[+]flyawayhigh1 point25 points26 points
ago
(edited ago)
[–]flyawayhigh1 point
25 points
26 points
(+26|-1)
ago
(edited ago)
Someone is trying to seed the idea of hypocrisy in this custom title. But this is not hypocrisy.
This is a legal standard that Bernie is supporting. The best way that he can achieve this standard is from the White House. Traditionally, money is the most important deciding factor. At this point, it looks like Bernie is at a huge disadvantage in that area. One interesting reason for this disadvantage is the proliferation of low-paid or unpaid volunteers for candidates generally.
But most critically, as @VictorOscarAlphaTang, pointed out in this excellent comment on this page:
It is not hypocritical. Bernie Sanders is pushing to incrementally raise the minimum wage until it reaches $15 per hour in 2020. Unless I missed the last 4 1/2 years, it is not 2020 yet.
What we are seeing here is a refusal to lie down and let the corporate candidates crush this one.
This is no more hypocritical than refusals to "unilaterally disarm" nuclear weapons.
Well sure, if you actually read the article you'll have a more nuanced and informed perspective on the matter, but then you're missing out on all the fun.
This is a legal standard that Bernie is supporting. The best way that he can achieve this standard is from the White House.
Right now Bernie is not in control of the Whitehouse, he is in control of how much he pays his staff, arguably to a greater degree now than he ever would be as president. If he won't take the initiative and set the example now, don't expect him to do so as president. This is a replay of Obama, when people thought of his as a transparency candidate despite his history of supporting things like FISA. It's projection.
Traditionally, money is the most important deciding factor. At this point, it looks like Bernie is at a huge disadvantage in that area.
Bernie is not unique in that matter, this is literally everyone's dilemma when paying for things, labor included. At least Bernie has the option to respond and pay his staffers less than $15/hr in response to his disadvantage of funds, if that were a law his disadvantage would be greater, no? Say he becomes president and can get this through congress, what does that do to the next generation of Bernies who are at a cash disadvantage vs. corporate interests? You judge his ability to pay his staffers less to be for the greater good now, but not in the future?
[–] flyawayhigh 1 point 25 points 26 points (+26|-1) ago (edited ago)
Someone is trying to seed the idea of hypocrisy in this custom title. But this is not hypocrisy.
This is a legal standard that Bernie is supporting. The best way that he can achieve this standard is from the White House. Traditionally, money is the most important deciding factor. At this point, it looks like Bernie is at a huge disadvantage in that area. One interesting reason for this disadvantage is the proliferation of low-paid or unpaid volunteers for candidates generally.
But most critically, as @VictorOscarAlphaTang, pointed out in this excellent comment on this page:
What we are seeing here is a refusal to lie down and let the corporate candidates crush this one.
This is no more hypocritical than refusals to "unilaterally disarm" nuclear weapons.
[–] YourDumbWhat 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Well sure, if you actually read the article you'll have a more nuanced and informed perspective on the matter, but then you're missing out on all the fun.
[–] reddfugee43 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Right now Bernie is not in control of the Whitehouse, he is in control of how much he pays his staff, arguably to a greater degree now than he ever would be as president. If he won't take the initiative and set the example now, don't expect him to do so as president. This is a replay of Obama, when people thought of his as a transparency candidate despite his history of supporting things like FISA. It's projection.
Bernie is not unique in that matter, this is literally everyone's dilemma when paying for things, labor included. At least Bernie has the option to respond and pay his staffers less than $15/hr in response to his disadvantage of funds, if that were a law his disadvantage would be greater, no? Say he becomes president and can get this through congress, what does that do to the next generation of Bernies who are at a cash disadvantage vs. corporate interests? You judge his ability to pay his staffers less to be for the greater good now, but not in the future?
It's always "rules for thee, not for me"