The Democratic National Committee is hiring IT people for these positions:
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
(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.