, etc. However, if someone was like "MASKS ARE TYRANNY AND GET BACK TO WORK!"? Then fark them. That's wanton disregard for the health and safety of employees and it should be treated no differently than an employer that doesn't provide PPE for someone working with lasers or in a construction zone leading to injury.

I have changed shopping habits and such because of this. One local supermarket chain quickly instituted a mask policy for employees and shoppers. Another one resisted FOR FREEDOM until they had to implement one. We used to be loyal shoppers of the latter - now they have lost our business and we shop at the former. It's a small step but it helps.
 
2020-12-04 7:55:22 AM  
They love the courts.  What kind of minds believe the courts are there to protect criminals?
 
2020-12-04 7:56:19 AM  
No shiat.

I buy my own PPE because the idiots in power wouldn't invoke the act needed to get every place that can sew an N95 or staple a face shield to make them. Why the fark are the only masks I can get KN95s marked in Chinese? Why in God's name was one of the first things done in March not calling GM to make ventilators by the thousand, Levi Strauss to make N95s, farking Glad to make face shields?

As is, I rely on an Indonesian glove manufacturer, a Chinese mask manufacturer, and while my shields are American they're so hard to source I'm reusing it until the rubber headband wears out.

They want common folk to die.
 
2020-12-04 8:02:09 AM  

BitwiseShift: They love the courts.  What kind of minds believe the courts are there to protect criminals?


The criminals, obv
 
2020-12-04 8:04:58 AM  

G. Tarrant: RasIanI: "Republicans want to avoid a scenario where massive, class-action lawsuits emerge as a result of Covid outbreaks. Democrats don't want to protect businesses that are shrugging responsibilities to provide safe working conditions for employees or customers amid the pandemic."

Divide seems pretty clear - one side is for helping American people and the places live - and one side is about avoiding accountability to the American people in support of business and corporations.

They want immunity for big business? I want nothing for a business that didn't give fark all about its employees. I'm willing to entertain a limit on liability in a case where there's demonstrable evidence that an employer did all the right things to protect their employees - enforced mask use, encouraged distancing as much as possible, etc. However, if someone was like "MASKS ARE TYRANNY AND GET BACK TO WORK!"? Then fark them. That's wanton disregard for the health and safety of employees and it should be treated no differently than an employer that doesn't provide PPE for someone working with lasers or in a construction zone leading to injury.

I have changed shopping habits and such because of this. One local supermarket chain quickly instituted a mask policy for employees and shoppers. Another one resisted FOR FREEDOM until they had to implement one. We used to be loyal shoppers of the latter - now they have lost our business and we shop at the former. It's a small step but it helps.


Yeah, I agree with this, if an employer made a good faith effort to try and slow the spread by encouraging the use of PPE, etc., their liability should be restricted unless there is clear evidence that the opposite was actually occurring.  However, blanket removal of liability on this is damned stupid and akin to dismantling OSHA.

Rewarding bad behavior only encourages more bad behavior.  No thanks.
 
MFK
2020-12-04 8:05:30 AM  

powhound: Brosephus: Nancy Pelosi should call McConnell's bluff.  Offer him his corporate immunity deal that he wants under one very specific condition.  Corporations and employers get immunity from being sued if America gets single payer insurance.  Not that M4A shiat where for-profit companies will still control insurance and screw the system.  Go to a true single payer, not-for-profit insurance model.

We all know that would be a non-starter and the idiot gop voters wouldn't give a shiat. It would just end up back on Pelosi's desk as another failed libby-lib power play.

The only hope is those two GA senate races coming up blue, AND convincing the moron centrist Dems in the senate to farking toe the line or have them arrested and sent to Gitmo. That's seriously where I'm at right now with this bullshiat.

Of course, the preference would be instead to do that with turtle, ladybugs, cotton and the rest of the traitors but that might be seen as being too political for the mainstream.

The fact that these cocksuckers keep getting re-elected tells me everything we need to know about this shiathole country.


Seriously. What the hell is going on in Kentucky that they keep electing the meanest, cruelest assholes they can find?
 
2020-12-04 8:06:34 AM  

Sword and Shield: Why in God's name was one of the first things done in March not calling GM to make ventilators by the thousand, Levi Strauss to make N95s, farking Glad to make face shields?


Well maybe not Glad
 
2020-12-04 8:07:05 AM  
North carolina unemployment caps at like 300 a week, employers can already hold peoples jobs over them and force them into unsafe situations.  Should the worst happen they get sick, get their family sick, someone dies because they were in an unsafe its disturbing to think the Employer should be immune.

Just a sick "be happy to have a job" mentality.
 
2020-12-04 8:10:56 AM  

Outshined_One: The only way I could conceivably be talked into federal immunity for negligent acts relating to COVID-19 would be setting up something comparable to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program for negligence claims while maintaining liability for businesses and employers for reckless/intentional/knowing conduct relating to COVID-19.

