Newsom has always been corporatist scum. You can’t won the election of a huge city or state without kissing the ring and selling your soul. Its funny in a sad way watching the MSM try to sweep his antics under the rug in preparation for his future ambitions.
5 Likes
What a twist! The corporately owned politician backs corporations. It’s crazy he is still governor there.
2 Likes
Eh, call me a compliant Democrat, but I am not riled about what Gavin Newsom is up to - for the most part. Especially in this case.
I have been looking askance at the DEFH and their actions ever since the Federal Government stepped in. The Feds were ready to make a settlement with Activision, and the DEFH was engaging in a petty turf war.
If Newsom was like : “wtf are you guys doing? Why are you dragging this along when the Feds are ready for a deal?” - I think that is a good thing. If I were governor, I would have wondered what they were doing by slowing down the federal government’s attempts at an agreement.
If Newsom was calling off the over eager dogs at the DEFH who were appealing and road blocking the settlements that the Feds were trying to make… I could see those over eager dogs stating that it “mirrored Activision’s interests” to simply allow the Feds to broker the settlement.
I am actually glad to hear the DEFH was getting some blow back from the state’s leaders. Ever since the Feds stepped in and were ready to strong arm a deal with Activision, the DEFH has come off as stubborn and petty by standing in the way.
Maybe, but the settlement for Riot Games was at 100 Million done by the state while the Federal Settlement with Activision was merely 18 million with Activision being a much larger company.
washingtonpost .com/video-games/2021/12/27/riot-discrimination-100-million-settlement
Are we taking this agency’s track record into account? Last time they did this the settlement went from 10 Million to 100 Million.
The Feds were giving activision a sweetheart deal by the looks of things.
2 Likes
Yes, the numbers can get bigger as the numbers get bigger.
From what I can tell, Riot’s settlement involved more than 2000+ current and former employees dating back a decade. While Blizzard’s is said to be in the hundreds.
One reason could be that Blizzard just didn’t hire many women in the first place, so their victim pool was smaller - and the victims who were not even given a chance for a job based on their gender are not calculable.
From reading about the Riot suit, they had alot more people involved over a longer period of time, both victims and perpetrators. So it should be more.
Each case is different.
I despise Newsom.
1 Like
This now concerns me.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer of have any legal training
When the notice of disassociation of attorney was filed on the 5th of this month I thought nothing of it. While my research showed this is what gets filed when a member of counsel is fired while they have pending cases I was willing to chalk it up to my lack of legal training. To wit I was afraid of only having just enough legal knowledge to be dangerous in my assumptions.
However looking on www.lacourt.org I can see that the plantiff’s side of the lawsuit only has 2 lawyers while the defendant’s side has
In both cases the offending company was given what seems to be a good deal with the initial settlement prior to the DFEH intervening. In Riot’s case the settlement turned into ten times the initial settlement.
The initial settlement for Activision was 18 million, 8 million more than Riot’s initial settlement despite the greater number of victims in Riot’s case. So it isn’t just a simple case of Riot having greater number of victims equaling a larger settlement. The greater number of victims clearly had no factor in things.
It was the DFEH’s intervention that brought about the greater settlement. Clearly that tactic has merit as the intervention in Riot’s settlement shows.
I will say the tactic likely earns you no friends among the Governor’s Donor List.
1 Like
That does not seem to be the case. The opposite is true.
Riot and those suing them were given a paltry settlement offer, and it was raised after further litigation. The final settlement offer was alot larger, and the size of the claimants had alot to do with why the offer was not originally accepted and why it was made larger. More money needed to go around for more people.
Multiplying it made sense. In that case, a smaller offer was made for a larger group, and correction made sense.
Again, that was a different case with different numbers and different issues at play, so the results are different.
However, in this case, Blizzard is already being offered nearly double Riot’s original settlement, with less people. I do not think the size of the company or the money they rake in matters as much for the settlement, as the legal damage done and the number of claimants/victims.
Even if Blizzard makes more money, their legal liability is likely alot less due to the pool of victims. The fact that the original settlement offer made to Blizzard was almost double Riot’s, even though less than a quarter of the folks are seeking damages in Blizzard’s case, shows that the numbers are already on a higher multiple than the Riot case. Not every settlement offer needs to be multiplied by 10 to be equitable.
politico .com/news/2022/04/13/activision-donation-newsom-anti-recall-campaign-00025112
1 Like
Btw apparently Bobby Kotick played in Moneyball? How did I never know this before?
From my earlier post:
Further litigation made possible after the DFEH blocked the Original settlement. You seem to ignore that point. It is the same tactic they tried with the most recent settlement.
It worked with Riot’s case but didn’t work with Activision’s. It not working doesn’t make them villains in need of punishing. DFEH was the ones to investigate and file the initial lawsuit exposing what had been going on.
