2020 Democratic Party primary thread

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

So none of the actual wrestlers then? I mean candidates.

Well I don't think I've really made it clear who I support, so I'd prefer to keep it a mystery.

 

[The Cat]

Birds.

 

[highlander]

Can you please do a better job of sourcing information? The Heritage Foundation is an right wing conservative, incredibly toxic think tank, what do you expect them to say? I'm not saying find a left wing site, I'm saying don't pick the most obviously biased against unions place available.

The report is 11 years old. I understand your current perception but it was not always that way

 

[Red Memories]

This election is going to be a hot mess.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ive literally worked in customer service jobs (non union) where we werent allowed to look people in the eyes, because the guests, like their servants to be a little beat down and submissive looking

I had to deal with lots of small business tyrants who would throw temper tantrums at me because they didn't remember their passwords. And heaven forbid I not sound excessively cheerful in my responses. Granted, I did get really good at learning how to hide what I'm actually feeling from that job, so even if it was horrible for my mental health, I got something out of it.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Could Joe Biden Be In Trouble In South Carolina? | FiveThirtyEight

 

[Nicodemus]

Could Joe Biden Be In Trouble In South Carolina? | FiveThirtyEight

It is no surprise if he fails as his advantage was largely a result of long familiarity and the perception of electability. Other candidates have gained a lot of ground in these respects since the cycle started. And watching Biden stumble through public performances does not exactly add to his appeal.

 

[ceecee]

Could Joe Biden Be In Trouble In South Carolina? | FiveThirtyEight

He thinks he's running for the senate so.....

 

[Maou]

All this fighting about supporting unions or not, means you support corperations or not is kinda bullshit. At the end of the day, people just want more than the other people who are not in their group. What happened to equality? What the system really needs is less bureaucracy, and the ability to hold people accountable. To simplify plans, and benefits to one that is affordable. How about we abolish pensions and unions, and instead invest into savings yourself so you don't have to rely on them?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Bloomberg Rewrites His History of Doggedly Defending Stop and Frisk – Reason.com

While Bloomberg wants us to believe he decided to reduce the number of stops because he realized they were "out of control," the cutback came after years of controversy over the program, including a federal lawsuit initiated in 2008. In 2011, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin rejected the city's motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and in 2012 she certified it as a class action. That was the year SQF stops began to drop. "It wasn't because [Bloomberg] had an epiphany that it was wrong," Scheindlin, who retired from the bench in 2016, noted in an MSNBC interview last week. "It was because of the court rulings."

Bloomberg, who by that time supposedly had realized that SQF was "out of control," reacted to Scheindlin's decision not with contrition but with outrage. "There is just no question that stop-question-frisk has saved countless lives," he said. "And we know that most of the lives saved, based on the statistics, have been black and Hispanic young men." He complained that Scheindlin "made it clear she was not interested in the crime reductions" and "ignored the real-world realities of crime."

Although Bloomberg's audience may have thought he meant that police were actually seizing illegal guns, that was almost never true: The share of stops yielding guns was 0.38 percent in 2002, his first year as mayor, and had fallen to 0.033 percent by 2011. "The number of guns that we've been finding has continued to go down, which says the program at this scale is doing a great job," he bragged in a 2012 radio interview. "The whole idea here…is not to catch people with guns; it's to prevent people from carrying guns." Bloomberg either did not know or did not care that his "whole idea" was blatantly unconstitutional, since both stops and pat-downs are supposed to be based on reasonable suspicion.

it does not reflect well on Bloomberg's empathy, his intellectual humility, or his respect for the Constitution. As my colleague Matt Welch has noted, Bloomberg's conviction that he was helping black New Yorkers by subjecting them to unconstitutional seizures and searches is of a piece with his arrogant and condescending attitude toward the poor people he wants to save from their own unhealthy habits, epitomized by his ill-fated ban on extra-large sodas. In his heart, he knows he is right, even when the supposed beneficiaries of his policies vehemently disagree.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

All this fighting about supporting unions or not, means you support corperations or not is kinda bullshit. At the end of the day, people just want more than the other people who are not in their group. What happened to equality? What the system really needs is less bureaucracy, and the ability to hold people accountable. To simplify plans, and benefits to one that is affordable. How about we abolish pensions and unions, and instead invest into savings yourself so you don't have to rely on them?