However, the GOP would instead prefer to fark over the proles outright, so that ain't happening.


I would be okay with granting immunity, provided they complied with Biden administration safety measure requirements for PPE, disinfecting and social distancing.
 
2020-12-04 8:14:09 AM  

Abox: Sword and Shield: Why in God's name was one of the first things done in March not calling GM to make ventilators by the thousand, Levi Strauss to make N95s, farking Glad to make face shields?

Well maybe not Glad


Glad makes disposable Tupperware style containers. They could do it.

I mean, for fark's sake, a car headlight manufacturer made pistols during WW2.
 
2020-12-04 8:15:39 AM  

G. Tarrant: RasIanI: "Republicans want to avoid a scenario where massive, class-action lawsuits emerge as a result of Covid outbreaks. Democrats don't want to protect businesses that are shrugging responsibilities to provide safe working conditions for employees or customers amid the pandemic."

Divide seems pretty clear - one side is for helping American people and the places live - and one side is about avoiding accountability to the American people in support of business and corporations.

They want immunity for big business? I want nothing for a business that didn't give fark all about its employees. I'm willing to entertain a limit on liability in a case where there's demonstrable evidence that an employer did all the right things to protect their employees - enforced mask use, encouraged distancing as much as possible, etc. However, if someone was like "MASKS ARE TYRANNY AND GET BACK TO WORK!"? Then fark them. That's wanton disregard for the health and safety of employees and it should be treated no differently than an employer that doesn't provide PPE for someone working with lasers or in a construction zone leading to injury.

I have changed shopping habits and such because of this. One local supermarket chain quickly instituted a mask policy for employees and shoppers. Another one resisted FOR FREEDOM until they had to implement one. We used to be loyal shoppers of the latter - now they have lost our business and we shop at the former. It's a small step but it helps.


Agreed. Liability protections may be warranted for actual essential businesses (e.g., grocery/food production/distribution/sales), but only if they strictly follow the best guidelines to protect their staff and customers.

The local walmart has followed the stereotypical walmart procedure of posting a sign that masks are required, but doing no enforcement. Some "ma freedoms" coont walks in the door with no mask? Well, best to just let him be.  Employees are forced to wear masks - but wearing it pulled down so it's not doing anything is apparently fine. I won't be back (probably for the best anyway), but they deserve absolutely no protections because they are farking negligent.

On the other hand, a local grocery chain was just in the news for having a douchebag arrested after he came in with no mask and refused to either put one on (freely offered) or leave. The idiot brigade that comments on the local newspaper website is boycotting them because of that. Guess where I'm going to shop (when I need to and while wearing a mask, maintaining social distance)?
 
2020-12-04 8:16:23 AM  
I don't understand the extra UI money.  Does it cost more to be poor/out of a job during a pandemic?  Seems like the UI bonus is fixing a problem that existed before Covid, namely that unemployment wasn't enough to live on, and isn't really related to the pandemic.  It's a failure of messaging to pretend that it's some sort of pandemic relief versus something that has been a long time coming.
 
2020-12-04 8:22:10 AM  
What's holding back the next stimulus? Republicans want to include protections for businesses and hospitals etc.. that may be sued for not protecting their employees, patients, and customers

FTFS
 
2020-12-04 8:28:34 AM  

seapig: lolmao500: Fark the stimulus. The GOP refuse to give money directly and only to politically connected corporations AND give blank immunity from COVID.

Democrats should refuse to vote on such a bill even if Pelosi were to order them to vote for it, they should tell her to get farked.

I can't afford to wait another year for COVID relief. My family and I have been drowning since the enhanced UI benefits were cut in July and I know damn well I'm not the only one. If this gets us SOMETHING in the meantime, we should take it and renegotiate a new bill once Biden is in office. Or hell let him take as much executive action as he needs.


In my state, the backlog for unemployment claims is over 70,000. And goes back at least 5 months.  The line outside the Employment Commission Office  STARTS everyday at 5am and it's a good day if the first forty people get seen.

Without a direct stimulus, people still won't get the help they need.
 
2020-12-04 8:32:05 AM  

Sword and Shield: No shiat.

I buy my own PPE because the idiots in power wouldn't invoke the act needed to get every place that can sew an N95 or staple a face shield to make them. Why the fark are the only masks I can get KN95s marked in Chinese? Why in God's name was one of the first things done in March not calling GM to make ventilators by the thousand, Levi Strauss to make N95s, farking Glad to make face shields?

As is, I rely on an Indonesian glove manufacturer, a Chinese mask manufacturer, and while my shields are American they're so hard to source I'm reusing it until the rubber headband wears out.

They want common folk to die.


