2018 Democrats thread

[southsider2k5]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

A demand that a person confront the privilege granted to them by virtue of being white does not mean that no white people can act to help improve a system. You are misinterpreting it that way deliberately so that you do not have to face up to those inequities, as if you did you would feel compelled to act since it is manifestly unfair. By avoiding any discussion of your own privilege and pretending you are above that issue, you can pretend its not your fault that African Americans in Indiana have been systematically disenfranchised, for example, by a voter ID law passed by people you voted for. 

That is the exact opposite of what you are supporting when you keep parroting the post I responded to.  You are quite literally supporting the idea that you are not qualified to speak on social issues. 

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

That is the exact opposite of what you are supporting when you keep parroting the post I responded to.  You are quite literally supporting the idea that you are not qualified to speak on social issues. 

I've read that post several times and it's a deliberate maneuver by you to serve the purpose of making sure that the point of view of the white person maintains supremacy, that issues relevant to white people are given primacy because we cannot face issues of unfairness. One poster says plainly that social issues need to take a backburner and is called out specifically for the fact that they would not be able to say that if they were not in a privileged position by their own background. You immediately chimed in to attack that perspective, because there is no better way to defend white supremacy than to denigrate those who call for fairness for all groups.

It's how the Republicans built their voter suppression apparatus, it's how we built segregation into the fabric of our cities and towns, it's how we wound up with our current immigration policy, and it's how we wound up with Donald Trump, who as you said in the last page or two, got voters excited with the message that Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists and that was the message they were waiting to hear.

[southsider2k5]

9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I've read that post several times and it's a deliberate maneuver by you to serve the purpose of making sure that the point of view of the white person maintains supremacy, that issues relevant to white people are given primacy because we cannot face issues of unfairness. One poster says plainly that social issues need to take a backburner and is called out specifically for the fact that they would not be able to say that if they were not in a privileged position by their own background. You immediately chimed in to attack that perspective, because there is no better way to defend white supremacy than to denigrate those who call for fairness for all groups.

It's how the Republicans built their voter suppression apparatus, it's how we built segregation into the fabric of our cities and towns, it's how we wound up with our current immigration policy, and it's how we wound up with Donald Trump, who as you said in the last page or two, got voters excited with the message that Mexicans are drug dealers and rapists and that was the message they were waiting to hear.

It was an attempt to disqualify someone else's opinion on social matters because they were white/straight/supported Bernie Sanders.  It has been a theme repeated over and over again in this very thread, and you keep voicing support for over and over again.

Yes, I attack the idea that you have to be of a specific race/sex/political persuasion to have a valid opinion on social issues.  By your very own support, you are saying your own opinion is not valid, yet don't see the paradox there.

[Dam8610]

3 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

A demand that a person confront the privilege granted to them by virtue of being white does not mean that no white people can act to help improve a system. You are misinterpreting it that way deliberately so that you do not have to face up to those inequities, as if you did you would feel compelled to act since it is manifestly unfair. By avoiding any discussion of your own privilege and pretending you are above that issue, you can pretend its not your fault that African Americans in Indiana have been systematically disenfranchised, for example, by a voter ID law passed by people you voted for. 

A demand that a person face their privilege when they are discounting the opinions (and lives) of other races is exactly the opposite of what you are stating it is here. 

So what you're saying is political purity is okay as long as it's the centrists administering the litmus tests? Because if I said a similar thing about the class war being important, I'm certain the words "progressive purity police" would soon follow.

[caulfield12]

This type of argument is why America (and our political system as it stands today) are in so much trouble.

If we simply divide it into “us versus them,” can’t even have a legitimate discussion on the problematic nature (or responsibility) of actions being taken...then we might as well just divide into GOP and Dem states that follow right or left policies.

It’s already happening with California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii, whether the national parties like it or not.

Vote with your feet...don’t like high SALT taxes in NYC/NJ and think Texas heat is great, you also don’t get to complain about your son or daughter’s disappointing educational results.

Edited May 3, 2018 by caulfield12

[greg775]

Don't shoot the messenger. But is there any chance Bernie could be presidential candidate in 2020? I hope he keeps his health. After all of this bullshit in America I'm ready for all his socialistic stuff like free education and free health care, etc.

Why is Greg mad? Have you tried to get your insurance to pay for anything lately? So my buddy gets dental insurance at work. He goes in for $1600 of work. They come back and will pay zero. They said what he did is elective/cosmetic or something. Uh no!! His fucking tooth hurt. I just had 200 bucks of work done. Am very interested in seeing how much they pay and what their excuse is. My tooth hurt and they filled it, Mr. Insurance Man!!!! Pay it!!!

Bernie, please run. I want free health care!!!

