2017 Democratic Thread

[Reddy]

See, once again I am RIGHT. Thank u for the endorsement here. Of course they "cleared the field." It was Hillary. Too bad the DNC fell for the "coronation" atmosphere that was going on. Had Biden been encouraged you dont think he'd have been a winner and crushed Trump?

 

I love how all it takes for you to proclaim you are unequivocally correct is for ONE other person to agree with you. #Trumpingregclothing

[StrangeSox]

Cuban and Schultz say hi.

Ugh nooooooooo

[Reddy]

Ugh nooooooooo

Johnson/West?

[caulfield12]

Gillibrand/Schultz

Schultz/Gillibrand...

 

Not sure which order at the moment.

 

I'd also take Sanders, but I think his moment in the sun will have passed (plus he's just getting up there in years).

Edited June 6, 2017 by caulfield12

[GoSox05]

Cuban and Schultz say hi.

 

This would be a nightmare. So it's probably going to happen.

[StrangeSox]

A wealthy businessman with zero public service or political experience? What could possibly go wrong!

[caulfield12]

182,000 employees worldwide

Market cap of $93 billion.

Actually accountable to shareholders and Board of Directors.

The most middle/lower middle class Horatio Alger origin story you could imagine.

 

In the same ballpark as the GDP of Puerto Rico, Ecuador, the Ukraine and Slovakia.

 

VP would be fine.

Edited June 6, 2017 by caulfield12

[bmags]

Eh, I don't understand why Schultz would be so bad, certainly open to have missed something. He had his embarrassing rollouts with the race discussion, but he always paid his labor well, gave benefits tracks with healthcare and 401ks to baristas early. Used his platform to help unemployed veterans and refugees. When coming under criticism for taking social issues he's told investors to shove off.

 

If you don't want a ceo out of not wanting a CEO, then I get it. Also him selling to the sonics to the group that moved them to OKC.

 

Pro schultz as a person/ceo. We'll have a lot of cleanup though, and I think we'll want some experience.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think the Democratic progressive base is clamoring for a billionaire CEO, even if he did treat his still-low-wage workers better than other restaurant companies typically do. There are certainly worse CEO's out there, but if you want to permanently split off the Bernie wing of the party, running someone like that in 2020 is a great way to do it.

[caulfield12]

I don't think the Democratic progressive base is clamoring for a billionaire CEO, even if he did treat his still-low-wage workers better than other restaurant companies typically do. There are certainly worse CEO's out there, but if you want to permanently split off the Bernie wing of the party, running someone like that in 2020 is a great way to do it.

 

What member of the Bernie wing is palatable to Perez, is the question...

 

I think Garcetti, the LA mayor, would be a decent choice. Jay Inslee, anti Trump Washington mayor. Franken?

 

Chris Murphy, Schatz, Cantwell, Blumenthal, Gillibrand, Tammy Baldwin....all progressives. Murphy has been very visible. Blumenthal gets into it with Trump a lot on social media. Gillibrand has been an anointed/rising star for at least two years now.

Edited June 6, 2017 by caulfield12

[bmags]

I don't think the Democratic progressive base is clamoring for a billionaire CEO, even if he did treat his still-low-wage workers better than other restaurant companies typically do. There are certainly worse CEO's out there, but if you want to permanently split off the Bernie wing of the party, running someone like that in 2020 is a great way to do it.

 

Isn't this just the same optics-driven b.s. rationality that dems constantly fail on?

 

"Oh what we need is a white southerner! Oh, what we need is a 4 star general!"

 

If Schultz bursts onto the scene and is inspiring and creating a compelling progressive vision, his story will suddenly be an asset. And "There are worse CEOs" is kind of ridiculous, he is a very good CEO that specifically used his gigantic company to promote progressive labor ideas and social ideas.

 

But no, let's make sure we get some 80 year old colgate professor to satisfy to make sure the Bernie wing knows how progressive they are.

[StrangeSox]

Supreme Court Strikes Down Yet Another Racial Gerrymander in North Carolina

[StrangeSox]

Isn't this just the same optics-driven b.s. rationality that dems constantly fail on?

 

"Oh what we need is a white southerner! Oh, what we need is a 4 star general!"

 

If Schultz bursts onto the scene and is inspiring and creating a compelling progressive vision, his story will suddenly be an asset. And "There are worse CEOs" is kind of ridiculous, he is a very good CEO that specifically used his gigantic company to promote progressive labor ideas and social ideas.

 

But no, let's make sure we get some 80 year old colgate professor to satisfy to make sure the Bernie wing knows how progressive they are.

