Political Discussion

Indymisanthrope said:
(BTW they recognized that family leave > maternity leave but decided that since the focus of their work was the gender wage gap that they would restrict their request to women only.)
Click to expand...


We get family leave at my district. It was great when I took it. Just a counter point to their conclusion. I would argue that family leave makes it so the mother could possibly earn more, because the father could take off. It makes the family unit more flexible and egalitarian. I see more mothers than fathers in meetings for kids at school. For some reason its the cultural norm that fathers do not deal with schools. Flexibility with a father's schedule removes some of the responsibilities that are typically thought of as the mother's.

I'll comment late on school bard politics and charter/magnet stuff.
 
As a resident of South Carolina, I just want to say that hearing Jim Clyburn on the radio basically say the main reason he endorsed Biden over Sanders is because he is scared that Sanders using the word socialist would hurt his reelction chances is really depressing. Not surprising, but depressing. I know it's old news that the most important thing to all politicians is getting reelected, but it shouldn't be.

I'm sure it's more complicated than that, and maybe it is NPRs editing, but it wasn't like they were trying to paint him in a negative light or anything. That was just the only thing he said to defend not supporting Sanders in the brief interview they aired.

Edit:Maybe it is mischaracterizing to say it is the reason he endorsed Bide . But it is making him scared of Sanders and it shouldn't have anything to do with it.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Their thinking, which I think has some validity, is that women who give birth have an immediate, physical need for recovery. In order to be able to take that as paid time off, these teachers have to plan ahead with a bank of sick days, which their male counterparts do not.

This school really flogs the message of equity over equality for students, and these girls are turning that scrutiny back on the school. Yes, the teachers have equality with respect to PTO policies; but, so this argument goes, they do not have equity, because the female teachers must use their sick time more judiciously than the men should they ever wish to become parents.

They agree family leave is good (for all kinds of families, and including new foster/adoption scenarios). But the basic, entry-level price of admission here is agreement that physical recovery from childbirth and the first few days with a newborn shouldn't require banked sick days.

Even more progressive companies with what I consider (by American standards) generous family leave policies tend to acknowledge this. My own company gives 18 paid weeks for new mothers, but only 10 for new fathers (and only 10 max for mothers/fathers alike in the event of a new foster/adoption).

"Only 10." That's still 10 more than my kid's teacher got. She managed to bank 20 sick days over the last several years so that she could take 4 weeks off after giving birth. How many days did she work in those years at a level of illness that her male colleagues would have taken off because they don't have the same family planning requirements? If the answer is >1, then the policy should be changed.
Click to expand...


I'm not gonna deny its a shitty policy.
 
dhodo said:
As a resident of South Carolina, I just want to say that hearing Jim Clyburn on the radio basically say the main reason he endorsed Biden over Sanders is because he is scared that Sanders using the word socialist would hurt his reelction chances is really depressing. Not surprising, but depressing. I know it's old news that the most important thing to all politicians is getting reelected, but it shouldn't be.

I'm sure it's more complicated than that, and maybe it is NPRs editing, but it wasn't like they were trying to paint him in a negative light or anything. That was just the only thing he said to defend not supporting Sanders in the brief interview they aired.

Edit:Maybe it is mischaracterizing to say it is the reason he endorsed Bide . But it is making him scared of Sanders and it shouldn't have anything to do with it.
Click to expand...
Folks should be less concerned with the idea Democratic Socialism and more concerned with the idea of White Nationalism.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I didn't hear it, so I can't defend how he did or didn't articulate it, but it's a valid concern. The president is not the only office up for grabs in November, and if having a socialist at the top of the ticket depresses turnout, or causes voters to split their votes, a lot of downticket candidates might suffer.

The Center for Politics at UVA released this projection today of an electoral map if Sanders is the nominee:

centerforpolitics.org

The Sanders Tax - Sabato's Crystal Ball

KEY POINTS FROM THIS ARTICLE — If Democrats nominated Bernie Sanders, they would, initially, start off with somewhat of a penalty in our Electoral College ratings. — Sanders’ policy prescriptions and rhetoric may complicate Democratic prospects in the Sun Belt, where the party’s recent growth...
centerforpolitics.org centerforpolitics.org

These projections all come down to, once again, PA and WI. And the chances of retaking the Senate dwindle. Are these projections correct? I don't know. I don't know how to cut through the noise of enthusiasm for Sanders on the one hand and abject terror on the other, but if the concerns of the latter are valid, then the potential impact to non-presidential races can't be overstated.

It's not just about staying in office: if Clyburn loses, the other guy wins.
Click to expand...
Considering he regularly gets greater than 70% in his district, I don't think there is any real chance of him losing.