Edited May 4, 2018 by greg775

[caulfield12]

Greg, in case you missed it...the Republicans are starving the government to death by cutting both tax revenues and government spending (on pretty much everything but the military, which is increasing significantly, even though we already spend more than the 7 countries directly behind us COMBINED.)

That means in order to pay for your friend or Bernie Sanders' policies...you're going to have to cut back that military spending by at least 50% and cede the world to the Chinese OR be willing to accept lesser Social Security payouts (and/or work longer and harder for the same retirement the Baby Boomers are now enjoying.)   And crappy health insurance which exists on paper but hardly pays for anything but the right you have to claim that you actually have SOME type of health insurance for the purpose of government statistics.

The simplest solution to ObamaCare is to FREAKING CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES instead of radically revamping the system (Medicare for ALL, sounds great!) OR swinging the other direction and expecting corporations to pay MORE towards worker retirements/pensions (a trend going the opposite direction the last 20-30 or so years).

Good luck with the latter idea.

 

 

[Dam8610]

17 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Greg, in case you missed it...the Republicans are starving the government to death by cutting both tax revenues and government spending (on pretty much everything but the military, which is increasing significantly, even though we already spend more than the 7 countries directly behind us COMBINED.)

That means in order to pay for your friend or Bernie Sanders' policies...you're going to have to cut back that military spending by at least 50% and cede the world to the Chinese OR be willing to accept lesser Social Security payouts (and/or work longer and harder for the same retirement the Baby Boomers are now enjoying.)   And crappy health insurance which exists on paper but hardly pays for anything but the right you have to claim that you actually have SOME type of health insurance for the purpose of government statistics.

The simplest solution to ObamaCare is to FREAKING CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES instead of radically revamping the system (Medicare for ALL, sounds great!) OR swinging the other direction and expecting corporations to pay MORE towards worker retirements/pensions (a trend going the opposite direction the last 20-30 or so years).

Good luck with the latter idea.

 

 

Or we could go with any number of more popular and well liked plans than the one the Heritage Foundation cooked up. Hell you can even make the conservatives happy by calling it "repeal and replace"...with Medicare for All. Also, for all the screaming I hear from both parties that this is a capitalist society, they don't seem to be very interested in making corporations pay for access to the asset that is the US economy. Seems pretty socialist to me.

[caulfield12]

Battle of two progressives in Ohio

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/politics/cordray-kucinich-ohio-progressives-already-won/index.html

[greg775]

On 5/4/2018 at 12:27 AM, caulfield12 said:

Greg, in case you missed it...the Republicans are starving the government to death by cutting both tax revenues and government spending (on pretty much everything but the military, which is increasing significantly, even though we already spend more than the 7 countries directly behind us COMBINED.)

That means in order to pay for your friend or Bernie Sanders' policies...you're going to have to cut back that military spending by at least 50% and cede the world to the Chinese OR be willing to accept lesser Social Security payouts (and/or work longer and harder for the same retirement the Baby Boomers are now enjoying.)   And crappy health insurance which exists on paper but hardly pays for anything but the right you have to claim that you actually have SOME type of health insurance for the purpose of government statistics.

The simplest solution to ObamaCare is to FREAKING CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES instead of radically revamping the system (Medicare for ALL, sounds great!) OR swinging the other direction and expecting corporations to pay MORE towards worker retirements/pensions (a trend going the opposite direction the last 20-30 or so years).Good luck with the latter idea.

I envision a USA with 80 percent of the boomers forced out of their homes and living on the streets when SS goes broke and medicare, etc. That's why Bernie has to come to the rescue. I'm ready to have the government pay for everything. Why? Cause of these crooked insurance companies refusing to pay for SERVICES rendered!!! We're all gonna go broke if we get sick. Sad sad sad.

Edited May 9, 2018 by greg775

[caulfield12]

Social Security won't go broke...but some politician/s at some point in the future will cut the benefits by 20-30% and blame past politicians (undoubtedly of the opposite party)/profligate government spending and waste and argue there was no alternative.

According to all the predictions, this should be around 2030, although the Trump tax cuts might have pushed the crisis up to the 2026-2028 budget cycle.

Of course, those same politicians won't be willing to give up their platinum health care and retirement packages funded by taxpayers.

Edited May 9, 2018 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

from W's international torture regime:

 

also, of course Evan Bayh continues to be awful

 

 

[GoSox05]

@kasie

BREAKING: @Sen_JoeManchin will vote YES on Gina Haspel nomination, he tells me

 

Gotta love Joe Manchin.

