“Here is what you are seeing. The Tabulation Systems at the County level were hacked far in advance of the election. The hack was probably written into the code even before the code was installed. It will have a WHEN function and IF/THEN functions to have the machine force balance to a given outcome within a specific window of time. You could test the machines 1000 times before election night, and the result will be correct. If you run it during the time window, the force balancing will be turned on and regardless of inputs you will get a programmed output.

It is very simple to prove this. Take the two most outlandish precinct results from any county and just hand-count the ballots. They won't match the tabulation outputs. From what I am seeing, you will find 8-11% avg. shifts from Dem to Rep. Be sure to check heavy Red areas, easier to cover up a run up of the score. That was how it was done in Ohio vs. Kerry - GOP flips in already highly red areas. Now, why the Bomb-Threats? They were NOT to allow for hacker access. The programming was already in place, they were to break Chain of Custody and produce legal grounds to not trust a recount. Every place that GOT a bomb-threat is a place the courts will now have to consider the factual argument of whether the ballots COULD have been tampered with while the evacuations were going on. They weren't. But that is the argument the GOP will make to prevent recounts.

I used to appear on Lou Dobbs TV Show, back when he was at CNN and discuss hacking, including of voting machines. I helped get machines into researchers hands - every single one of them were shocked/horrified how simple hacking the machines was. But somehow, the public has refused to engage. Now that a full blown fascist takeover is underway, and they did it by hacking the tabulation machines as described, please engage. I will lend any expertise if asked, but be aware these people are sociopaths who will kill you, they have done so to others, so act accordingly.

And it was relatively easy. Perhaps 300-500 tabulators of 3 types with 24+ months of prep. You just saw 3000+ comms devices of 4+ types hacked with software and installed explosives. These were set off in waves and specific times to destroy Hamas. Same thing here. My personal record. A team of 4, 11 months total operation time, we hacked 500 Point of Sale CreditCard machines to install added tracking software allowing the units to work correctly while also creating traces to catch CC money laundering which the retailer was in on. Same thing as election 2024 And finally, let me say again, this is a simple, stupid, easy to prove hack. Hand Count most suspected 2 Precincts in each county. They won't match. And FWIW, I am currently working on a much harder hack larger in scale and much better executed. This election hack is just about political will.”

https://spoutible.com/thread/37794003

Makes you so sick at heart,

That you can't take part!

You can't even passively take part!

And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears

And upon the wheels, upon the levers,

Upon all the apparatus --

And you've got to make it stop!

And you've got to indicate to the people who run it,

To the people who own it --

That unless you're free

The machine will be prevented from working at all!

- Mario Savio

https://takano.house.gov/newsroom/press-releases/new-poll-rep-takanos-32-hour-workweek-bill-popular-with-likely-voters

We should have shortened the work week considerably when women entered the paid labor force, doubling the paid labor supply.

If Democrats had included this and other wildly popular and necessary proposals in their platform, maybe they wouldn't have wiped out so hard.

But such policies conflict with the oligarchic/plutocratic/kleptocratic desire for absolute control over the public and working class, so NO DICE!

I've noticed a fair number of people in this sub claiming Dems focus too much of DEI at the expense of working people. This is a talking point rooted in fascism and the Christian Nationalist white replacement theory. It's used to manipulate workers and prevent them from questioning why these systems screw them. Don't get taken in by this shit.

To be very clear, the Dems absolutely did not listen to labor and have been sucking up to conservatives that will never vote for them because they have tied their identity to opposing Dems. But not doing shit to fight the regressive social policies of Trump would have just lost them votes and done nothing to help labor. We need to reform and form an alternative to the party, but selling out minorities isn't the move.

The fact is Harris did propose better policies for working people than Trump. However, right-wing groups overshadowed all this by spinning her paying any attention to people who aren't straight white men as prioritizing DEI over working people. This is effective messaging for Trump's base because demonizing women and minorities is built into fascist and white nationalist dogma.

Anti-DEI is integral to fascism, as well as White Nationalism, because both rely on the idea that a strong white masculine figure is integral to the success of the nation and having anything else will corrupt the integrity of the society. This provides a scapegoat for their ineffectiveness at bettering society, as well achievable (if morally repugnant) polcies. Demonizing minorities is integral to their control and exploitation of the working class.

Trump and his party have no interest in helping working people, and in fact can enrich themselves by harming working people. However, he will need an excuse for why his policies aren't helping after he ran on populism. He will almost certainly follow the fascist playbook of blaming the lack of progress on feminism, immigrants, and whatever minority is most convenient. He will also be able to show he is doing something to his base by enacting policies that subjugate these groups. This is what he did last term. He didn't help working people but he helped get Roe get overturned and supported a bunch of racist and anti-LGBT lawmakers. The Christian right was happy because abortion was restricted and they can bully trans kids, and the people who supported him because he told them he'd fix the economy have someone to blame.