Different case and facts… are different.
The outcome of their actions in State Court, with a different Defendant and facts, does not tell you much, if anything, about an attempt to take over a case from a Federal Regulator.
There is an amazing gulf between intervening when a private Plaintiff is acting in a State Court, and trying to overthrow a Federal Regulator acting in a Federal Court.
Yeah, that caught me by surprise when I saw that movie lol. I hear he played in that movie as a favor to the director in exchange for getting him to work on a Call Of Duty movie.
It’s really not. As long as you have the party blessing, you are basically guaranteed to win any elections in a party stronghold city or state. People dont care if you are a ham sandwich or a child abuser; people will vote for you simply because you have the correct party symbol after your name. That’s why some places have a history of electing utter scumbags back to back. Newsom has presidential aspirations (governing Cali gets you the name recognition) so his party and much of the media gladly look the other way with his corporate dealings, corruption, and general elitism.
This will never stop until the two-party system is destroyed.
6 Likes
It’s how Biden became president. Despite the multitude of candidates from the Democratic party in the previous election, with atleast two or three better options to pick from, they went with the traditional career candidate.
1 Like
Perhaps for the most part… but the fact that Alabama of all places rejected the Republican Roy Moore (accused of inappropriate activity with minors) in favor of the Democrat Doug Jones (a civil rights lawyer) goes to show there is a tiny bit of sanity and goodness and consideration left, even in the most partisan regions. The Georgia special elections were also a pleasant surprise.
I think this is nothing more than a platitude. In the end, most choices come down to two options : yes or no. And political support can be based on that. When some align with yes and some align with no - blam! Two party system.
Parliaments like Israel and Britain with multiple parties end up with coalitions that end up looking like a two party system, anyway. The third parties simply act as buffets to the wings of the two parties.
I know some may disagree, but I see it on both sides. Ross Perot hurt the right wing and helped Bill Clinton. Nader hurt the Left Wing and helped George Bush.
As far as the two sides, I can be content being a Democrat, because they accept independents like Angus King and Bernie Sanders, and folks like Joe Manchin. While Republicans have loyalty oaths, and cast out those who don’t adhere to the party line.
Who were the best choices?
I was a Biden supporter in the primary early on. He was the best choice as far as I was concerned. I was not thrilled about him, he was just the best thing on the ballot.
Sanders is too pie in the sky for me. Warren is a bit erratic and out of her element. Yang was looking for air time, and he made his own party. Bloomberg? No way. Buttigeg - a fine man, but he needed a bit more.on the resume than “Mayor and Soldier” - and he likely wouldn’t be winning any red states because he is LGBT.
I didn’t see anything better and settled on Biden early. I was bummed that my state went for Sanders, and relieved when Biden won SC and then made it to the goal line.
1 Like
I don’t want to go too much into who my picks were because it usually pisses people off, but Biden seems disingenuous and I don’t think he personally represents the American people. Too old and out of touch, and his positions have flip flopped without explanation. He can’t even talk most of the time without making some sort of blunder. I know we’re not halfway through his term yet (unless he suddenly dies sometime soon) but I’m wondering about what is going to make his presidency remarkable by the time it’s done.
I think he does, in a lot of ways. Biden reminds me of Homer Simpson. Homer is a bit of a lout and hard headed, a bit small minded but good hearted.
I thought Biden would be able to rally a coalition to get over the top, and the others were not as likely. That he would be able to appeal to a certain aspect of America that he has appealed to for decades. Obama was wise to choose him as VP, because Biden represents a certain midwestern/midAtlantic old school mindset that is still a part of the electorate. I hoped Hillary would pick Biden as VP again. I think her VP pick sunk her. Tim Kaine is very uninspiring. Had she just held Biden over, she mighta narrowed the margins in Wisconsin, PA, and other states.
Biden might not be representative of America, but he represents a consequential part of the electorate that the Dems should not cede to the Republicans - Old school folks that aren’t sold on the cons of the far right, but are still slow to embrace progressive change. He got cross over votes and moderates, and the left needs some of them to advance their agenda.
The only thing that gave Biden an advantage in the primaries was that he was VP. That old school mindset is the problem, because people are moving away from that and don’t care about the same issues that they use to. The only people who can relate to that are boomers who aren’t engaged with the issues of people younger than them.
The near-future of American politics is mostly going to be center-left versus far-left, with some minor right wing hanger ons thrown in. The Democratic party will fight over how far they should take its goals, which will result in a new third party or two after some splintering, while the Republican party will diminish and be made up of political trolls like Madison Cawthorn after the boomers die out. The average populace does not relate to most of these old politicians and when GenZ can vote they won’t care about anything they had talked about.