 

yeah it's a link to the IWW, but I'm not exactly going to laud Starbucks' labor practices after seeing how hard they fought against a unionization effort about a decade ago in Chicago.

https://iww.org/node/2822

 

Starbucks is also one of many retail/restaurant companies using computer scheduling that seriously screws over workers. They have no predictable or reliable schedule, and they can't juggle two jobs which they often need to make ends meet working in these sorts of positions. It also makes trying to get an education or handle day care extremely difficult.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08...ling-hours.html

 

Schultz has also been resistant to the "Fight for $15" campaign.

 

 

They are better than many, but that's a low, low bar to clear. If I'm wrong and Schultz can put together a compelling progressive vision, great! I'm skeptical that that will happen, though, and I'd still be deeply worried about someone with zero political experience taking the top executive position again.

[GoSox05]

Being a slightly better CEO than the CEO of Wal-Mart is not really something to get excited about. I'm not voting for a anti-union billionaire CEO.

 

 

 

[bmags]

I've followed starbucks for a long time, what sets them a part is they actually have a good pipeline to listen to barista feedback and change things for the better. Their policy affects huge numbers of people, and we are talking about low-skilled, diverse workforce. Show me a better company in the retail/restaurant sector for labor. It's a short list.

 

The purity tests will not go well. And the idea that the $15 minimum wage hike is so obviously right from people in metros that haven't considered how it would affect states like Utah is troubling to me.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

I don't think it's a purity test to want something better than a wealthy CEO of a company that does better than the average in their horrible market known for exploitation of workers. Retail and restaurant sectors grind their employees to dust, and while Starbucks isn't the worst, they're still not great. They still push back strong against unionization and workers rights, against sub-poverty wages, and they use computer scheduling. Those are all terrible things and we shouldn't be accepting of them as a society.

 

There can be a separate discussion of whether $15/ hour makes sense everywhere, but they don't even meet that standard in high col areas.

[bmags]

I don't think it's a purity test to want something better than a wealthy CEO of a company that does better than the average in their horrible market known for exploitation of workers. Retail and restaurant sectors grind their employees to dust, and while Starbucks isn't the worst, they're still not great. They still push back strong against unionization and workers rights, against sub-poverty wages, and they use computer scheduling. Those are all terrible things and we shouldn't be accepting of them as a society.

 

There can be a separate discussion of whether $15/ hour makes sense everywhere, but they don't even meet that standard in high col areas.

 

I can't help but read this and think it's a shortchanging this a lot. For some of these policies we want to succeed, it helps to see it succeed prior. Companies like costco and starbucks are useful to counter trends that you can't be profitable providing benefits to workers, etc. etc..

 

If you want to find a reality of where the few remaining sectors that low-education, low-skilled workers can go, you are going to look at services sectors but especially restaurant and retail. And retail is getting killed, so you are looking at restaurants and food-related jobs.

 

"Retail and restaurant sectors grind their employees to dust"

This is a bizarre claim, certainly would like to know compared to what. If anything, the issue is they push hours below full-time thresholds to prevent mandatory requirements.

 

"and while Starbucks isn't the worst, they're still not great. "

No, this is actually the point, they are actually great. It's a very low margin business and they manage to continue to push profits down to labor in a way that is not seen elsewhere and can hopefully be modeled. If every restaurant/retail area offered same benefits as starbucks you are talking about a huge upgrade to a large portion of the 20% of the US economy.

 

"against sub-poverty wages"

You say this as fact but his point was more nuanced and the most you can really say is that Starbucks is a member of the NRA which lobbied against it. But he has supported minimum wage increases and raised wages nationally prior to that prompting.

 

"they use computer scheduling. Those are all terrible things and we shouldn't be accepting of them as a society."

Come on. This is s***ty for labor and I think an area where regulation could help so that people can regulate daycare and 2nd jobs, but one of these things is not like the other.

 

You guys don't want a CEO, think the lack of public service experience will hurt. I'd prefer one too.

 

But the real argument here is that starbucks is bad for labor because it is big and makes money. ANd I would argue that it is good for labor because it is big and makes money, and has routinely invested more in its labor in a really difficult sector to so. A bunch of retail workers have lost their jobs. Let's hope they get absorbed into places operating like starbucks and costco and not walmart.

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

I can't help but read this and think it's a shortchanging this a lot. For some of these policies we want to succeed, it helps to see it succeed prior. Companies like costco and starbucks are useful to counter trends that you can't be profitable providing benefits to workers, etc. etc..

 

If you want to find a reality of where the few remaining sectors that low-education, low-skilled workers can go, you are going to look at services sectors but especially restaurant and retail. And retail is getting killed, so you are looking at restaurants and food-related jobs.

