2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker - Part II

[Skeptic Ginger]

Seriously.

The list of problems with Trump goes:
1) Aspiring dictator
2) SUPER Bigoted buttwad
3) Nuttier than a squirrel turd
4) Depraved con artist extraordinaire
5) Traitor
6) Sexual Assaulter

...and about 382 more things till you get to "383) Previously inexperienced at politics", if that even makes the list at all.

 

[angrysoba]

I suspect he might have bigger issues: https://www.gothamgazette.com/opini...-first-freedom-dividend-recipient-he-fired-me

That’s her side of the story and it sounds a bit fishy to me. She was some amazing indispensable worker who somehow Yang found dispensable, but offered to pay her every month for two years, which she accepted but now...what? Regrets?

She also says that she knows that under at-will contracts she could have been let go at any time for no reason, but she is annoyed at the reason that Yang gave? Okay, what does this mean? That he is sexist when it comes to hiring or that he gave her a tactful cover story before letting go of deadwood and paying her for two years (presumably unnecessarily) anyway?

Oh, apparently Kimberly works as a running and fitness instructor. Errrmmm...okay. Not in the field she used to work in. I wonder why not?

Anyway, we probably need to hear more before uncritically accepting this.

 

[kellyb]

That’s her side of the story and it sounds a bit fishy to me. She was some amazing indispensable worker who somehow Yang found dispensable, but offered to pay her every month for two years, which she accepted but now...what? Regrets?

She also says that she knows that under at-will contracts she could have been let go at any time for no reason, but she is annoyed at the reason that Yang gave? Okay, what does this mean? That he is sexist when it comes to hiring or that he gave her a tactful cover story before letting go of deadwood and paying her for two years (presumably unnecessarily) anyway?

Oh, apparently Kimberly works as a running and fitness instructor. Errrmmm...okay. Not in the field she used to work in. I wonder why not?

Anyway, we probably need to hear more before uncritically accepting this.

This kinda reads like a bad attempt at an ideological screed to me. This?

The “freedom dividend” means that workers are no longer believed to be valuable, that they can't learn new skills, develop new industries and adapt to an ever-evolving existence in our great country. What a depressing approach to the future!

UBI's are universal (as opposed to means-tested) so that employment, business formation, etc are not discouraged.

Why doesn't this lady know that? This is not obscure, super-secret information.

eta:
"Editorializing" on your own reporting of personal facts like this honestly raises my hackles, too:

The values that it takes to shatter a successful woman's livelihood days after she marries is a deal-breaker for a presidential candidate. At least it should be for women. We have been suppressed, discriminated against, harassed, and abused for far too long, and often behind closed doors, where we are left to carry the burden of shame for actions carried out against us.

That is...tacky.
It seems..."unprofessional."

This lady does not come across like someone I'd want working for me, either. Sounds like he'd probably wanted to fire her for a while for being obnoxious, or whatever. And he paid her to quit! This is not a horror story.

 

[Brainster]

Lots of grumbling about the Working Families Party endorsement of Warren over Sanders.

On Monday, the Working Families Party (WFP), a labor-aligned third party based in New York, endorsed Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president. The decision escalated a simmering conflict on the left wing of the Democratic Party between those backing Warren and those sticking with Sen. Bernie Sanders. In 2015, 87 percent of the WFP’s membership voted to endorse Sanders for president.

The WFP refused to release the results of its membership vote, leading of course to claims that Sanders had won, but was beaten because the leadership held the deciding votes:

The controversy stems from the weighted approach to voting used by WFP. The party had two groups vote for the endorsement and weighed both equally. One was the party's national committee, 56 people. The other was the party's members and grassroots supporters, who number in the thousands.

Yep, that's right. A very leftist group came up with a means of voting where thousands of people had the same weight as 56 insiders.

 

[Aridas]

It escalated a tempest in a teacup to a tempest in a teapot?

 

[kellyb]

It escalated a tempest in a teacup to a tempest in a teapot?

