SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Democratic National Committee is hiring IT people for these positions:
- Chief Security Officer
- Data Science Lead
- Full-stack Engineer
- IT Help Desk Manager
- IT Systems Administrator
- Product Designer
- Product Director
- Product Manager
The Daily Wire, a conservative blog, posted an e-mail purportedly from Madeleine Leader, the DNC's Data Services Manager, showing her announcing the openings and writing
I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight while males, since they're already in the majority.
The Daily Wire blogger posted a different screenshot of the e-mail on Twitter.
Also at The Hill
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The DNC is Hiring IT Staff. Allegedly, Cisgendered Straight White Males Need Not Apply.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 189 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
You are fighting for survival in your own sweet and gentle way.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:56PM (18 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact [wikipedia.org]
It's a nice sentiment, but um...you're aware this is how the Nazis came to power, yes? They were the plurality party (33%) but nobody wanted to make a coalition with them so they kept holding votes without getting anywhere. Then they just sort of said "fuck it" and declared themselves in charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932 [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:23PM (5 children)
That sounds great in theory, but why would over-represented states like Wyoming and Rhode Island ever agree to that?
There have also been numerous efforts to have a single national primary day ... which Iowa and New Hampshire will never ever ever agree to, in part because it's just about the only time anybody who doesn't live there gives a damn about either Iowa or New Hampshire.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:43PM
Oh, they wouldn't. But the thing is, we don't really need them to, since California already joined and they just need 50%+1 electoral votes. Texas, Florida, Arizona, Indiana, and Michigan would get it to exactly the magic number right now.
And actually Rhode Island has already passed it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:21PM (3 children)
I'm from Iowa, and most people here don't like being the first caucus. Additionally, the ones that do are slowly aging out of the human race. Younger people are getting savvy to the fact that politicians show up get votes and then disappear for months, only to show up again because we are a swing state, and then disappear again until the next cycle. Plus, we also know that going early in the primary/caucus system wastes votes. Last cycle had 5 Dems and 17 GOPs on the slate, for goodness sake and many precincts were decided by 1 vote and a relatively large fraction had "nonviable" votes, which are symbolic on their face. No the only ones that want to be first in the state are the state parties, major TV stations and the Register; you really only get dissenting opinion in the media from independent pundits and IPTV political programs, probably because they aren't getting that sweet, corrupting cash.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:49PM
At least they show up. Here in solid blue country (CA), politicians only show up for fund raisers.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:37PM
I'm born and raised in New Hampshire, and I never minded the quadrennial circus coming to town. It boosts business for a lot of restaurants and such, and it gives 'em way more voting power than they really should have.
Also, New Hampshire has a fairly good track record of picking wisely, mostly in who we want to not win:
- In 1992, New Hampshire voted for Paul Tsongas over Bill Clinton, mostly on the grounds that Clinton was a philandering scumbag. We were right.
- In 2000, had the rest of the country listened to New Hampshire, we would have had John McCain in charge in 2001 rather than George W Bush. Say what you will about John McCain, but he's consistently opposed torture (no surprise - he was tortured himself), and might not have been dumb enough to let Al Qaida hijack those planes in the first place.
- In 2016, New Hampshire absolutely had the right idea about Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 2, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:12PM
Believe me, I love Iowa! I had a big rally in Cedar Rapids in June. To celebrate Karen Handel's huge victory. Amazing, amazing rally! youtu.be/H4ILRco6CNo [youtu.be] @VP Pence also paid you a visit in June. And I went to Iowa again two weeks ago. I reminded the Heritage Foundation about my commitment to Iowa's wonderful biofuel industry. To keeping the Renewable Fuel Standard exactly as it is, no changes at all. I kept my promise. Carl Icahn hates that! He could make a lot of money if I changed RFS. But Senator Grassley and Senator Ernst, who has a terrific smile, love what I did. Which was nothing at all. #TRUMP2020 🇺🇸
(Score: 3, Touché) by crafoo on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:24PM (7 children)
... and then they turned around the economy, kicked out non-native investment banking ruining their monetary system, and in general, got the place back on track after some grossly abusive agreements with the "winners" of WWI.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:51PM (1 child)
.... and then they turned around the economy, kicked out non-native investment banking ruining their monetary system, and in general, got the place back on track after some grossly abusive agreements with the "winners" of WWI.
And all it took was a smidge of genocide!
Glad you care more about money that being an actual evil human being.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @12:44AM
The genocides came later
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:43PM (4 children)
So you're literally cheering on the rise of the Nazis. Are you dumb? Trolling? Or actually a neo nazi?
YAY NATIONALISM! /sarcasm
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @12:46AM (2 children)
He's cheering the economic turnaround of a downtrodden and persecuted nation. Not everything is identity politics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @02:15AM
One thing I've been wondering about human sociology and psychology lately is whether such a miraculous recovery is possible without the genocide part.
My hypothesis is that it is not. People define themselves by what they hate. Without a common enemy, people find life lacking in meaning.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Saturday November 04 2017, @03:39AM
Thanks. I guess I'm old fashioned. I think civic pride and love for your countrymen is a good thing. So much could be accomplished if we worked together. It feels like there are forces that see that as a danger and constantly slam in wedges to prevent it. I think this latest round of identity politics is this method, fully weaponized. It's quite literately splitting people up based on race/gender/sex/whatever and assigning oppression points. Then pitting them against each other.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 03 2017, @07:25AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:02PM
The problem wasn't requiring 51% or the popular vote to take power, nor was it the lack of interest in forming a coalition. The problem was:
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 03 2017, @01:00AM
What happened is that they were able to game a vote [wikipedia.org] to give Hitler the power to make law. It took teaming up with the Centre Party, and excluding most of the people (all the Communists and some of the Social Democrats) that would vote against the measure - plus some good, old fashion thuggery to intimidate would be fence sitters and procedural shenanigans. Three months later, the Nazi Party was the only legal party in Germany. Hitler was astoundingly good at negotiating with others. He wasn't so good at keeping promises once he got what he wanted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @03:23AM (1 child)
What if one day all the rulers of the world woke up and realized that all they really care about is staying in power and that if they all collude with each other pretending to be at odds, then they can cement their rulership while all of us peons fight and die to subsidize their expensive fun?
What if that happened a long time ago, as evidenced by the fact that Hitler lived to a ripe old age and was partially funded by US banks?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 03 2017, @02:36PM
I wouldn't exactly call 56 "a ripe old age." It was kind of dumb luck he made it that far, considering there were several assassination attempts that almost got him.
Yeah, the current situation sucks too; I'm just saying careful what you wish for. The Weimar Republic sounded like a great idea on paper.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"