O'er the laaaaaaaand of the freeeeeeeee...
 
2020-12-04 8:38:18 AM  

Champion of the Sun: I don't understand the extra UI money.  Does it cost more to be poor/out of a job during a pandemic?  Seems like the UI bonus is fixing a problem that existed before Covid, namely that unemployment wasn't enough to live on, and isn't really related to the pandemic.  It's a failure of messaging to pretend that it's some sort of pandemic relief versus something that has been a long time coming.


You're not wrong, but the fact that UI is for the most part independently run by states means there isn't a good way to solve this. Some states allocate more or less resources to UI, or want to save money. Therefore in an attempt to essentially help people in states where UI is essentially laughable, they boost it everywhere.

In some states (largely, but not always, blue states) UI can be enough to scrape by for a bit while someone gets on their feet and finds another job.

However, in others (largely, but not always, red states) UI can be a joke that barely lets anyone survive - and it's intentionally so, to get people back to work and taking whatever hand-to-mouth job they can find. As many such things, the goal is really punishing poor people, as people with savings might be able to withstand a few weeks anyway and this the UI just helps offset any reduction in savings, while poor people can't get by on it for any period of time.

Look at places like Florida, where former Gov. Scott bragged about making their new unemployment system as complicated, user-unfriendly, and slow as possible (yet paid almost $100 million for it, in a standard government contract grift scenario), in a deliberate attempt (and he actually SAID THIS) to make it less likely people even would bother to apply. When the pandemic hit, it repeatedly crashed and was weeks to months behind in processing claims.
 
2020-12-04 8:43:15 AM  

G. Tarrant: Champion of the Sun: I don't understand the extra UI money.  Does it cost more to be poor/out of a job during a pandemic?  Seems like the UI bonus is fixing a problem that existed before Covid, namely that unemployment wasn't enough to live on, and isn't really related to the pandemic.  It's a failure of messaging to pretend that it's some sort of pandemic relief versus something that has been a long time coming.

You're not wrong, but the fact that UI is for the most part independently run by states means there isn't a good way to solve this. Some states allocate more or less resources to UI, or want to save money. Therefore in an attempt to essentially help people in states where UI is essentially laughable, they boost it everywhere.

In some states (largely, but not always, blue states) UI can be enough to scrape by for a bit while someone gets on their feet and finds another job.

However, in others (largely, but not always, red states) UI can be a joke that barely lets anyone survive - and it's intentionally so, to get people back to work and taking whatever hand-to-mouth job they can find. As many such things, the goal is really punishing poor people, as people with savings might be able to withstand a few weeks anyway and this the UI just helps offset any reduction in savings, while poor people can't get by on it for any period of time.

Look at places like Florida, where former Gov. Scott bragged about making their new unemployment system as complicated, user-unfriendly, and slow as possible (yet paid almost $100 million for it, in a standard government contract grift scenario), in a deliberate attempt (and he actually SAID THIS) to make it less likely people even would bother to apply. When the pandemic hit, it repeatedly crashed and was weeks to months behind in processing claims.


And let's also remember that Florida's reaction has been to reward the Republicans at every step of the way.
 
2020-12-04 8:47:19 AM  
Well yeah, republicans #1 priority has and always will be shielding corporations and the wealthy from the consequences of their actions in exchange for money. It's basically their mission statement.
 
2020-12-04 8:57:43 AM  

GardenWeasel: lolmao500: Fark the stimulus. The GOP refuse to give money directly and only to politically connected corporations AND give blank immunity from COVID.

Democrats should refuse to vote on such a bill even if Pelosi were to order them to vote for it, they should tell her to get farked.

Q. Currently the proposal includes unemployment but not direct stimulus. If that is the only way to get additional unemployment $ out, should she still say f*ck it? Would the families that need that $ agree with you? Just to make Mitch look bad? Because it won't be Mitch taking the fall, the media will spin it as the Dems caused it to fail.


Trick question.

A legal shield will also kick them off unemployment.

That way, when they get a job offer to go work a job that makes its policy mandatory masks off, & they choose against suicide, they get kicked off unemployment.
 
2020-12-04 9:29:07 AM  
Covid has been an issue for 9 months now. In that time I have heard of exactly zero cases where someone's been sued for causing someone to get it. Even if you can bring a case the bar to show that the businesses actions directly caused you to get the diease would be extremely difficult to cross. This is entirely a non issue that Republicans are using as an excuse.

That said I'm fine with a limited liability shield where you have immunity as long as you show you made good faith efforts to follow all state and federal guidance for businesses. If you have everyone wearing a mask and keeping distance and someone gets sick, not your fault you're safe from litigation. You tell employees that they can't wear a mask, you can get sued.