I think it went all the way to tempest in a stock pot yesterday, with Time Magazine reporting on drama originating with anonymous twitter trolls.

https://time.com/5681261/working-families-party-harrassment/

In the days since, WFP staffers were inundated with messages calling them “liberal sellouts,” “corporate frauds,” and “just as corrupt as the DNC,” often accompanied with the hashtag #BernieorBust. It was not immediately clear how many of the messages were sent by real people, how many were sent by right-wing agitators, or how many were sent by bots.

 

[Dr. Keith]

This part stuck out to me personally:

He had seen how seamlessly my staff had performed while I was on my honeymoon.

I've fired an employee as soon as they got back from their honeymoon for a very similar reason: the office worked better with that employee on vacation. Everything just functioned better without them. Their team, the teams they interacted with, their clients and vendors, none of them missed the employee and several were vocal about how nice it was without that employee in the office.

And really we were thinking about firing them right before the wedding because their work had dropped off and they were obviously spending more time on pre-wedding stuff than work while at work. I get that you have to get **** together, but take a few days off or push it to the weekend, don't take hours long personal phone calls while I'm waiting on work product that has to go through you. But, we were inclined to give a second chance until we realized how nice things were during the honeymoon.

Maybe her contribution was different, but this part indicates otherwise:

I agreed in the end (part of a much longer story) to go away, to take the monthly payoff, which paved the way for the company to develop more sophisticated money-making initiatives at cheaper costs.

The company was more successful even if they had to eat a monthly payment to a former employee. Jesus, that says so much about what you brought to the table as an employee.

All that being said, this part is ****** and I hope it isn't the full story:

Our private discussion, in his office with the door closed, began with Andrew's remarks that because I was married, I wouldn't want to continue working as hard as I had been. That as a wife, I'd be focused on my new life.

Because only an idiot would say stupid **** like that while firing someone.

 

[Brainster]

New Yorkers beware: Bill de Blasio is back as mayor:

I’m going to redouble my efforts to improve the quality of life of everyday New Yorkers, proving that policies like guaranteed paid personal time off can work on a grand scale. I’m going to continue implementing universal health care and a Green New Deal in the nation’s largest city. And I promise I’ll fight for New Yorkers and workers everywhere to ensure there’s an actual plan to protect their livelihoods from being automated out of existence.

Sounds more like a threat to me than a promise.

 

[theprestige]

She also says that she knows that under at-will contracts she could have been let go at any time for no reason, but she is annoyed at the reason that Yang gave? Okay, what does this mean? That he is sexist when it comes to hiring or that he gave her a tactful cover story before letting go of deadwood and paying her for two years (presumably unnecessarily) anyway?

This part actually seems to me like it might have been an employment law violation.

The way I understand it, in "at will employment" jurisdictions, you can certainly let someone go without a reason. However, if you do give a reason, it can create legal liability if that reason turns out to be discriminatory.

Legal: "I'm letting you go, just because."

Illegal: "I'm letting you go because you're black/gay/Christian/paraplegic."

So from Yang's perspective, he was actually taking a foolish risk by giving her a reason. That's something that she can take to a labor lawyer for scrutiny.

 

[theprestige]

The company was more successful even if they had to eat a monthly payment to a former employee. Jesus, that says so much about what you brought to the table as an employee.

All that being said, this part is ****** and I hope it isn't the full story:



Because only an idiot would say stupid **** like that while firing someone.

A well-meaning idiot might say something like, "we're letting you go for business reasons - your role no longer makes sense with our long-term strategy - but the silver lining here is that you'll get to spend more time enjoying your new married life, which is probably something you'd appreciate anyway. Also, here's a generous severance package."

Only to see their hamfisted and legally risky attempt at consolation turned into a blatant lie about how the dismissal actually played out.

 

[The Atheist]

That’s her side of the story and it sounds a bit fishy to me.

As long as the same critical analysis and doubt is applied to the enormous number of allegations against Trump, there won't be a problem.

 

[Dr. Keith]

A well-meaning idiot might say something like, "we're letting you go for business reasons - your role no longer makes sense with our long-term strategy - but the silver lining here is that you'll get to spend more time enjoying your new married life, which is probably something you'd appreciate anyway. Also, here's a generous severance package."

Only to see their hamfisted and legally risky attempt at consolation turned into a blatant lie about how the dismissal actually played out.