Don't perpetuate their propaganda. Know your enemy and know your allies. Alienating people of color in the early days of unions just made it easier for bosses to break strikes, so don't make the same mistakes they did and turn on minorities because they're an easy scapegoat. Remember that labor orgs are their next favorite scapegoat and they'll move right on to calling you antifa leftist communists as soon as you ask for real change. Solidarity isn't some woowoo buzzword it's a survival strategy and key to a successful labor movement.

The time is clearly now. How do we start to get organized? Do we try and form a coalition of existing 3rd parties? Do we present an entirely new concept under a Sanders umbrella?

I just would like to have a hopeful discussion on how to enact what we all know needs to happen.

Hi all, I'm between jobs at the moment and reached out to a few coworkers from my previous job about providing references. They are willing to provide their contact info, but one of them is under the impression that the company policy requires references to go through HR. Does anyone know if this is legal or even enforceable? I don't want to get anyone in trouble, but their references would be clutch and I'm known to HR as someone who was active with our union. I don't trust them at all. Thanks in advance for any help!

GPT summary;:

The First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) electoral system is one of the most widely used voting mechanisms globally, especially in the United States and United Kingdom. However, its structure tends to favor a two-party system, creating significant obstacles for leftist candidates and working class ideas to gain traction. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), an alternative voting system, offers a potential solution to these issues, providing a more representative and less polarized political landscape.

How the FPTP System Marginalizes Leftist Candidates and Ideas

In the FPTP system, also known as a "winner-take-all" approach, voters select a single candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they do not achieve an outright majority. This design incentivizes a two-party system for several reasons:

1. Spoiler Effect: The FPTP system creates a "spoiler effect," where third-party or independent candidates—especially those advocating for leftist ideas—risk splitting the vote. This often results in the least preferred candidate for these voters, usually from a major right-leaning party, winning the election. For instance, a progressive candidate running alongside a centrist Democrat could divide the left-leaning vote, allowing a conservative candidate to win. This discourages voters from supporting leftist candidates they genuinely favor, out of fear of aiding the opposite side.
2. Strategic Voting: FPTP encourages "strategic voting," where voters select not the candidate they most agree with but rather the one they believe has the best chance of winning against the opposition. This phenomenon pushes voters toward centrist candidates, leaving more left-leaning or progressive voices out of serious contention, as they are perceived as less "electable" within this framework.
3. Fundraising and Media Coverage: The winner-take-all aspect of FPTP requires candidates to fundraise extensively to reach a broad voter base. Mainstream media and major donors often view leftist candidates as high-risk underdogs and may hesitate to back them financially, fearing they cannot win in a two-party-dominated system. Consequently, leftist ideas struggle to get adequate exposure and funding, limiting their influence in mainstream politics.
4. Policy Limitations and Compromise: Even when leftist candidates manage to win, the necessity of securing support from a broad electorate often means they must compromise their policies to appeal to moderate voters. The result is a political environment where bold or transformative leftist ideas, like universal healthcare or wealth redistribution, are diluted in favor of incremental changes.

How Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) Can Address These Issues

Ranked Choice Voting offers a remedy to the pitfalls of FPTP by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives an outright majority after the initial count, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and votes are redistributed according to voters' next choices. This process continues until a candidate wins by majority.

1. Eliminating the Spoiler Effect: RCV mitigates the spoiler effect by allowing voters to rank leftist candidates as their first choice without fear of "wasting" their vote. If their preferred candidate doesn’t secure enough support, their vote simply transfers to their second choice, ensuring they still have a voice in the final outcome. This makes it more feasible for leftist candidates to run without the risk of splitting the vote, encouraging greater ideological diversity.
2. Encouraging Genuine Preferences over Strategic Voting: With RCV, voters can support candidates they genuinely believe in rather than opting for the "lesser of two evils." Voters are free to rank candidates aligned with their values without inadvertently aiding the opposition, allowing leftist candidates to garner more authentic support and influence.
3. Increasing Leftist Representation: Since RCV decreases the polarization associated with FPTP, leftist candidates have a better chance of gaining office. Voters in RCV systems feel more empowered to choose candidates who align with their values, which can shift representation to include a broader spectrum of political ideologies, including progressive and leftist perspectives. This also incentivizes candidates to appeal to a wider base of voters beyond their core supporters, promoting compromise and coalition-building.
4. Reducing Negative Campaigning and Polarization: RCV encourages candidates to appeal not only to their base but also to supporters of other candidates who might rank them as a second or third choice. This disincentivizes harsh negative campaigning and instead promotes civility and cooperation, as candidates must build appeal across a broader spectrum. In contrast, FPTP fuels polarization as candidates often focus solely on their base, fostering divisive rhetoric that appeals to their core supporters but alienates others.