The real issue is the democrats being too scared of their own shadows to push this like they should. Democrats in general have two goals for the next month. Get this passed and win the georgia runoffs. Dems won georgia riding populist support for change. They lead the polls. The republican opponents couldn't be worse. Rich white "aristocrats" who profited off shady covid stock deals while people in their state died from the diease. If this were a history book I'd expect to see a guillotine on the next page. We shouldn't be fighting for minimal unemployment or weak 1200.00 checks. We won. Press the advantage. Say you want to do 12000.00 checks once they elect you. Talk about how it's their money but perdue wants to give it to corporations instead so he can make insider trades and profit off them. Talk about how Republicans used to be the party of small government but they don't want to help statehouses with funds because they want the feds and Mitch mcconnell to control how georgia spends it's money.

There's a lot of rage and pain out there. Much of it extremely justified. If the democrats don't tap on to that and use it for righteous purpose the Republicans will continue use it, and for far worse things.
 
2020-12-04 9:47:27 AM  

willwall: Covid has been an issue for 9 months now. In that time I have heard of exactly zero cases where someone's been sued for causing someone to get it. Even if you can bring a case the bar to show that the businesses actions directly caused you to get the diease would be extremely difficult to cross. This is entirely a non issue that Republicans are using as an excuse.

That said I'm fine with a limited liability shield where you have immunity as long as you show you made good faith efforts to follow all state and federal guidance for businesses. If you have everyone wearing a mask and keeping distance and someone gets sick, not your fault you're safe from litigation. You tell employees that they can't wear a mask, you can get sued.

The real issue is the democrats being too scared of their own shadows to push this like they should. Democrats in general have two goals for the next month. Get this passed and win the georgia runoffs. Dems won georgia riding populist support for change. They lead the polls. The republican opponents couldn't be worse. Rich white "aristocrats" who profited off shady covid stock deals while people in their state died from the diease. If this were a history book I'd expect to see a guillotine on the next page. We shouldn't be fighting for minimal unemployment or weak 1200.00 checks. We won. Press the advantage. Say you want to do 12000.00 checks once they elect you. Talk about how it's their money but perdue wants to give it to corporations instead so he can make insider trades and profit off them. Talk about how Republicans used to be the party of small government but they don't want to help statehouses with funds because they want the feds and Mitch mcconnell to control how georgia spends it's money.

There's a lot of rage and pain out there. Much of it extremely justified. If the democrats don't tap on to that and use it for righteous purpose the Republicans will continue use it, and for far worse things.


You could easily turn that around and say that Democrats shouldn't be drawing a hard line over this since it hasn't been an issue
 
2020-12-04 9:59:43 AM  

lolmao500: Fark the stimulus. The GOP refuse to give money directly and only to politically connected corporations AND give blank immunity from COVID.

Democrats should refuse to vote on such a bill even if Pelosi were to order them to vote for it, they should tell her to get farked.


The Democratic members should ask why the GOP is so determined to offer protection from lawsuits for something they claim is "just the flu" since those lawsuits would be dismissed out of hand... unless they're lying about it being just the flu.
 
2020-12-04 10:12:09 AM  

GardenWeasel: lolmao500: Fark the stimulus. The GOP refuse to give money directly and only to politically connected corporations AND give blank immunity from COVID.

Democrats should refuse to vote on such a bill even if Pelosi were to order them to vote for it, they should tell her to get farked.

Q. Currently the proposal includes unemployment but not direct stimulus. If that is the only way to get additional unemployment $ out, should she still say f*ck it? Would the families that need that $ agree with you? Just to make Mitch look bad? Because it won't be Mitch taking the fall, the media will spin it as the Dems caused it to fail.


She should still say fark it because it disenfranchises the rights and endangers the safety of all the employed Americans. Also the CARES Act extended unemployment eligibility by 13 weeks. This extends it another 4 weeks.

So while the families that need that money would unlikely agree with me, it's less about making Mitch look bad and more about disenfranchising tens of millions of currently employed workers so that unemployed workers get 4 additional weeks of assistance mostly paid for by CARES Act funds that are being upheld otherwise is a farked up 'compromise' that put the unemployed back in trouble in a month while freeing companies from being liable to putting employee health at risk. Does that seem like a good trade off to you?

And they can blame the Democrats in the media, they've been doing that for 6 months while sitting on the farking HEROES Act and spending all their time instead pushing through Judges.
 
2020-12-04 10:28:55 AM  

Brosephus: Nancy Pelosi should call McConnell's bluff.  Offer him his corporate immunity deal that he wants under one very specific condition.  Corporations and employers get immunity from being sued if America gets single payer insurance.  Not that M4A shiat where for-profit companies will still control insurance and screw the system.  Go to a true single payer, not-for-profit insurance model.


The Turtle would be perfectly happy with no stimulus.  The response to this demand would be the end of any chance of such.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.