POLITICS SCHMALITICS

[CMRivdogs]

6 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

2000-2008? Now your are comparing apples to tangerines. 

Tangerines taste better. 

[Tigeraholic1]

9 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

Tangerines taste better. 

Agreed

[mtutiger]

13 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

I grabbed this from a labor law site regarding the new law:

That doesn't sound like you can skip out without calling in. The 3day thing refers to how much sick time an employee can take without providing medical evidence of sickness to the employer  if the employer demands it.

https://www.seyfarth.com/news-insights/if-pain-yes-gain---part-125-michigan-dol-publishes-updated-paid-sick-leave-materials-as-amended-laws-february-2025-effective-date-looms.html

You gotta take anything Dave Bondy says or amplifies with about a truckloads worth of Morton Salt.

Edited January 17 by mtutiger

[pfife]

Wait a second are you saying maga lied about something?   

[mtutiger]

43 minutes ago, pfife said:

Wait a second are you saying maga lied about something?   

It is curious how people will say they "do their own research", yet "doing their own research" ends up meaning reading / sharing / amplifying sources of information that frequently omit details about the subject they are talking about. It's not the first time I've seen it from Bondy.

Also worth noting that the source of information that G2 provided is an LLP that, among other things, practices in labor law, not a political blogger. They have incentive to correctly interpret the law because their bottom line depends on being able to interpret the law.

Dave Bondy's bottom line, OTOH, depends on generating clicks and giving his consumers their dopamine hit of rage.

Sorry if that comes across harsh, but it's just brutal honesty that people don't really "do their own research" as much as they think they do.

Edited January 17 by mtutiger

[Tigeraholic1]

27 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

It is curious how people will say they "do their own research", yet "doing their own research" ends up meaning reading / sharing / amplifying sources of information that frequently omit details about the subject they are talking about. It's not the first time I've seen it from Bondy.

Also worth noting that the source of information that G2 provided is an LLP that, among other things, practices in labor law, not a political blogger. They have incentive to correctly interpret the law because their bottom line depends on being able to interpret the law.

Dave Bondy's bottom line, OTOH, depends on generating clicks and giving his consumers their dopamine hit of rage.

Sorry if that comes across harsh, but it's just brutal honesty that people don't really "do their own research" as much as they think they do.

So its not OK to just ask a question anymore? There is ike 6-8 people who post in this group. 

[pfife]

no sale

you post lies here, putting a question mark at the end doesn't change it

[mtutiger]

18 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

So its not OK to just ask a question anymore? 

I never said this? Not sure what you're getting at.

It's a commentary on guys like Bondy, a guy who bills himself as a "independent journalist" yet is apparently not interested or capable of doing even a small bit of research that would inform those who read his content that the claim he amplified, at best, lacked context. If not being outright untrue.

It's literally the opposite of journalism.... to your credit you were skeptical, but there are others that will share it uncritically and just take it as truth without doing a bit of research. 

Just my two cents, but that's a breach of trust.... the question to ask is if he's willing to lie and misinform here, what else is he willing to lie and misinform about?

Edited January 17 by mtutiger

[oblong]

Last Saturday I was at dinner with friends and we got to talking about work and time off rules and he explained that new MI law to me.  I had never heard of it.  He's an attorney.

Then the next day while running with another group of friends, one of them a business owner, lamented having to watch a video about this new law and it's affects on her business.  I was stunned the subject came up in two occassions like that.

In both situations they told me documentation would not be required for the first 3 days, matching what G2 posted.  And the company has to pay for the evidence, as many places require a document fee for services rendered.

 

 

[Tigeraholic1]

2 hours ago, mtutiger said:

I never said this? Not sure what you're getting at.

It's a commentary on guys like Bondy, a guy who bills himself as a "independent journalist" yet is apparently not interested or capable of doing even a small bit of research that would inform those who read his content that the claim he amplified, at best, lacked context. If not being outright untrue.

It's literally the opposite of journalism.... to your credit you were skeptical, but there are others that will share it uncritically and just take it as truth without doing a bit of research. 

Just my two cents, but that's a breach of trust.... the question to ask is if he's willing to lie and misinform here, what else is he willing to lie and misinform about?

All good man. I don't live in Michigan and was just curious.

