JFLNYC wrote:

JUburton wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:What Warren is missing (intentionally or not) is that there are undoubtedly other people besides Bloomberg who are beneficiaries of those confidentiality clauses and whose rights and privacy would be adversely affected if Bloomberg were unilaterally try to release anyone from their commitments.

It is more about the atmosphere he allowed to foster (intentionally or not) at his company and not solely the bad actions of Bloomberg himself. If the victims/targets wanted to remain silent they could.

And if they had wanted not to sign an NDA they could have done so.

I’m not condoning whatever happened at Bloomberg and, having signed more than one myself, I hate NDA’s required to settle matters (along with restrictive covenants, non-competes, etc.) but: (a) they were agreements knowingly and willfully entered into; and (b) Bloomberg can’t just release these women from their obligations without the potential for huge collateral damage to others.

Can you expand on B? Again, no one would force them to talk, and I'm not sure what 'collateral' damage would be done to innocent people.

As I noted above, “there are undoubtedly other people besides Bloomberg who are beneficiaries of those confidentiality clauses and whose rights and privacy would be adversely affected if Bloomberg were unilaterally try to release anyone from their commitments.”

JUburton wrote: And while it is true that they signed the NDA 'willingly', when the alternative is 'woman on her own' vs 'the legal force of a multibillion dollar company', there is a power dynamic involved that makes true, unadulterated consent not really possible. Either I shut up and take some money or I fight a legal behemoth that might run me into the ground or bankruptcy even if I am right. Not much of a choice.

That power is disparity is something we all face multiple times a day in our interactions with the corporate world. And the choice is not limited to sign or sue. We can just walk away or, if the wrong in question rises to that level, file a criminal complaint. Once someone agrees to accept money for his or her silence, he or she is in no position to complain about being muzzled.

Sexual harassment isn't a crime, though there are inroads into them like discrimination based on sex, improper termination etc. You're completely underplaying the level of false choice a person has when presented with this situation. And it's what's allowed thousands of people/companies to get away with what they do with relative impunity from a culture of this at parts of Bloomberg to Harvey Weinstein to Kobe Bryant.

With regard to the first part, you haven't given one concrete example of someone who would 'undoubtedly' be a beneficiary of those clauses etc. That's a risk in a world with free speech.

WOW

Can we toss out a situation where the NDA is protecting a third party that would be unjustly aggrieved by Bloomberg waiving the company’s rights under an NDA?

All I can think of is a manager/employee sexually harassing someone and then being protected by the NDA. In that case, Bloomberg releasing the other signer who then shares their story would probably cause some harm to the sexual harasser. Personally, I don’t really care about protecting the harassers in the court of public opinion.

Is there another hypothetical that I’m missing where someone else might be in a bad situation by the NDA not existing?

Won't someone think of the harassers who had no part in the NDA signing?

We paid you to keep silent so shut up is very woke

CalvinBall wrote:We paid you to keep silent so shut up is very woke

You agreed to be paid under immense pressure and financial risk to keep silent so shut up, if you want the unabridged version.

We are now allow to curse in public in Virginia, but spitting is still a jailable offense. (I think it is just a fine)

Well with coronavirus and tuberculosis, you can't be too careful.

Glad to see Bill Barr is stepping up to meet with congress, to bad it will not be a bipartisan meeting. Seems like the DOJ message is clearly that it is not a political organization.

Looks like Russia is trying to facilitate a Trump v. Bernie clash in the general:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

Not particularly surprising.

06hawkalum wrote:Looks like Russia is trying to facilitate a Trump v. Bernie clash in the general:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

Not particularly surprising.

The article says that it’s not clear what Russia has done or is doing. Bernie notes that it wouldn’t surprise him if the toxic behavior people have attributed to some online Sanders supporters may be coming from Russian interference.

Gimpy wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:Looks like Russia is trying to facilitate a Trump v. Bernie clash in the general:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

Not particularly surprising.

The article says that it’s not clear what Russia has done or is doing. Bernie notes that it wouldn’t surprise him if the toxic behavior people have attributed to some online Sanders supporters may be coming from Russian interference.

Perhaps that is accurate, but it is convenient to blame your supporters' trolling on Russia.

They hardly ever spell out what Russia has done or is doing. That leaves people to basically just start finger-pointing amongst ourselves, and the media of course gobbles that up. Which is likely the whole point of foreign interference to begin with, demoralizing everyone so we just tune out (and don't vote).

But we'll never know if we don't get specifics on what Russia etc has done to cause this concern. I wish they wouldn't give the story so much play without that info.

06hawkalum wrote:

Gimpy wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:Looks like Russia is trying to facilitate a Trump v. Bernie clash in the general:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

Not particularly surprising.

The article says that it’s not clear what Russia has done or is doing. Bernie notes that it wouldn’t surprise him if the toxic behavior people have attributed to some online Sanders supporters may be coming from Russian interference.

Perhaps that is accurate, but it is convenient to blame your supporters' trolling on Russia.

Yeah that was a stupid thing to say because it’s clearly not the case.

“This year we had a movie — they said best movie. They announced a movie from South Korea. I said, ‘What’s that all about?’ The movie was made in South Korea. Look, I get along great with South Korea, but you know, I never saw that one before. They used to call it best foreign movie. But now we do it that way. I don’t get it. But that’s what it used to be. And this is really an incredible time for our country. That’s why I like to see things that we do honored, because nobody is doing what we do, nobody can do it like us, we’re the greatest country in the world again. We have the greatest people. We have the greatest military by far.”

This dude is what the buzz is about. I get people bought into xenophobia and the idea that they somehow became irrelevant as US citizens. Misguided at best, but serious kick back and look at the stable genius with the best education struggling to use his native English.

TBF, I have not yet seen Parasite, but I imagine it has subtitles and we all know that Trump and reading are not friends.

My mother was most impressed by Bloomberv in the most recent debate, just in case anyone's keeping count.

CalvinBall wrote:also a majority of illegal immigrants pay federal, state and local taxes!

Do you have a source for this? I've encountered the statement many times but never found solid numbers. Just estimates and guessing.

No doubt many pay taxes with TINs and misappropriated SSNs. Doesn't change the fact they're living here illegally.

Please don't use that argument on Trumpers. Best not confirm that illegal immigrants ARE filling regular jobs instead of that unemployed guy they know.

JUburton wrote:

Uncle Milty wrote:

pacino wrote:Why should an "illegal immigrant" ,as you write, not receive healthcare

Why should they?

It's because they're human.

As are billions around the world who don't have access to even basic healthcare, yet alone healthcare coverage. They're also not citizens or lawful residents of the US. Should we give them healthcare too?

swishnicholson wrote:My mother was most impressed by Bloomberv in the most recent debate, just in case anyone's keeping count.

You misspelled Bloomperv

people without paperwork pay a lot of taxes, same as you and me. they're also our neighbors, friends, and family members for some of us. otherizing them as though they are 'taking' jobs is silly and counterproductive. And yes, most have tax ID numbers. my friend's wife was undocumented for a time; I have multiple friends who are currently undocumented. they're every bit a part of our society as I am and just as in need of healthcare as me as well. were they supposed to go to a country they barely ever knew, wait 10 years, and hope to get let back into the only place they've ever truly known? it's absurd.

i also have no idea what you mean by 'regular' jobs. what's an irregular job?