Decreasing Political Polarization with RCV

Political polarization is exacerbated by FPTP as it entrenches a binary political choice and discourages moderate or alternative viewpoints. RCV, however, encourages coalition-building and promotes moderation within a multi-party framework. By reducing the risks associated with supporting third-party or independent candidates, RCV allows voters to explore a wider range of ideas, including those from progressive and leftist parties, without fear of "throwing away" their vote.

Furthermore, RCV incentivizes candidates to appeal to a broader electorate and discourages extreme positions, as candidates must aim to be the second or third choice of a wide voter base. This leads to a more representative government that reflects a range of ideologies and lessens the stark divisions typically seen in FPTP-dominated systems.

Conclusion

The First-Past-the-Post system constrains political diversity by reinforcing a two-party system, marginalizing leftist candidates, and fueling political polarization. Ranked Choice Voting offers a promising alternative by enabling a broader spectrum of candidates, including those with progressive or leftist views, to compete without threatening election outcomes. By diminishing the spoiler effect, encouraging genuine voter preferences, and fostering a less polarized political environment, RCV can create a more representative democracy where diverse ideas and candidates can thrive.

I work as a facilities maintenance technician at a College in Ontario, Canada. We are unionized and the Union (OPSEU) is actively looking into this entire situation, just to clear that up before delving into my tale.

In our CBA we are entitled to 130 short term days where we get paid 75% of our wages. It's super handy because if you are off work for an extended period for say surgery recovery or illness you are still earning a wage, even if it's a slight downgrade from your regular full salary.

HR has decided to apply that to any accommodation based work saying the language from the insurance provider is vague enough that they can do this, so if you have to say, get bi-weekly treatments for Multiple Sclerosis or physio for an old injury or whatever, those days count as short term days and towards your 130 day total.

They also use those if you are on modified work orders from a medical professional, so if say you hurt your shoulder and have a doctors note saying you can't lift anything over your head for 2-3 weeks, you now get 75% wages and it counts towards your 130 total.

Not wanting to waste those days, employees are now just not reporting injuries or illnesses and ignoring doctors orders.

We had a guy have to get a tetanus shot and then ordered not to lift with his left arm where he was cut. Instead he took a regular sick day to get the shot, and is hiding the injury under long sleeves until it heals.

Yesterday I was diagnosed with a grade 2 meniscus strain with possible damage to the meniscus itself (cant tell until the swelling goes down) doctor said any ladders, stairs, and lifting should be limited or completely prohibited or I risk further damage.

I'm not telling the College any of this and refused the doctors note. I'm just doing my normal duties as much as I can while in pain, because if I do have damage and need surgery, I want to have those 130 days available to me while I'm off. I can't afford to be taking a 25% pay cut for the next 4-6 weeks while waiting to see if it heals.

Congrats, Human Resources. You've done a bang up job of intimidating the employees into mindless compliance regardless of the short and long term effects to their health and wellbeing.

So I work in an industry where there are a lot of 1099s. Recently there was this senior coworker (1099) who threw a tantrum and went on “strike” to get another coworker and friend (another 1099) fired because he didn’t like him. The coworker that got fired is good at his job but just isn’t a yes man. I’m like one of the few w2 employees there and I know if it happens to me I might have a WT case but since my friend is a 1099 he’s kind of screwed right? Also work treating 1099s like w2 employees at my job is a little sus but that’s a discussion for another time..

It's obvious that both parties bought by big donors and will represent the average worker. I also know the Democrats will never change and the other 3rd parties don't seem like good option either. So I think that if we were to form a labor party to help the average American life get better, with progressive economic and social policies.

I've been in my new job for three months and recently faced an issue involving reports for digital campaigns with three different data sources, where the client holds the definitive data. The confusion arose because, although we had the correct numbers in our trackers, the client had not been sending their reports despite weeks of follow-up, nor did they indicate whether we were overspending or underspending, which we couldn't verify without their data. I was told that I should have noticed this issue last week, which I did, and I had even asked the client about their reports.

How would you handle a situation where, despite your proactive efforts, your work isn't recognized, and only the negative aspects are emphasized? What strategies would you recommend for dealing with feedback that feels unjust and disproportionate?

I'm pretty sure there would still be enough for a decent CEO package with that surplus.