|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
theblackw0lf posted:No because heads of corporations hoard profit for self-enrichment, which is one reason why minimum wage laws exist. If you don't have enough money to actually pay all the people you want to have then you don't get all the people you want to have. If it were any other situation you'd likely understand how absolutely hosed the idea that workers should be made to slave away for free until their boss decides that they're worthy of a salary is, but since you're a lib with no principles it suddenly becomes OK when your team is doing it because of "participation". It's no different from any other employer having unpaid interns on the pretense that the experience is reward enough. And that's really hosed up. Calibanibal posted:Oh well its just performative so let every clown put on their little show? I don't agree with that. That's just a waste of my time (I hate the circus) You should be grateful. It's why you get to post.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 08:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Calibanibal posted:Oh well its just performative so let every clown put on their little show? I don't agree with that. That's just a waste of my time (I hate the circus) Right now you're being a sad clown.  MrFlibble posted:https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1149893631358246912 It's almost as if...rudeness is...called for? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 08:58
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1149893631358246912
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 12:02
|
|
|
I know I'm angry and earnest posting but gently caress YOU gently caress YOU YOU TOOTHY SACK OF poo poo, using cancer as a way to smokescreen to keep people from getting healthcare. People are dying from treatable cancer right now because they can't afford care. Drop dead you old racist gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 12:06
|
|
|
MrFlibble posted:https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1149893631358246912 i'm a little surprised this isn't getting much discussion in USPOL considering it should be topical for that thread. the dem leadership is being unbelievably lovely to AOC and minorities everywhere and then trying to use the native american identity of a representative that voted for trump's concentration camps to block off any discussion
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 12:07
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm a little surprised this isn't getting much discussion in USPOL considering it should be topical for that thread. the dem leadership is being unbelievably lovely to AOC and minorities everywhere and then trying to use the native american identity of a representative that voted for trump's concentration camps to block off any discussion
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 12:21
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:I know I'm angry and earnest posting but its super hosed up your son is dead, and you're being emotional and hysterical and petulant about it? Give me a break, there are people who are dying right now that can be saved. I can't trust someone like Joe to lead this country if he doesn't have the manly stoicism that Hillary Clinton lacked due to being a woman if he's so loving hung up and damaged over the tragic loss of his son that it affects his mental acuity to make the tough decisions. Being way too emotional, save me the histrionics thanks
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 12:39
|
|
|
a little weird posting but of course the idea of cure for cancer is kind of a crapshoot cause it's never coming given how cancer works
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 12:45
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:a little weird posting its literally one of those pie in the sky promises compared to say, idk, free healthcare, tuition free college? also hi Berke been a while, hope you're doing alright. Don't want to eat a 3fer again just for saying hi  so with that said, Joe Biden is pandering to an emotional appeal in the worst way, and establishment democrats, especially career politicians like him who have done enough work to shape America culturally, socially and economically for the last 40 years, tout to be pragmatic? That's a bunch of malarkey. They seriously do not have any direction other than holding onto power for privilege and convenience while wonking it out with people's livelihoods and separating families through mass incarceration, meritocratic based education system and concentration camps. The jig is clearly up and they're fighting to maintain the status quo  
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 12:51
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:its literally one of those pie in the sky promises compared to say, idk, free healthcare, tuition free college? those are actually extremely feasible while curing cancer is definitely out of our spectrum at the moment (some forms are treatable, what beau biden had was basically hosed and you are hosed)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 12:56
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:those are actually extremely feasible while curing cancer is definitely out of our spectrum at the moment (some forms are treatable, what beau biden had was basically hosed and you are hosed) exactly, the problem with democrats now is that they worship incrementalism, but its turned into inertia because they've conceded and bargained one time too many. To cure cancer, in this hypothetical scenario, you would have to pool resources and have a global army of researchers and scientists which would cost far more money and time and resources than free college and healthcare, and ironically if you had free college, you would create more doctors, scientists and researchers in America as well so its just what the gently caress Joe
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 13:01
|
|
|
free college and healthcare would also dramatically lower rates of preventable cancers, so
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 13:03
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT0CES2qkNc
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 13:06
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:exactly, the problem with democrats now is that they worship incrementalism, but its turned into inertia because they've conceded and bargained one time too many. To cure cancer, in this hypothetical scenario, you would have to pool resources and have a global army of researchers and scientists which would cost far more money and time and resources than free college and healthcare, and ironically if you had free college, you would create more doctors, scientists and researchers in America as well so its just what the gently caress Joe yeah i mean doing all that wouldn't really prevent much because most cancers are genetic and we're all ticking time bombs definitely should have a candidate (unlike biden) that's actually pushing for more universal healthcare. everyone gets sick, or dies, but shouldn't be a financial crisis over it
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 13:08
|
|
|
Curing cancer costs money The things that cause cancer in the first place make money We will not be stopping cancer any time soon
