Ok 👍

Hahahahahahahahahaha! Ok 👍

The entire point of contention is why any member would be ok with non-members using services you pay for without paying.

I feel like you’re projecting. I never said it was your job or mine to police who shops at Costco.

I replied to another comment of yours that was wrong and looked through your comment history. Are you a Costco employee? You are very combative in multiple comment threads.

I have to believe you either work for Costco or have such a cult like love for them you default to shilling on their behalf.

It’s why you can use the pharmacy

Wrong, Costco cannot legally prevent you from using the pharmacy. All health services are available to the public by law. Alcohol too although that law is because they are issued a public license.

Can you provide an example of anything Costco makes available to the general public the same as their members when they don’t have to?

The closest I can think of is online shopping but that adds a 5% surcharge and I don’t even know if you still can do that.

Your membership is paying to be able to shop there, the advantage being the lower prices they achieve by purchasing wholesale and limiting markup, no more than 14% for regular and 15% for Kirkland I think.

Edit: I looked at your comment history. Don’t bother replying, I’m not interested in anything you have to say and I can go to a Costco if I want to be pitched on their membership.

Then don’t expect me to answer on another’s behalf.

Then don’t reply to someone who’s asking a question. Especially when you have nothing to actually contribute to the conversation.

There’s a saying about how it’s better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

You should have stayed silent because there is certainly no doubt about your foolishness now.

Your question is based on incorrect assumptions.

No, my question was based on what the person I was responding to said before you jumped in with your inanity. Try to keep up.

This is not an accomplishment.

It’s not, it’s what Biden can do. That’s why you still haven’t provided an example or an actual answer to the original question, what else is there for Biden to do?

it could be making a show of looking into it and then not following through.

So you don’t understand how the process works? That’s effectively what you’re saying.

Perhaps you should read up. This is a good explanation from when this was discussed during Obama’s presidency. Do you see anywhere that it says the president can unilaterally legalize or change the schedule of a drug?

There’s a system, it’s part of how that whole checks and balances thing works. Ignorance often leads to anger as you so aptly demonstrate. I honestly wonder if people who comment like you have are being intentional or are unwittingly part of the disinformation machine.

Not expect praise for something that hasn’t happened?

Where did I demand Biden be praised?

Centrists demand credit for non-accomplishments because they prefer to accomplish nothing.

When did I demand Biden get credit?

Often on social media the same people who decry one side behaving like authoritarian dictators act like it’s acceptable for their side to behave like gasp authoritarian dictators.

Yes, some people like to give undue credit but you’re just the other side of that coin shitting on any action that is taken.

Instead of engaging in the discussion you resort to snark, assumptions and insults. It’s clear you have nothing to contribute, engaging with you any further would be a waste of my time.

Have a day!

What more does Biden need to do?

Are you unable to answer the question or do you not have an answer? Is that why you resorted to snark?

What more does Biden need to do? They already directed HHS to consider reclassifying it from schedule I to III and HHS made their recommendation to the DEA who classifies the drugs. I thought it was up to the DEA now?

I see, you’re on of those internet “experts” without the education or background experience to support it. Thanks, I guess I wasted my own time with you.

And the federal judges disagree with you.

Is the 9th circuit court of appeals not federal? Of course that was 2017, but since the Supreme Court vacated it and Judge Benitez ruled the same way again it’s settled law right? The ban is no longer in effect because the case is finished with this ruling, right?

What state is your BAR license from? I’d like to see how their requirements compare to mine.

I didn’t say anything about the militia, not sure why you’re referencing that. I provided the verbatim text, which doesn’t reference capacity.

Heller did not establish protections for magazine capacity, that’s what your image says. It’s not settled law, that’s why it’s being contested. This judge was overruled on appeal on this once before. Until it’s settled law the argument magazine capacity is protected is as valid as the argument it’s not.

… with complete technological parity with the standing armed forces of the time, in context.

Yes, in context for the 1790s the people had access to the same weapons as the standing army, of course they didn’t really have a lot of choice…

It’s almost like context changes over time and laws need to as well.

And in the post-Bruen world, there's much less room for debate, especially for arbitrary and capricious restrictions on a right.

This is wrong. Bruen simply held that may issue states cannot use arbitrary evaluations of need to issue permits for concealed carry. Everything else is, by definition, debatable which is why this case is working its way through the courts.

Again, this is a dumb law and not at all representative of reasonable gun control but magazine capacity is not protected by the 2nd amendment. Not yet, at least.

Before anyone tries to argue if the 2A covers bullet capacity, let me introduce you to the chambers gun

This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The only thing the 2nd amendment covers is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Your argument that bullet capacity is covered is as valid as another’s argument that it’s not because it’s not explicitly stated, so it’s left to interpretation.

This law is dumb and doesn’t seem likely to actually do anything to curb gun violence.

