Miggs
Well-Known Member
Please give me many examples of gig workers. Uber? Lyft? What else? Strippers? What else?
The Biden Administration and All Things Politics
- Thread starter Avery
- Start date
Please give me many examples of gig workers. Uber? Lyft? What else? Strippers? What else?
Bucknutz
Well-Known Member
7 Key Gig Economy Examples
The Gig economy solved a market issue across almost all verticals under the sun. Check out these gig economy examples to better understand.
www.stoketalent.com
Earning a Living with Gig Work as a Nurse - The Fioneers
Emily quit her job as a nurse, transitioning to do gig work in nursing. Learn how her quality of life improved with this career change.
thefioneers.com
Lots, Nurses handy man, sales reps, contractors, beauticians, airbnb, caregivers, designers, technicians etc...
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Honestly? This is the root of the problem. It’s not about the money or concerns abt it not helping. It’s about preventing Biden another win. That’s all. Tribalism yet again. Reminds me of when the ACA was passed. Repubs didn’t have an alt plan to help people. They just hoped the scotus would kill it to prevent Obama from getting a W.
View: https://twitter.com/nickadamsinusa/status/1564382306667732994?s=21&t=kPFVGyB2mgpdszdaLtz4Nw
View: https://twitter.com/nickadamsinusa/status/1564382306667732994?s=21&t=kPFVGyB2mgpdszdaLtz4Nw
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
That is what everything has been about for the past 10 years. Electing Obama was the last straw for many of them. They have been on a vendetta trip ever since, and Trump just ratcheted that up many many notches. To be fair, no one has been much about compromise in the legislature nor the presidency for decades now. Literally the last thing we had any kind of agreement on, interestingly enough, was the vote to invade Iraq, which had maybe the strongest by-partisan numbers of any resolution since. Of course many pack-pedaled since the impetus to stifle the other side was already in full swing. But we have been only about what gets one side ahead or the other for decades now. And odds are it gets worse long before it gets any better, if it ever does.
This only shows through 2011 but it has been even worse since. 89% for republicans and 91% for democrats.
To me this is the single biggest indicator of the dangerous state our republic is in. Zero compromise realistically over decades is a recipe for disaster. It allows that tribalism to fester and increases the divide as any time there is a vote across party lines it is vilified to the Nth degree, which drives fewer and fewer votes across party lines. To even have a hope of re-election within the party they must toe the party line. Doing differently would not just alienate their base, but also the leadership of each respective party, which will torpedo their chances. It is a vicious cycle that I cannot see us pulling ourselves out of any time soon, if ever. It will be a death-spiral for the nation ultimately if left completely unchecked. It fundamentally undermines the greatest pillar of our political institution, which is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Substitute in "party" in place of "people" and it is the world we live in now.
See Congress polarize over the past 60 years, in one beautiful chart
Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...
www.vox.com
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
Its like they dont realize that thousands (maybe millions?) of conservatives who were going to have their student loans erased will also be crying.
Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app
Last edited:
That is what everything has been about for the past 10 years. Electing Obama was the last straw for many of them. They have been on a vendetta trip ever since, and Trump just ratcheted that up many many notches. To be fair, no one has been much about compromise in the legislature nor the presidency for decades now. Literally the last thing we had any kind of agreement on, interestingly enough, was the vote to invade Iraq, which had maybe the strongest by-partisan numbers of any resolution since. Of course many pack-pedaled since the impetus to stifle the other side was already in full swing. But we have been only about what gets one side ahead or the other for decades now. And odds are it gets worse long before it gets any better, if it ever does.
This only shows through 2011 but it has been even worse since. 89% for republicans and 91% for democrats.
To me this is the single biggest indicator of the dangerous state our republic is in. Zero compromise realistically over decades is a recipe for disaster. It allows that tribalism to fester and increases the divide as any time there is a vote across party lines it is vilified to the Nth degree, which drives fewer and fewer votes across party lines. To even have a hope of re-election within the party they must toe the party line. Doing differently would not just alienate their base, but also the leadership of each respective party, which will torpedo their chances. It is a vicious cycle that I cannot see us pulling ourselves out of any time soon, if ever. It will be a death-spiral for the nation ultimately if left completely unchecked. It fundamentally undermines the greatest pillar of our political institution, which is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Substitute in "party" in place of "people" and it is the world we live in now.
See Congress polarize over the past 60 years, in one beautiful chart
Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...
View attachment 12974
View attachment 12975
Great post. Term limits is the only partial solution I can think of.
Politicians need to be elected from a district. Term limits won't fix districts that elect radical politicians. The real fix happens from reducing/eliminating gerrymandering.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
The data you've presented falsifies your hypothesis. The scatter plot in 1995 is nearly identical to the scatter plot in 2011. Obama clearly has nothing to do with anything.
Your second observation is far stronger. We were more united as a society when we last had the external enemy in the Iraq War. We were also more united when the Soviet Union was a credible external enemy. Statistically we appear to be on the edge of civil war because we've had too much peace.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I was referring more to the tendency to vote to obstruct rather than voting for their actual, you know, standards and what their constituency wants. That became much more pronounced after the Obama election. And we see that in that the peak divisions have occurred in the past 5-6 years.
The scatter plot was simply to show how the division in the legislature has changed over the past decades.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
Even voting tendencies don't square with that so much as they align with the rise of social media. It is easier to reach deals when professionals are able to do what they do in a room without anyone watching. With social media, EVERYONE is watching everything and the one with the most extreme take gets the most eyeballs which often translates into the most campaign funds. Our representatives have traded professionalism for showmanship because the ones who opt for showmanship are the only ones who keep their jobs, and it only gets worse over time as there is always the threat of a greater showman arriving to outshine whatever the current showman is doing.
Avery
Well-Known Member
I don't know who Nick Adams is, but:
#1 - Does he understand how the SC even gets cases? What lower courts will take up cases regarding this and deliver judgments anytime soon? Not exactly a lot of plantiffs rushing to sue despite the rhetoric
#2 - What is constitutionally at play here? The SC tends to not want to meddle in legislative/executive decisions especially those that are a matter of money, not morals
#3 - Let's just say the SC takes it up a few years from now as lower courts are decided and appealed. By then, loans would already have been forgiven and null and void. You gonna reinstate the debts? Get out of here.
The SC doesn't give a rat's arse about budgetary decisions. Sounds like this individual is just feeding red meat to their audience without any regard to the larger thought process.
Al-O-Meter
Well-Known Member
It is clearly unconstitutional. The President does not have the constitutional power to unilaterally create a trillion dollar expenditure. In our system of government, it is the legislative branch that has the power of the purse. The issue that may keep it in place has nothing to do with constitutionality, as it is obviously unconstitutional, but rather finding someone with standing to challenge it in court. Our legal system requires a plaintiff who can show harm from the action that is recognized by the court. That may be difficult.
I'll let you find your own sources but include the word "standing" along with whatever search terms you are using and it should corroborate what I wrote.