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:free college and healthcare would also dramatically lower rates of preventable cancers, so its very ironic, and in the bad way Berke Negri posted:yeah i mean doing all that wouldn't really prevent much because most cancers are genetic and we're all ticking time bombs i think you would have to accelerate technological advancements in the medical field that can only be achieved in your wildest dreams (it can be done to a degree) before you think about addressing the biological aspect. Things like gene splicing or altering your DNA out of the sci-fi novels. Scientists have computer mapped out new amino acid chains that have never existed in nature for example because of the unique protein folding structure which has enormous upsides and downsides, just one of many potential examples. Things like engineering out genes that cause cancer in the human population would be feasible in an egalitarian society in a century or so, given the exponential rate of development if we aren't all going to catch on fire in the next 2-3 decades. Nice to think about, still pie in the sky because if this happens in a late stage hypercapitalist society, its even more hosed up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 13:14
|
|
|
Booourns posted:Curing cancer costs money i mean yeah, carcinogens can cause things, but its not like beau biden got brain cancer cause he smoked too much or ate bad food or drove too many cars edit: Lastgirl posted:i think you would have to accelerate technological advancements in the medical field that can only be achieved in your wildest dreams (it can be done to a degree) before you think about addressing the biological aspect. Things like gene splicing or altering your DNA out of the sci-fi novels. Scientists have computer mapped out new amino acid chains that have never existed in nature for example because of the unique protein folding structure which has enormous upsides and downsides, just one of many potential examples. Things like engineering out genes that cause cancer in the human population would be feasible in an egalitarian society in a century or so, given the exponential rate of development if we aren't all going to catch on fire in the next 2-3 decades. Nice to think about, still pie in the sky because if this happens in a late stage hypercapitalist society, its even more hosed up. yeah i mean that'd be great Berke Negri fucked around with this message at 13:18 on Jul 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 13:14
|
|
|
Things like Dems trying to steal the election from Katz, and this whole crazy attack against AOC are important for thinking about the presidential election. They are clear signs that the Democratic establishment is going to do anything they can to stop Bernie, even if it means destroying the party. When Bernie is the nominated candidate, there's going to be Democrats just flat out endorsing Trump. We gotta be ready for this, because it's gonna become crazy ugly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
Life has been crazy ugly the past 2 and a half years every day if youre thinking it's just now well.... that said I'm all for AOC, i trust my bartenders more than politicians so if you combine the two well,
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 14:00
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Life has been crazy ugly the past 2 and a half years every day if youre thinking it's just now well.... I am referring specifically to the Democratic primary elections. Life has been crazy ugly for a lot longer than the past 2 and a half years every day if youre thinking it's just since Trump was elected well....
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 14:34
|
|
|
yeah it's only until trump got elected i ever thought this country maybe wasn't right
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 14:38
|
|
|
Lastgirl posted:its super hosed up David Cameron (the last UK prime minister) had a kid who died. And he used it (the tragic death of his child) whenever he faced criticism about his party starving the NHS of funds. Dead kids* are catnip for politicians. *and pigs in the UK, since David Cameron hosed a dead pig.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 15:32
|
|
|
S/o to lastgirl for being a real one itt
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Right now you're being a sad clown. "Great troll in thread, Calibanibal, go and see them." "But doctor, you took the bait."
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
If someone opposes paying all campaign workers, I gather they’d probably also oppose overtime for campaign workers since that too would reduce the total number of workers the campaign can hire. Sanders is the only campaign with a collective bargaining agreement mandating overtime for hourly employees, for those curious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
It seems like Joe's attempts to tie himself to the Obama administration aren't insulating him from attacks after all. In fact, they're now drawing in attacks, as protesters demand he answer for the sins of the Obama administration. https://twitter.com/ericbradner/status/1149779380152995843
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Things like Dems trying to steal the election from Katz, and this whole crazy attack against AOC are important for thinking about the presidential election. They are clear signs that the Democratic establishment is going to do anything they can to stop Bernie, even if it means destroying the party. When Bernie is the nominated candidate, there's going to be Democrats just flat out endorsing Trump. If what you're saying is right, and I think it is, then we have to grapple with the likelihood that the DNC would deny Bernie the nomination irrespective of how many delegates he gets. They can still technically go the "smoke filled room" route. If they're already comfortable losing to Trump rather than letting the Sanders wing take over the party, why would they nominate Sanders at all? Of course, it's still worth it for us to support Sanders and making the party brass reveal themselves as frauds if indeed that's what they're going to be. But let's not imagine a scenario in which Sanders gets nominated while the party establishment defects to Trump; such a party establishment would rather eschew the typical nominating process and install an establishment candidate by committee.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If someone opposes paying all campaign workers, I gather they’d probably also oppose overtime for campaign workers since that too would reduce the total number of workers the campaign can hire. The situation is different because campaigns aren’t for-profit businesses. People are there because they want to be, not because they’re desperate to go on living. Thus, exploitation is of less concern.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The situation is different because campaigns aren’t for-profit businesses. People are there because they want to be, not because they’re desperate to go on living. Thus, exploitation is of less concern. No I get the argument people are making that wage exploitation is OK if its for a political campaign, but that would also apply to overtime payment, vacation days, breaks, limits to shift lengths, etc. Like if it is good to not pay one worker it clearly follows that underpaying another worker is good too. Sure is a shame that the consultants making $100,000+ a year can't afford to get paid a little less, but luckily the hourly workers can make up the slack!