Unions don't just exist to provide pensions. It's about allowing workers a means to organize, thus giving otherwise mostly powerless individual employees more bargaining power against their unified corporate masters. A single worker standing up for their rights on the job is not likely to be heard, and often they are putting their own job at risk by voicing discontent, but when a group of workers come forward with the same grievance or concern, they are more likely to be heard, and it will be less likely for a company to fire a thousand disgruntled workers than to fire one.

Opposition to unions is inherently anti-First Amendment.

 

[Maou]

Unions don't just exist to provide pensions. It's about allowing workers a means to organize, thus giving otherwise mostly powerless individual employees more bargaining power against their unified corporate masters. A single worker standing up for their rights on the job is not likely to be heard, and often they are putting their own job at risk by voicing discontent, but when a group of workers come forward with the same grievance or concern, they are more likely to be heard, and it will be less likely for a company to fire a thousand disgruntled workers than to fire one.

Opposition to unions is inherently anti-First Amendment.

No it is not. And Unions do the same shit corporations do. They tell you to vite certain ways. It interfears with the free market. The only use they had was for safety, and that is on top of federal regulation. They served their purpose, and are obsolete. Now they just slow everything down, stifle competition, and create entitlement.

 

[Jaguar]

He thinks he's running for the senate so.....

And Pete rigged Iowa against Bernie. So.....

 

[Red Memories]

All this fighting about supporting unions or not, means you support corperations or not is kinda bullshit. At the end of the day, people just want more than the other people who are not in their group. What happened to equality? What the system really needs is less bureaucracy, and the ability to hold people accountable. To simplify plans, and benefits to one that is affordable. How about we abolish pensions and unions, and instead invest into savings yourself so you don't have to rely on them?

I think the issue is a poorer population who cannot afford that kind of savings but also those companies (like McDonald's) don't offer much aid or protection to those workers unless someone MAKES them. I do think as you said though, holding people and corporation accountable both, but also make benefits affordable. Unions however actually help with the affordability of benefits for some which is a reason why some really enjoy unions if for nothing else.

Any union or non-union corp can treat you like crap. That is a matter of what boss you have and who you are working for. Ultimately, many employers feel if you don't do your job well you are a replaceable asset and you have to be customer focused. Sadly the grind of the 9-5 will not disappear anytime soon, nor will poor managers and workplaces that treat you like you are a robot. Unions or not. The issue is there is not as big of a market to "escape" shitty jobs now. With the recession a lot of people had to take jobs lower than they were even trained for just to get by.

 

[ceecee]

All this fighting about supporting unions or not, means you support corperations or not is kinda bullshit. At the end of the day, people just want more than the other people who are not in their group. What happened to equality? What the system really needs is less bureaucracy, and the ability to hold people accountable. To simplify plans, and benefits to one that is affordable. How about we abolish pensions and unions, and instead invest into savings yourself so you don't have to rely on them?

By investing in an incredibly unstable stock market? Or speculative industries, such as oil and gas, which are completely structured around debt and passing it off as wealth? Unions don't provide a pension but corporations made sure workers have less stability by getting rid of pension and replacing them with volatile 401k's (ask ANYONE that lost their ass in 2008 and there are plenty). In reality you're just loaning rich people your money decades in advance so you might retire with some dignity. And praying you get a return on your investment. If they want to go spend your money to speculate on a some shale, they will. With NO accountability. YOU adopt austerity, not them.

And get that fucking "hold people accountable" bullshit out of your mouth. You defend Trump relentlessly. The only people you have any interest in holding accountable are anyone not Trump and the GOP that enables him.

Corporations are are stealing your labor and your wages, the profits you've generated for them. For their shareholders and interests. They produce nothing. You do. And you have been brainwashed into thinking the entity that wants you to be able to have a say in your future and your destiny is the enemy. You talk out your ass about unions and collective bargaining and working people taking back their power and dignity to defend the wealthy and corporations and CEO's. You sound insane.

