4 ms·

> It’s easily verifiable that Democratic states have better laws for wage earners, and have pushed for policies that benefit wage earners. The most solidly blu

> It’s easily verifiable that Democratic states have better laws for wage earners, and have pushed for policies that benefit wage earners. The most solidly blue state, California, just enshrined a law to screw over gig workers and has among the worst housing crises in the country for average (and below) wage earners. Both parties are not equally bad, but the idea that the Democrats support working people is pretty laughable at this point. Yes, they’re not as awful as Republicans on these issues, but that’s a pretty low bar and still so far below the wage and labor protections in places like Europe as to be laughable.

lotsofpulp 6y ago
I also support ranked choice voting to break the duopolies between Democrat and Republican, but as you said, there is a difference between the two, which is what we have to deal with while we have first past the post voting.
lern_too_spel 6y ago
The Democratic Party was against Propositions 22 and 13. You can blame both on underinformed voters.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  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.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    They wrote and passed the law that Proposition 22 modified.
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      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.
      - lern_too_spel 6y ago
        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_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
        claudeganon 6y ago
        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 for campaign donations and c-suite positions when they leave office.
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        > 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 opposition to Proposition 22. You are alleging corruption without any evidence.
        Apocryphon 6y ago
        Perhaps then they ought to be alleged for incompetence; that we could all agree with.
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        How? I keep asking what they should have done, and I keep getting no answer.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

I also support ranked choice voting to break the duopolies between Democrat and Republican, but as you said, there is a difference between the two, which is what we have to deal with while we have first past the post voting.

lern_too_spel 6y ago

The Democratic Party was against Propositions 22 and 13. You can blame both on underinformed voters.

claudeganon 6y ago
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.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  They wrote and passed the law that Proposition 22 modified.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    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.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      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_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
      - claudeganon 6y ago
        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 for campaign donations and c-suite positions when they leave office.
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        > 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 opposition to Proposition 22. You are alleging corruption without any evidence.
        Apocryphon 6y ago
        Perhaps then they ought to be alleged for incompetence; that we could all agree with.
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        How? I keep asking what they should have done, and I keep getting no answer.