However, if someone would like to own a Chambers gun or any other firearm that existed in 1791 when the amendment was ratified then they should be allowed to without restriction, including felons, children, people with mental health issues, illegal drug users etc. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees in context

That context is important though. 230 years ago the most common weapons owned and available to the people were muskets and flintlock pistols. Single shot, muzzle loading weapons.

Let’s also not forget that James Madison redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.”

It is incredibly easy in modern times in the US to be able to access firearms capable of dealing significantly greater death and harm than in 1791. It’s fair to argue that, in current context, the intent of the 2nd amendment would not protect magazine capacity. In fact the case that defined bearable arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, leaves much to debate about whether a magazine constitutes a “bearable arm”.

Ok 👍

In one comment you say I insinuate disingenuousness and in another you say I called you disingenuous. I stated that presenting just a piece of the whole situation and omitting the rest is disingenuous. I stand by this as being disingenuous can be, quite literally, defined as slightly dishonest, or not speaking the complete truth.

So your stance is that rail workers work for private enterprises but simply cannot strike.

No, that’s not my stance, and it’s not what I stated. My stance is that rail workers can strike, and the elected officials can use the Railway Labor Act to force a contract and delay a strike. My stance on the Railway Labor Act, the Taft-Hartley Act and any number of other pieces of legislation over the decades should be repealed and replaced with more modern legislation that favors workers.

Yeah, Truman nationalized rails multiple times. Do you know what else he did? During the 1946 rail strike, President Harry Truman at one point called for a law to allow him to draft striking rail workers into the military. Even after the strike ended, the House of Representatives passed a bill to draft striking workers (it died in the Senate). In 1950, Truman ordered the U.S. Army to seize control of the country’s railroads in anticipation of a strike.

The picture often changes when you provide all the information.

The problem is that if you're willing to sacrifice the good of the minority for the stagnation of the masses, everyone is going to suffer.

The benefit is that if you’re willing to protect the good of the majority for the prevention of greater harm to the masses, everyone is going to benefit.

Changing a few words in your statement flips it the other way.

Breaking the strike didn't make anyone's life better… just made it less inconvenient for people who wouldn't benefit from the strike.

It didn’t make lives better, it worked to prevent further harm. The making lives better should be coming after the fact in the forms of new legislation be pushed to prevent this scenario while protecting the workers and the unions at the same time.

This is why it bothers me so much when people allude to one action taken as if it means something more while also excluding additional details that don’t support what’s being alluded to.

It’s ok to be upset about blocking the strike while also acknowledging the tough decision to prevent harm to the majority.

What is wrong with stating the president broke the strike but continued to work after the fact to get the unions what they were looking for to begin with?

Then you can focus your criticism on what action has or hasn’t been taken to prevent this situation in the future while protecting the rights of workers or unions?

Every strike causes disruptions, and the bigger the disruption the stronger the strike. Accepting that workers get to use their power to decide what deal is acceptable is part of being pro-labor, even if it means your life is disrupted.

There’s a difference between a disruption and the railroads shutting down in a country experiencing a pandemic and economic depression.

Disruption is fine, shelves being more empty, non-essential goods being harder to obtain is fine. Vital goods and services not getting where they need to, people losing their jobs, homes, health, lives etc. is not. I don’t know if all of that would have happened, I leave that to the people who should have an understanding of that impact. Those people elected for that.

But if you for some reason don't believe that labor can engage in big disruptions to show their bosses they're serious and decide you simply must intervene in a worker-employer negotiation, then enforce the contract the workers wanted. And if you're not willing to force their bosses to accept a contract they don't like, then don't pretend you had no choice when you forced the workers.

Can the President unilaterally force the acceptance of a contract on either side? Was there a claim made that the President had no choice by me? By Biden?

It’s disingenuous to bring up the strike blocking without also acknowledging action taken afterward. It seems like narrative building used to present a skewed perspective. Especially when it’s often brought up not as a statement of fact but as an allusion to something else.

Is that what you want to hear when it's your turn? Fuck this scab ass take. "I support workers rights, no really, it's just I need my treats."

I would expect that the elected representative acted I. The best interests of the majority of their constituents over that of a few. That’s literally what an elected officials job is supposed to be.

I can be both upset that action against a subset of the population and acknowledge the persons responsibility to work in the best interests of the majority.

That’s why what happens after is so important.

A lot of people in the US seem to tie their emotions up in their politics.

As to a subjective statement like Biden being the most union friendly president, I just ignore comments like that. There are people who claim Trump was the best president ever too. These are opinion statements, not measurable in any form of empirical data.

Why does everybody post this tidbit but not the fact that the White House continued working with the rail companies after all of the strike talk and the Tentative Agreement and many rail workers got sick time as well?

I’m not speaking to their stance on unions, just the fact that the President’s job is to represent their constituency, just like all politicians. An economic crash due to a rail shutdown doesn’t benefit any person in the US.

I support unions and workers right to strike but at the cost of potential economic collapse?

I think more focus should be given to the lack of visible support on pro union/worker legislation.