 

[ceecee]

And Pete rigged Iowa against Bernie. So.....

Joe Biden says he's 'candidate for US Senate' in latest gaffe

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

No it is not. And Unions do the same shit corporations do. They tell you to vite certain ways. It interfears with the free market.

Yes, every organization carries a risk of corruption.

The only use they had was for safety, and that is on top of federal regulation.

They served their purpose, and are obsolete. Now they just slow everything down, stifle competition, and create entitlement.

Your guy ran on a promise of scrapping 2 regulations for every 1 new regulation. So by that logic, you might want to consider either supporting a different guy or reconsidering your stance on the usefulness of unions. If your boy scraps enough of those regulations in place to protect workers, you might be glad some unions are still around.

Also, don't you work in a factory or a warehouse or something along those lines?

 

[JocktheMotie]

Joe Biden says he's 'candidate for US Senate' in latest gaffe

For real, dude's brain is leaking out of his ears in public. Elder abuse!

 

[highlander]

Unions don't just exist to provide pensions. It's about allowing workers a means to organize, thus giving otherwise mostly powerless individual employees more bargaining power against their unified corporate masters. A single worker standing up for their rights on the job is not likely to be heard, and often they are putting their own job at risk by voicing discontent, but when a group of workers come forward with the same grievance or concern, they are more likely to be heard, and it will be less likely for a company to fire a thousand disgruntled workers than to fire one.

Opposition to unions is inherently anti-First Amendment.

Why is that so? Why is it some workers are targeted/eligible for unions and others aren't? My job is at risk. It always has been since I had my first job working in a cafeteria in college, or when I was working in a warehouse or a restaurant as a busboy over summers. I wouldn't want a union dictating what my productivity levels are or what I can or can't do or want my compensation to be tied to seniority more than merit or contribution. What makes certain workers more special than others? I've worried about losing my job every year of my life since graduating college and have always lived my life in a way to build and maintain current marketable skills so that if I got fired or was mistreated or didn't like what was going on, I could go somewhere else. We can always leave our job and do something else if we don't like how we are paid or are being treated. If our skills are out of date or not marketable, then we need to do something else because it's just postponing the inevitable I'm sure being in a union is great - for the employees in that union. It doesn't do much good for anyone else in the company that's not in the union. I've never supported unions and probably never will. I think they stifle growth, agility, and every other good thing I can think about entrepreneurialism and capitalism.

For real, dude's brain is leaking out of his ears in public. Elder abuse!

As I mentioned earlier, he seems to suffer from a problem with stuttering. It seems more obvious when he's in the hostile environment of a debate. He was much better in the town hall laast night. Knowing this completely affected my perception of him. I was wondering if he had early stages of mental decline.

Joe Biden's Stutter, and Mine - The Atlantic

 

[21%]

And you have been brainwashed into thinking the entity that wants you to be able to have a say in your future and your destiny is the enemy.

This 'American' attitude has always baffled me. It's feels like an abused victim defending the abuser and claiming all the suffering they endured is due to their own fault. I understand where people are coming from when they rail against 'the sense of entitlement' on the left, and I can agree that a lot of people are simply useless whiners, but, I believe that everyone deserves a social safety net, so that one slip-up, one stroke of bad luck, doesn't actually ruin them and their family forever. Some companies don't care about giving you a safety net, and some corrupted unions (maybe not in the US -- I don't know -- but at least here) can be predatory, but that's only 'some', and you'll probably be able to find cases where unions have helped/hurt businesses and workers depending on where you look and what you want to prove. My concern about unions is that they enforce the 'us vs them' narrative, and they're not necessary in good companies that include employees in the 'us' (where workers never feel the need to unionize in the first place). But, not all companies have the workers' interest in mind, and in the majority of big companies, the shareholders they serve don't even have a clue about what the business is about. It's just another cash cow for them, only to be bled dry and discarded, sold off to the next idiot once it's no longer producing milk. In these cases, unions do help, because it's already a us vs them scenario.