[StrangeSox]

 

[caulfield12]

Democrats better be on the worker side of this argument with companies like Uber and this cleaning service...

https://www.fastcompany.com/3042248/the-gig-economy-wont-last-because-its-being-sued-to-death

 

Handy (then Handybook), the company that posted the Craigslist ad, is best known as a cleaning service. But unlike Merry Maids or your local cleaning franchise, it doesn’t actually employ any cleaners. Instead, it relies on an army of independent contractors to complete jobs, taking a 15% to 20% commission of every hour worked. It’s part of the “gig economy,” a much-hyped new class of the service industry where workers are expected to operate like mini-businesses. The influence of these companies is growing: according to an analysis by Greylock Partners, the value of transactions over platforms such as car services Lyft and Uber, grocery delivery service Instacart, courier service Postmates, and others could grow as large as $10 billion this year.

It was true that when things went wrong, they were responsible.

But the Zenelajs had never heard of the gig economy, and it wasn’t until orientation that they realized they would not be employees of Handy.

Soon they were booking up to four cleanings a day through the platform. Handy promised to turn them into entrepreneurs, and it was true that when things went wrong, they were responsible: They didn’t get paid to wait for a client who was running up to 30 minutes late, though they drove to his house (Handy does reimburse cleaners for one hour if the client doesn’t show up); they didn’t get paid if they stayed home sick; they didn’t get paid when they got stuck in traffic between jobs. There was no overtime pay or benefits, and they had to buy their own supplies and gas.

What’s at stake with these lawsuits and protests? The very definition of “employee” in a tech-enabled, service-driven 21st century American economy. Gig economy companies do not own cars, hotels, or even their workers’ cleaning supplies. What they own is a marketplace with two sides. On one side are people who need a job done–a ride to the airport, a clean house, a lunchtime delivery. On the other are people who are willing to do that job. If Uber and other companies are going to be as big as some claim, a new deal has to be brokered, one that squares the legal rules governing work with new products and services. What benefits can you expect from a quasi-employer? What does it mean to be both independent and tethered to an app-based company? The social contract between gig economy workers and employers is broken. Who will fix it, and how, will determine the fate of thousands of workers and hundreds of millions of dollars.

There is no economic security, there is no predictability, and there is no power among workers to get a fair share of the profits.

But the gig economy can also be interpreted as a loophole for avoiding labor laws–more of a familiar nightmare than a new dream. Robert Reich, a political economist and the former secretary of labor, compares it to the piecework system of the late 19th century, the very same system that led to trade unions and labor protections in the first place. “There is no economic security, there is no predictability, and there is no power among workers to get a fair share of the profits,” he says. “You and I and everybody else, if the present trends continue, will be selling what we do to the highest bidder.”

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by caulfield12

[Jerksticks]

16 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

 

This is so stupid to me.  The whole point of these gig jobs is to supplement income or provide income to a person while they figure out what they really want to do in life.  Uber is not a career, Instacart is not meant to be a career.  

 

It’s “Here come make a couple extra bucks, working whatever hours you like while you figure it out.”  Benefits?  GMAFB.  The whole point of these companies is that they use people who don’t want to commit full time.  Just supplement.  Bernie is out of his mind on this one.  

 

Sorry taxi companies, somebody outsmarted you.  Figure it out. 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Jerksticks

[Jerksticks]

And most of the contractors that are going to support this bill are going to find better full time jobs eventually anyway, negating the need to supplement their income.  I guess I think juicy mouth is trying to pick a fight that doesn’t need picking. 

[GoSox05]

I like how any time a worker stands to make even slightly more money or have even basic job protections, Republicans come running to yell at them. 

 

Also, part of the reason we need a gig economy is because people aren't making enough money at their career.

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by GoSox05

[StrangeSox]

The whole point of these "gig jobs" is to allow companies like Uber to flout labor laws (among many other laws) in the pursuit of profit.

 

e: The Dollop had a good episode on Uber last year

https://thedollop.libsyn.com/271-uber

Edited May 10, 2018 by StrangeSox

[Dam8610]

5 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

This is so stupid to me.  The whole point of these gig jobs is to supplement income or provide income to a person while they figure out what they really want to do in life.  Uber is not a career, Instacart is not meant to be a career.  

 

It’s “Here come make a couple extra bucks, working whatever hours you like while you figure it out.”  Benefits?  GMAFB.  The whole point of these companies is that they use people who don’t want to commit full time.  Just supplement.  Bernie is out of his mind on this one.  

 

Sorry taxi companies, somebody outsmarted you.  Figure it out. 

This seems very similar to a "minimum wage jobs are for teenagers to earn spending money" argument. It certainly has the same effect.

Further, if your theory held, there wouldn't be class action lawsuits against Uber, Lyft, Instacart, and pretty much every high profile gig economy company. In many cases these people are choosing to do this because they have no other option.