 

"Retail and restaurant sectors grind their employees to dust"

This is a bizarre claim, certainly would like to know compared to what. If anything, the issue is they push hours below full-time thresholds to prevent mandatory requirements.

 

"and while Starbucks isn't the worst, they're still not great. "

No, this is actually the point, they are actually great. It's a very low margin business and they manage to continue to push profits down to labor in a way that is not seen elsewhere and can hopefully be modeled. If every restaurant/retail area offered same benefits as starbucks you are talking about a huge upgrade to a large portion of the 20% of the US economy.

 

"against sub-poverty wages"

You say this as fact but his point was more nuanced and the most you can really say is that Starbucks is a member of the NRA which lobbied against it. But he has supported minimum wage increases and raised wages nationally prior to that prompting.

 

"they use computer scheduling. Those are all terrible things and we shouldn't be accepting of them as a society."

Come on. This is s***ty for labor and I think an area where regulation could help so that people can regulate daycare and 2nd jobs, but one of these things is not like the other.

 

You guys don't want a CEO, think the lack of public service experience will hurt. I'd prefer one too.

 

But the real argument here is that starbucks is bad for labor because it is big and makes money. ANd I would argue that it is good for labor because it is big and makes money, and has routinely invested more in its labor in a really difficult sector to so. A bunch of retail workers have lost their jobs. Let's hope they get absorbed into places operating like starbucks and costco and not walmart.

 

The non traditional red, "non offensive" Christmas cups really pissed off the conservatives.

http://freedomoutpost.com/starbucks-a-libe...-a-racist-quiz/

 

I think you're not going to find any such thing as a pure liberal company existing in corporate America today. Starbucks, more liberal and many would argue politically correct than most.

 

Schultz was one of the first big CEO's to lock horns with Trump over the immigration ban, making the commitment on the spot to hire 10,000, just like they previously did the US veterans. He also didn't wait to read the tea leaves like Elon Musk or Travis Kalanick of Uber fame in terms of dropping out of Trump's executive advisory councils.

Edited June 6, 2017 by caulfield12

[bmags]

The non traditional red, "non offensive" Christmas cups really pissed off the conservatives.

http://freedomoutpost.com/starbucks-a-libe...-a-racist-quiz/

 

I think you're not going to find any such thing as a pure liberal company existing in corporate America today. Starbucks, more liberal and many would argue politically correct than most.

 

Schultz was one of the first big CEO's to lock horns with Trump over the immigration ban, making the commitment on the spot to hire 10,000, just like they previously did the US veterans. He also didn't wait to read the tea leaves like Elon Musk or Travis Kalanick of Uber fame in terms of dropping out of Trump's executive advisory councils.

 

I think the important perspective we may need is often our solutions have been introducing increased benefits through regulation instead of through entitlements. It has made it more politically feasible but we have seen the limits with healthcare. It is a legitimate question of how much could we regulate higher wages and benefits before it really undercuts small businesses, because the same outcomes could be introduced through entitlements that are raised with income targeted more broadly.

[StrangeSox]

I can't help but read this and think it's a shortchanging this a lot. For some of these policies we want to succeed, it helps to see it succeed prior. Companies like costco and starbucks are useful to counter trends that you can't be profitable providing benefits to workers, etc. etc..

 

If you want to find a reality of where the few remaining sectors that low-education, low-skilled workers can go, you are going to look at services sectors but especially restaurant and retail. And retail is getting killed, so you are looking at restaurants and food-related jobs.

 

"Retail and restaurant sectors grind their employees to dust"

This is a bizarre claim, certainly would like to know compared to what. If anything, the issue is they push hours below full-time thresholds to prevent mandatory requirements.

 

"and while Starbucks isn't the worst, they're still not great. "

No, this is actually the point, they are actually great. It's a very low margin business and they manage to continue to push profits down to labor in a way that is not seen elsewhere and can hopefully be modeled. If every restaurant/retail area offered same benefits as starbucks you are talking about a huge upgrade to a large portion of the 20% of the US economy.

 

"against sub-poverty wages"

You say this as fact but his point was more nuanced and the most you can really say is that Starbucks is a member of the NRA which lobbied against it. But he has supported minimum wage increases and raised wages nationally prior to that prompting.

 

"they use computer scheduling. Those are all terrible things and we shouldn't be accepting of them as a society."

Come on. This is s***ty for labor and I think an area where regulation could help so that people can regulate daycare and 2nd jobs, but one of these things is not like the other.

 

You guys don't want a CEO, think the lack of public service experience will hurt. I'd prefer one too.