I don't disagree that they are valid concerns I guess I'm just being idealistic and wishing we were talking more about making things better than electability. I think it's fair to say that this year above others electability is more important, however, I think the last election proved that we don't understand how to accurately gauge electability.
 
Watching show on Vice about the war on drugs.

It's absolutely mind boggling that our legal system is setup this way. More than half the states in the US have a 3 strikes and you're out law.

Laws where your third conviction for say possession of a joint is automatic 13 to 40 years in jail.

And these laws disadvantage the poor and minorities more than anything. If you can't pay bond you sit in jail for 60 to 90 days and you plead guilty to just get out of jail. If you are a minority or from a poor neighborhood your are more likely to be a repeat offender and thus get longer sentences.


Unbelievable.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
I didn't hear it, so I can't defend how he did or didn't articulate it, but it's a valid concern. The president is not the only office up for grabs in November, and if having a socialist at the top of the ticket depresses turnout, or causes voters to split their votes, a lot of downticket candidates might suffer.

The Center for Politics at UVA released this projection today of an electoral map if Sanders is the nominee:

centerforpolitics.org

The Sanders Tax - Sabato's Crystal Ball

KEY POINTS FROM THIS ARTICLE — If Democrats nominated Bernie Sanders, they would, initially, start off with somewhat of a penalty in our Electoral College ratings. — Sanders’ policy prescriptions and rhetoric may complicate Democratic prospects in the Sun Belt, where the party’s recent growth...
centerforpolitics.org centerforpolitics.org

These projections all come down to, once again, PA and WI. And the chances of retaking the Senate dwindle. Are these projections correct? I don't know. I don't know how to cut through the noise of enthusiasm for Sanders on the one hand and abject terror on the other, but if the concerns of the latter are valid, then the potential impact to non-presidential races can't be overstated.

It's not just about staying in office: if Clyburn loses, the other guy wins.
Click to expand...
If Trump wins re-election the Dems would likely also not retake the Senate and would also almost certainly lose seats in the house. If you believe a Progressive can win the Presidency and a Moderate cannot that is decidedly more of a mitigating factor in determining the success of down ballot candidates. Of course if you do not agree with the aforementioned statement then maybe a moderate would help more.
 
Indymisanthrope said:
Honestly, I think the UVA projections that basically give Trump an automatic 248-260 electoral votes out of the gate are insanely terrifying. He shouldn't be this hard to beat no matter which one of the Dem candidates ends up being the nominee. He shouldn't be hard to beat, at all. This is all madness.
Click to expand...
Agreed, TBH at the moment (unfortunately this feeling rises and falls throughout the election season) I kinda think Dems could put together a winning coalition with either group. I look at the 2016 matchup and it was incredibly close within the states that decided the election. Trump has done little to expand his base and I would argue likely turned off more than a few people who who hated Hillary and were willing to give him a chance. I have a tough time on the other hand imagining any Hillary voters flipping Trump’s way. To me that would open up the Democrats to either win by driving up support for Millennials and minorities (while maybe turning off a group of voters that likely did not vote for Clinton last time out anyhow) by nominating a progressive or by gaining support in moderates, and disenchanted GOPer’s (but potentially losing some of the millennial and minority support that again was also lacking in Clinton’s ‘16 bid). I have more faith in the later being successful than the former just in the fact that there are more millennials and minorities to draw votes from than the I believe there are moderates but I can see paths (albeit narrow) for either group.
 
Last edited:
Suffolks Downs, a former horse racing track is a 149 acer of land in Boston / Revier is being developed as premium retail, business and luxury apartment space.

Bernie Sanders weighed in on this saying they should build affordable housing.

The response Bernie got from developers was "Ok Boomer, that makes absolutely zero financial sense."

And yes, they did in fact use the term OK Boomer :oops:

The development of Suffolks Downs is expected to further contribute to rising property values and the forcing out of minorities and low income people from East Boston and Revier.
 
RenegadeMonster said:
Suffolks Downs, a former horse racing track is a 149 acer of land in Boston / Revier is being developed as premium retail, business and luxury apartment space.

Bernie Sanders weighed in on this saying they should build affordable housing.

The response Bernie got from developers was "Ok Boomer, that makes absolutely zero financial sense."

And yes, they did in fact use the term OK Boomer :oops:

The development of Suffolks Downs is expected to further contribute to rising property values and the forcing out of minorities and low income people from East Boston and Revier.
Click to expand...
Do you ever feel like people using "OK Boomer" don't really understand it's definition? I mean, my nephew, who's 10, uses it constantly.............and has no idea............but he's 10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top