[caulfield12]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/trump-voters/?utm_term=.02bf6783145e

One of the longest articles I've ever read...but still must reading for any Democrat (and those who are concerned about Trump winning again in 2020).

Tracks a large number of Trump voters in NW Illinois, SW Wisconsin, SE Minnesota, NE Iowa over the last 16 months...their changes in attitude (not as many as you'd think) about how Trump is doing, it's fascinating stuff, and a reminder that no matter what happens on the two coasts and even the Southwest, the Dems still have to figure out a more effective message to win back the Heartland and Rust Belt.

[Dam8610]

7 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Dems still have to figure out a more effective message to win back the Heartland and Rust Belt.

If they actually want to win in these areas, they need to make their message about fixing economic inequality and bringing opportunity back. The Democrats can be all about Social Justice on the coasts, but the winning message for them in places like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, the parts of Illinois that aren't Chicago, etc. is a message based on reducing economic inequality and providing the essentials to give everyone a good opportunity at the basic things people were easily able to attain prior to the 80s that have now become nearly impossible to attain for large swaths of the population.

[Soxbadger]

8 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

This is so stupid to me.  The whole point of these gig jobs is to supplement income or provide income to a person while they figure out what they really want to do in life.  Uber is not a career, Instacart is not meant to be a career.  

 

It’s “Here come make a couple extra bucks, working whatever hours you like while you figure it out.”  Benefits?  GMAFB.  The whole point of these companies is that they use people who don’t want to commit full time.  Just supplement.  Bernie is out of his mind on this one.  

 

Sorry taxi companies, somebody outsmarted you.  Figure it out. 

 

Who are you to decide what people do for a living? 

The rules for independent contractors are clear, very few people are actually independent contractors if you apply the law (ironic because one party is always telling me about us being a "nation of laws). 

Why does uber fail?

Lets take IL. In IL everyone is PRESUMED to be an employee. 

 

Quote

 820 ILCS 405/212

Sec. 212. Service performed by an individual for an employing unit, whether or not such individual employs others in connection with the performance of such services, shall be deemed to be employment unless and until it is proven in any proceeding where such issue is involved that-- 

    A. Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such services, both under his contract of service and in fact; and 
    B. Such service is either outside the usual course of the business for which such service is performed or that such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and 
    C. Such individual is engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.

 

The key to the failure of Uber is C. In order for an uber driver to be a true IC, they must basically be a driver for a living. Now if someone drives for both Uber and Lyft, they could be a IC. But again, the presumption is that they are an employee. The reason most people fail C, is because C is the true test. If you are a plumber, you work for me, you work for my neighbor, you work for the guy across the street. That is a true independent contractor.

The Uber driver only works for Uber. He does not really work for me, because I dont pay him directly. He cant charge me what he wants. (edit) In fact your argument that its not a career, actually proves that they are not independent contractors as the test requires that it be a trade, occupation or profession...

Now most companies have found a way around this, which is, you force your independent contractors to form LLCs/Corps, and then you contract with the company not the person. That way it is impossible for them to be an independent contractor. 

Also, how did Uber outsmart Taxi companies? Taxi companies are subject to laws that make them uncompetitive. In Chicago Taxi cabs are required by law to charge X amount of dollars per mile, per minute, per flag. These laws were created to originally protect the consumer. But Uber is able to operate and not forced to follow these laws, so they undercut taxis.

Taxi cab costs roughly 2x as much as an uber, so as long as the uber surge is less than 2x it is cheaper than a taxi. 

 

Edited May 11, 2018 by Soxbadger

[Heads22]

1 hour ago, Dam8610 said:

If they actually want to win in these areas, they need to make their message about fixing economic inequality and bringing opportunity back. The Democrats can be all about Social Justice on the coasts, but the winning message for them in places like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, the parts of Illinois that aren't Chicago, etc. is a message based on reducing economic inequality and providing the essentials to give everyone a good opportunity at the basic things people were easily able to attain prior to the 80s that have now become nearly impossible to attain for large swaths of the population.

Yup. 

 

I’m originally from that area. The Driftless Area is still there for Democrats if they want it. 

[caulfield12]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/democrats-no-answer-trump-tax-cuts-171540438.html

Democrats/Pelosi with no answer to the Trump tax cuts

 

The way she's going, her (Nancy's) name will permanently be connected to wanting to raise taxes...in the same way that Paul Ryan's is connected to wanting to tear down Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid.

It feels like for the first time that Trump (if he survives Mueller) has at least a 50/50 chance to keep the job in 2020.  (I won't go quite so far as Greg to speculate about Ivanka or Donald Jr. being next in line, like his never-ending concern about Chelsea haunting his future.)