 

But the real argument here is that starbucks is bad for labor because it is big and makes money. ANd I would argue that it is good for labor because it is big and makes money, and has routinely invested more in its labor in a really difficult sector to so. A bunch of retail workers have lost their jobs. Let's hope they get absorbed into places operating like starbucks and costco and not walmart.

 

I don't want a CEO, and I don't want more technocratic fiddling around the edges and hoping for CEO's to raise wages on their own while actively fighting against regulations requiring them to do so. Yeah, Starbucks raised their sub-poverty wages to still-sub-poverty-but-a-little-better levels, but it's still difficult for their workers to get full time with benefits, to get consistent and predictable schedules. Starbucks still fights against unionization and formal workers' rights. These workers are ground to dust by poverty and a system that exploits them. Meanwhile, Schultz is worth several billion dollars. I don't want "treated like s***, but a little better than Walmart" to be hailed as some sort of victory and worthy goal. It's a larger complaint about our economic system as a whole that Schultz, as one of the wealthiest people in the world, is a symbol of.

 

What should the progressive base get excited about with him? A 5% raise on your $9/hour wage with no hourly consistency? Having some health care when what we'd like is a universal health care system comparable to every other developed country in the world? What political causes is Schultz actually championing here?

 

And whether you think it's valid or not, there are a lot of people out there who would probably abandon the Democrats for a generation if our choices in 2020 are two billionaires. I don't like the purity politics, either, but at some point you need to actually stand for something important and meaningful. There are millions of people being left behind by the modern economy who are more than willing to check out or to give a big "f*** you" to the whole system and vote for the idiot reality TV star clown because of it.

 

e: some of the above is speaking for myself, some is trying to express the criticisms you'd expect to see from the more progressive wing of the base.

Edited June 6, 2017 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

http://www.salon.com/2017/06/06/noam-choms...artner/?ref=yfp

Noam Chomsky for President?

 

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

I don't want a CEO, and I don't want more technocratic fiddling around the edges and hoping for CEO's to raise wages on their own while actively fighting against regulations requiring them to do so. Yeah, Starbucks raised their sub-poverty wages to still-sub-poverty-but-a-little-better levels, but it's still difficult for their workers to get full time with benefits, to get consistent and predictable schedules. Starbucks still fights against unionization and formal workers' rights. These workers are ground to dust by poverty and a system that exploits them. Meanwhile, Schultz is worth several billion dollars. I don't want "treated like s***, but a little better than Walmart" to be hailed as some sort of victory and worthy goal. It's a larger complaint about our economic system as a whole that Schultz, as one of the wealthiest people in the world, is a symbol of.

 

What should the progressive base get excited about with him? A 5% raise on your $9/hour wage with no hourly consistency? Having some health care when what we'd like is a universal health care system comparable to every other developed country in the world? What political causes is Schultz actually championing here?

 

And whether you think it's valid or not, there are a lot of people out there who would probably abandon the Democrats for a generation if our choices in 2020 are two billionaires. I don't like the purity politics, either, but at some point you need to actually stand for something important and meaningful. There are millions of people being left behind by the modern economy who are more than willing to check out or to give a big "f*** you" to the whole system and vote for the idiot reality TV star clown because of it.

 

e: some of the above is speaking for myself, some is trying to express the criticisms you'd expect to see from the more progressive wing of the base.

 

Who out there is the progressive base actually excited about right now? Jerry Brown? Liz Warren?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/loca...a004_story.html

Virginia GOV race upended by Sanders and Warren wing

[GoSox05]

Who out there is the progressive base actually excited about right now? Jerry Brown? Liz Warren?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/loca...a004_story.html

Virginia GOV race upended by Sanders and Warren wing

 

Jeremy Corbyn, but he is in a different country. Sigh.

[bmags]

Who out there is the progressive base actually excited about right now? Jerry Brown? Liz Warren?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/loca...a004_story.html

Virginia GOV race upended by Sanders and Warren wing

 

Stories framing is kind of ridiculous. Periello is endorsed by a lot more national dems than Sanders/Warren that would compromise that framing.

 

John Podesta for one.

[Reddy]

Eh, I don't understand why Schultz would be so bad, certainly open to have missed something. He had his embarrassing rollouts with the race discussion, but he always paid his labor well, gave benefits tracks with healthcare and 401ks to baristas early. Used his platform to help unemployed veterans and refugees. When coming under criticism for taking social issues he's told investors to shove off.

 

If you don't want a ceo out of not wanting a CEO, then I get it. Also him selling to the sonics to the group that moved them to OKC.

 

Pro schultz as a person/ceo. We'll have a lot of cleanup though, and I think we'll want some experience.

I actually, at this point, wholeheartedly support the idea of Schultz running. I'm willing to be wrong, but I think he could actually do the job well.