Agreed. A well meaning idiot.

I guess we all have moments in life that we can look back at and say, jeez what an idiot I was.

 

[Dr. Keith]

So from Yang's perspective, he was actually taking a foolish risk by giving her a reason. That's something that she can take to a labor lawyer for scrutiny.

Yeah, she maybe could have 12 years ago, but not now.

Maybe she did and that is why her severance package lasted for two years rather than two months.

 

[dudalb]

Are you serious? Do you think that most Democrats were of the opinion that Trump’s main drawback is his lack of experience?

No, but it was one of them.
You seem pretty damn enamoured of Yang.
And to me, having never held Government office is a big problem if you want to be President. The Presidency is not a entry level job.
But then, I am just a mean old pragmatist who mistrusts ALL political ideologies, and has a huge mistrust of personality cults..and one is buldng around Yang.

 

[angrysoba]

No, but it was one of them.
You seem pretty damn enamoured of Yang.
And to me, having never held Government office is a big problem if you want to be President. The Presidency is not a entry level job.
But then, I am just a mean old pragmatist who mistrusts ALL political ideologies, and has a huge mistrust of personality cults..and one is buldng around Yang.

Oh, what a zinger! “Why don’t you marry Yang if you love him so much!?!”

And did you only become averse to lack of experience after Trump as you suggested Democrats have done? Or are you just scrambling to make your initial assertion make sense?

Face it! The reason people don’t like Trump is because he is a racist, sexist, nepotistic, greedy, stupid conman. He’s a walking sack of excrement who constantly ********s and brags about how “tremendous” he is. But no, you think it is his inexperience that Democrats are preoccupied with. Don’t be so stupid.

 

[portlandatheist]

UBI's are universal (as opposed to means-tested) so that employment, business formation, etc are not discouraged.

This. In idea of UBI in theory isn't to discourage participation in the labor market and would replace some existing programs that can perversely dis incentivize working in some instances. It would also create labor demand for the kinds of things this money would be spent on. It may not pan out that way in practice perhaps, but the whole idea of it isn't to have people sit around playing video games at home why robots do all the labor. It may decrease homelessness that costs us a great deal of money whether we choose to spend money explicitly on the problem or not.
Yang probably isn't going to make it very far but at least UBI has now entered the public conversation. An alternative, and probably a better one, would be a negative income tax.

 

[portlandatheist]

No, but it was one of them.
You seem pretty damn enamoured of Yang.
And to me, having never held Government office is a big problem if you want to be President. The Presidency is not a entry level job.
But then, I am just a mean old pragmatist who mistrusts ALL political ideologies, and has a huge mistrust of personality cults..and one is buldng around Yang.

Fair point. It will be interesting to see what he does after he loses. Does he pursue a career in politics and run for congress or senate? I doubt he will. I think he wants to be president and is passionate about his vision, but I just don't see him choosing to be a career politician and doing what it takes to move up the ladder. By doing this, he will get much more attention than if he hadn't and some of his policy ideas may be taken up by other politicians which I think is good. He is also one of the few pro nuclear candidates and has other good ideas like democracy dollars and smart guns.

 

[kellyb]

This. In idea of UBI in theory isn't to discourage participation in the labor market and would replace some existing programs that can perversely dis incentivize working in some instances. It would also create labor demand for the kinds of things this money would be spent on. It may not pan out that way in practice perhaps, but the whole idea of it isn't to have people sit around playing video games at home why robots do all the labor. It may decrease homelessness that costs us a great deal of money whether we choose to spend money explicitly on the problem or not.
Yang probably isn't going to make it very far but at least UBI has now entered the public conversation. An alternative, and probably a better one, would be a negative income tax.

I really like the federal jobs guarantee best. But this would make an excellent topic for a spinoff thread.

 

[Venom]

Yang wants to decriminalize all drugs, in the spirit of the Portugal model. That's a step further than Sanders, who proposes decriminalizing marijuana or anybody else in the lineup for that matter.

 

[The Atheist]

Yang wants to decriminalize all drugs, in the spirit of the Portugal model.

That's dumb - you can't adopt a method that works.

Who's going to pay the private prison owners if drugs aren't illegal?