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The situation is different because campaigns aren’t for-profit businesses. People are there because they want to be, not because they’re desperate to go on living. Thus, exploitation is of less concern. "people who work on campaigns don't need money and this, to me, is a good thing"
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:The situation is different because campaigns aren’t for-profit businesses. People are there because they want to be, not because they’re desperate to go on living. Thus, exploitation is of less concern. I somehow doubt Bernie's hairstylist is there "because they want to be"
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 17:14
|
|
|
The Biden and Warren campaigns are just vying to capture voters who supported Hillary Clinton 2016 for Clinton's bold pro-using slave labor stance
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 17:17
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:No I get the argument people are making that wage exploitation is OK if its for a political campaign, but that would also apply to overtime payment, vacation days, breaks, limits to shift lengths, etc. This argument proves too much though. By this logic, campaigns should have to pay everyone who works on their behalf. Where is the line between a staff member and a volunteer? I’ve worked on campaigns where I put in almost full time work (especially at the end) and had a fancy title and specific responsibilities. Should that not be allowed? Keep in mind this was a ballot measure for a local issue and nobody on the campaign made any money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This argument proves too much though. By this logic, campaigns should have to pay everyone who works on their behalf. Where is the line between a staff member and a volunteer? I’ve worked on campaigns where I put in almost full time work (especially at the end) and had a fancy title and specific responsibilities. Should that not be allowed? Keep in mind this was a ballot measure for a local issue and nobody on the campaign made any money. That's not what happened though these "fellowships" are positions with set schedules and requirements that volunteers are not expected or bound by
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This argument proves too much though. By this logic, campaigns should have to pay everyone who works on their behalf. Where is the line between a staff member and a volunteer? I’ve worked on campaigns where I put in almost full time work (especially at the end) and had a fancy title and specific responsibilities. Should that not be allowed? Keep in mind this was a ballot measure for a local issue and nobody on the campaign made any money. You should be able to join a union that can help you find correct compensation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This argument proves too much though. By this logic, campaigns should have to pay everyone who works on their behalf. Where is the line between a staff member and a volunteer? I’ve worked on campaigns where I put in almost full time work (especially at the end) and had a fancy title and specific responsibilities. Should that not be allowed? Keep in mind this was a ballot measure for a local issue and nobody on the campaign made any money. The line between a staff member and a volunteer is easy: does the position have employee like requirements? Such as required hours, required work tasks, or the like. Warren's fellowship requires a time commitment, volunteering for Warren does not. See the difference? Also donating your time like you did with that campaign is an in-kind contribution, specifically because the law recognizes that your labor has value. This fellowship program is a loophole to avoid that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 17:22
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This argument proves too much though. By this logic, campaigns should have to pay everyone who works on their behalf. Where is the line between a staff member and a volunteer? I’ve worked on campaigns where I put in almost full time work (especially at the end) and had a fancy title and specific responsibilities. Should that not be allowed? Keep in mind this was a ballot measure for a local issue and nobody on the campaign made any money. A volunteer is someone that you can ask to do something, a staffer is someone you can tell to do something, hth. And if you're doing work where someone can tell you to do something you should get paid, but do go in inventing increasingly tortured justifications for why screwing over workers is actually cool and good if you can convince them that they want to be there. I'm sure that that can't possibly lead to any horrific abuse, no sir.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 17:24
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:A volunteer is someone that you can ask to do something, a staffer is someone you can tell to do something, hth. And if you're doing work where someone can tell you to do something you should get paid, but do go in inventing increasingly tortured justifications for why screwing over workers is actually cool and good if you can convince them that they want to be there. I'm sure that that can't possibly lead to any horrific abuse, no sir. It's on brand both for Warren, who thinks that capitalism is cool and good, and Biden, who is an exploitative patriarchy elemental composed of pure goyan saturn devours his child energy, though
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 17:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The line between a staff member and a volunteer is easy: does the position have employee like requirements? Such as required hours, required work tasks, or the like. Well, that’s my point. This is something like the legal difference between an employee and a contractor. I think there’s room for volunteer positions on campaigns and not for profit organizations that come with concrete commitments and expectations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:11 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Well, that’s my point. This is something like the legal difference between an employee and a contractor. I think there’s room for volunteer positions on campaigns and not for profit organizations that come with concrete commitments and expectations. Right and the Warren and Biden campaigns are using a legal loophole to expand the definitions of volunteer to cover positions that are clearly internships. Now you can again, say that labor exploitation is OK so long as its at a non-profit. But you have to recognize it is labor exploitation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2019 18:11
|
|