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This discussion has been archived.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.
Obstacles are what you see when you take your eyes off your goal.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by arcz on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:39PM (2 children)
The problem is that third party candidates are pretty wacky. While I'd love to run a politiical party myself, the outlook of it suceeding seems low enough due to election laws that I wont bother.
Laws that stop lobbying and limit donations and whatnot serve their intended purpose: Protecting big political parties at the expense of small ones. To be honest, the problems we face starting new parties are: Limits on who you can "endorse" for a political party. Limits on how much you can spend. Etc.
New political parties aren't started by masses. They are started by small groups who are very dedicated; funding limits basically make it illegal to start a new political party. If you think that politics can be run by the masses, you need a reality check. The masses can choose who to vote for, but strong leadership of mutiple paries is ideal. Only strong leadership can ensure that a party's values are preserved. Our election laws gut the power of political parties such that there can only ever be two.
And don't even get me started on laws on how parties must hold primary elections and party allegiance and whatnot. This results in what you'd call party hijacking, a compromise of the core party values which leads to a slew of useless parties.
The worst part is, the Supreme Court OK'd most of these, which means we're stuck with it until we get better judges because congress has zero incentive to make congressional elections more fair. Since judges are elected for life, and usually don't like overruling old precedents, even if they disagree with them, this fix could take a loooooong time.
So how can we fix our laws?
1. Remove spending limits. Money is speech. Why should a journalist get more speeh power than an engineer? The engineer need to be able to use his money to advertise because he doesn't have an audience otherwise. Liberal media bias is a direct result of spending limits. (Yes, citizens united exists, but it doesn't go far enough in what kind of speech it protects.)
2. Return to entrepenureral capitalism. Stakeholder capitalism just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. This change probably had the largest impact on people's well-being and ended America's golden age. But 99% of people don't understand the real difference, and there isn't much literature on it. So maybe I should write a book, but I don't have an audience, so no one would read it. In a nutshell there are two major problems with America's currect capitalism: a) companies can own other companies, and b) companies have a legal duty to make profit for the stakeholder(the rich), screwing over the customers(everyone else) in the process.
3. Add more force to our constitution. Judges somehow like to ignore bits they don't like or use sovereign immunity as a defense. Sovereign immunity to torts is understandable, constitutional claims not so much. Qualified immunity is rather unforgivable. (though perhaps some form of qualified immunity would be acceptable, it effectively creates nobles immune from prosecution under our current case law; clearly contradicting the spirit of our constitution.)
4. Update our constitution. We need an electronic access amendment to our constitution. Seriously, we need to be able to keep track, digitally, of laws and whatnot. A GIT-like system would be ideal here, so we can look at changes to statutes as they are passed, proposed, etc.
5. Have our Courts do their jobs. Not ignoring cases, reading all arguments. Including arguments by pro se parties. Our courts are bad at reading arguments by pro se parties (I have personal experience with the 11th circuit and I can say for a fact that they basically just gloss over the table of contents of the brief if you are pro se instead of reading it. Thank the "staff attorney" program.) The Courts should not know if the party is pro se. The staff attorney programs ought to be held unconstitutional as in practice they result in a denial of access to the courts.
6. Money money money. People need to stick their money where their mouth is. If you want political change you NEED to get a group together and FUND the movement. If it's not important enough to fund, you propably either a) are a college student short on funds, b) are disabled, c) are not competent enough to get a decent job, d) don't care enough to bother, e) just have too much expenses, or f) just not social enough to organize a group.
I could keep going. But 99% of people aren't educated and intelligent enough to understand why these problems are more important than immigration policy. Can we fix it? Yes, but it's hard. Some very intelligent people would need to work together to solve this problem. Some of them aren't in a position to both do this kind of public-good work and make ends meet. Can it be fixed? Yes. Is it easy to fix? No.
(Score: 5, Informative) by mechanicjay on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:13PM
No they do not. https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiduciary-duty-to-maximize-profits-939ae50d0572 [medium.com]
This is a myth propagated by stakeholders to justify screwing others over...but there is NO legal requirement.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:36PM
Because money isn't speech. There's absolutely no political idea conveyed on a check or credit card. And why should a rich person get more speech power than a poor person? Some rich people inherited their money and have done nothing worth bragging about. Some rich people are very very good at one thing, but no good at anything else. And some poor people are extremely smart, they're just stuck toiling away in a post-doc fellowship somewhere for $12,000 a year.
You seem to be ignorant of history. The first joint-stock company in what would become the US landed on US soil in 1607 as the "Virginia Company" - Jamestown was being managed for the benefit of stockholders back in the UK. Ditto for Massachusetts Bay in 1620. 300 stakeholder companies existed by 1800. by 1840, anyone could create a stockholder corporation. The New York Stock Exchange was founded in 1792, and financial trading was always part of the US economy. Point being, no matter when you pick for your "golden age", what you're calling stakeholder capitalism was alive and well and had significant effects on the economy.
Generally with you, although I'm curious what decisions exactly you object to.
You mean like this [house.gov]? Or maybe you want to browse through the text of laws passed since 1973 [congress.gov]? Or Supreme Court decisions since 1991 [supremecourt.gov]? Or every bureaucratic rule change and notification since 1994 [federalregister.gov]? That took me about 10 minutes, no poking around law libraries necessary.
Have you read some of the arguments that come in from pro se parties? They get a fair number of cases by spectacularly dumb people all the time.
Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that if you want to unclog the court systems enough so that every judge can give each case full consideration, you should be advocating for more judges and more courts. That would mean splitting existing circuits, of course.
What about people with legitimate points to make but no money? For example, people whose point is "I'm going broke doing this job, and I shouldn't be"? If your criteria for a "decent job" is "making enough money to pay your bills and then some", then what you're actually saying is that you don't believe the majority of people in this country should have any say whatsoever in what happens politically. Which is identical to saying you don't believe in democracy as an organizing principle of government.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.