271–280 of 284 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Democratic Party was against Propositions 22 and 13. You can blame both on underinformed voters.
The Democratic Party in California is quite cozy and takes a lot of money from the people who wrote it, so I find this claim of opposition unconvincing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Democratic Party in California is quite cozy and takes a lot of money from the people who wrote it, so I find this claim of opposition unconvincing.
They wrote and passed the law that Proposition 22 modified.
This has been Democrats tactics with this stuff for decades, “we tried to do something good, but then something happened that we couldn’t do anything about it. Sorry.” It’s intentional fecklessness, while posturing at progress, so they can keep getting checks from the tech industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They wrote and passed the law that Proposition 22 modified.
And did nothing meaningful to oppose it being modified, beside saying they opposed it. This has been Democrats tactics with this stuff for decades, “we tried to do something good, but then something happened that we couldn’t do anything about it. Sorry.” It’s intentional fecklessness, while posturing at progress, so they can keep getting checks from the tech industry.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And did nothing meaningful to oppose it being modified, beside saying they opposed it. This has been Democrats tactics with this stuff for decades, “we tried to do something good, but then something happened that we couldn’t do anything about it. Sorry.” It’s intentional fecklessness, while posturing at progress, so they can keep getting checks from the tech industry.
They were outspent by almost $200 million. What exactly were you hoping they would do? Why did they go out of their way to write a law when the courts had already reclassified workers? Your conspiracy theory does not make any sense. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The average American doesn't even know who Kimberle Crenshaw is. For most of us BLM just means waiting for the next police shooting to show up in the news and on social media (because someone captured a video recording) and hoping our own nearby community isn't involved. Law enforcement in America is a web of federal, state, and local (city or county) laws and no one knows how any individual police officer is trained…
In my opinion American BLM is racist in of itself. There needs to be changes but popularizing the polarities of the topic only serves the ad driven model of media which supports it.
And I don't like to pick apart semantics, but the way you use the term "American BLM" is a Straw Man and an Ad Hominem deployed in tandem. It's difficult to have a constructive debate when it's posed in those terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They were outspent by almost $200 million. What exactly were you hoping they would do? Why did they go out of their way to write a law when the courts had already reclassified workers? Your conspiracy theory does not make any sense. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
Uber and several other gig companies have been operating in violation of California law for about a decade. The state could have shut them down at any time for any myriad number of reasons, but instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money. This isn't about spending money on any given proposition, but about systemic corruption in the Democratic party, where they'll sell out working people fo…
No, they were operating in violation of California law for less than a year.
> instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money.
If that's the case, why didn't they get a carve out in AB5?
> systemic corruption in the Democratic party,
Which overwhelmingly voted for AB5 and was in opposition to Proposition 22. You are alleging corruption without any evidence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Germany tries buying gas from Russia and the USA sanctions the fuck out of companies that are even just marginally involved in it. Good! Russia is an enemy.
Why? The Cold War is over.
I would have agreed literally with that statement fifteen years ago. Since then, however, the trends in Russia towards state control over independent press, the politicisation of sports and culture, the blurring of lines not to be crossed (e.g. the annexation of Crimea) and overall clinching of Kremlin power at all costs have made lots of people in Europe worried.
I also wouldn't say "Russia is the enemy", for a number of reasons: first of all, it's not true; secondly, it's not helpful; and thirdly, it obviously breeds distrust and antagonism not only between states but between individual people.
But tensions have obviously been rising, and we are not in the pleasant situation we saw 20 years ago when Russia seemed to be heading towards democracy and increased international cooperation. The current regime in Russia, with its increasingly authoritarian and nationalistic pursuits and somewhat erratic foreign politics, has certainly been feeding those tensions. It would be disingenuous to claim it hasn't.
The craziest part of this american culture war, to me, is that it seems to spill over to the rest of the world. My sister and I, living in Germany, have a very loving relationship, but we absolutely disagree on almost everything political and basically are stuck in our seperate bubbles. This gave us an interesting observation: 5 years ago it took us about two to three months, to have a fight over something that start…
It's also possible that the US political system is aligning with the rest of the world. The American Republicans now seem a lot more authoritarian and the American Democrats more socialist than they were 10 years ago. I can't say if it aligns more with the divide in the rest of the world, but saying US politics "spills over" into the rest of the world makes it sound like the US is static. The parties are evolving tho…
So I'm not sure I entirely understand what you mean with the divide being more internationally palatable. "Spilling over" also doesn't imply the source is static.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber and several other gig companies have been operating in violation of California law for about a decade. The state could have shut them down at any time for any myriad number of reasons, but instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money. This isn't about spending money on any given proposition, but about systemic corruption in the Democratic party, where they'll sell out working people fo…
> Uber and several other gig companies have been operating in violation of California law for about a decade. No, they were operating in violation of California law for less than a year. > instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money. If that's the case, why didn't they get a carve out in AB5? > systemic corruption in the Democratic party, Which overwhelmingly voted for AB5 and was in oppos…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Uber and several other gig companies have been operating in violation of California law for about a decade. No, they were operating in violation of California law for less than a year. > instead got friendly with them and took piles upon piles of their money. If that's the case, why didn't they get a carve out in AB5? > systemic corruption in the Democratic party, Which overwhelmingly voted for AB5 and was in oppos…
Perhaps then they ought to be alleged for incompetence; that we could all agree with.