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, oblong said:

documentation would not be required for the first 3 days,

I don't think that part is particularly out of line. I've worked at places in the past where they reserved to right to require doctor's verification for more than 3 sick days. Seemed pretty typical.

[CMRivdogs]

A lot of times it takes three days or more to get in to see a physician. I've only tried the walk-in clinics once and that was on vacation. 

[gehringer_2]

26 minutes ago, CMRivdogs said:

A lot of times it takes three days or more to get in to see a physician. I've only tried the walk-in clinics once and that was on vacation. 

System in the US seems to be trending to a different model. You won't get in to see your doctor, but the 'system' that your doctor/hospital are part of probably has an affiliated 'urgent care' facility you can get into to see someone in  your plan on short notice. But a different weakness in the US system is getting in to see a specialist once you've done the urgent care or ER walk-in and preliminary diagnosis was made that you need to see the specialist. Unless you are already so sick you were admitted, that specialist referral can easily be months.

[Tigeraholic1]

On 1/17/2025 at 9:47 AM, CMRivdogs said:

It's a bit apples and oranges and the data is from 2008, but...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2323087/

That's not counting those who may have insurance and are stuck on transplant waiting lists or worse get "fired" by their doctors for asking too many questions.

 

This made me think. Harris could have used this metric as something to stump on. Instead all I saw with Trumps team running commercials using her own words and video about giving sex changes to prisoners.

[chasfh]

On 1/17/2025 at 3:45 AM, Tigeraholic1 said:

You don’t say…..

 

 

SecondStreet.org says if it extrapolates the unknown data, then an estimated 28,077 patients died last year on health care waiting lists covering everything from cancer treatment and heart operations to cataract surgery and MRI scans.

 

“Canadians pay really high taxes and yet our health care system is failing when compared to better-performing universal systems in Europe,” said Harrison Fleming, the legislative and policy director at SecondStreet.org.

 

 

[Motown Bombers]

Welcome senator Whitmer. 

 

[oblong]

I guess it's hers if she wants it.  But does she?  She could be in a position to make some good money in the private sector I suppose but this is as much of a sure thing as we've seen in MI politics.  I can't read the article but MI has a deep bench for Democrats and this is a good move for Gary to step aside and let them grow.  That's leadership.

Duggan's throwing shade at the democrats too.  I saw a blurb yesterday. 

 

[Motown Bombers]

If not Whitmer, Buttigieg could make a run. If he has presidential aspirations, he needs to show he can win an election other than mayor of South Bend. 

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, oblong said:

I can't read the article

There isn't any election speculation in it, it's almost all just a recap of Peter's career.

[gehringer_2]

Just now, Motown Bombers said:

If not Whitmer, Buttigieg could make a run. If he has presidential aspirations, he needs to show he can win an election other than mayor of South Bend. 

also true.

[Motown Bombers]

Benson has already thrown her hat into the Governor's race. I think Karen McDonald should run for attorney general. The top candidates off the top of my head would be Whitmer, Buttigieg and Haley Stevens. 

[Tigerbomb13]

18 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Welcome senator Whitmer. 

 

Hopefully Whitmer won’t vote to confirm cabinet picks like Noem as Peters and Slotkin did. 

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, Tigerbomb13 said:

Hopefully Whitmer won’t vote to confirm cabinet picks like Noem as Peters and Slotkin did. 

Noem was getting confirmed regardless of their vote. It's the Susan Collins approach. They knew she had the votes to get confirmed so you through a bone to your swing voters. Instead, Dems will hold purity tests over this. 

[oblong]

15 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

If not Whitmer, Buttigieg could make a run. If he has presidential aspirations, he needs to show he can win an election other than mayor of South Bend. 

Put another way, he has to show that voters in a swing state will accept a gay man who is married with kids.

I like him a lot and he's qualified for Governor, Senator, and POTUS.  

 

[oblong]

4 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Noem was getting confirmed regardless of their vote. It's the Susan Collins approach. They knew she had the votes to get confirmed so you through a bone to your swing voters. Instead, Dems will hold purity tests over this. 

I don't hold it against them either.  There is a fine line between "POTUS won, they get to decide their cabinet and the Senate advises and consents."  Save the objections for the extreme cases like Hegseth and RFK Jr.   There has to be some specific disqualifying factor other than "I disagree with her and think she's a nutjob".