Expensify's CEO Emailed Users To Encourage Them To 'Vote For Biden' (protocol.com) 328
Expensify CEO David Barrett blasted all of his customers with a message to vote for Biden to "protect democracy." From a report: In the email, which the company has said was sent to all users, Expensify's founder said that "anything less than a vote for Biden is a vote against democracy" and urged his customer base to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. In the email, he equated a vote for Trump as an endorsement for voter suppression, and took issue with people who may want to abstain or vote for a third-party candidate: "I'm saying a vote for Trump, a vote for a third-party candidate, or simply not voting at all -- they're all the same, and they all mean: 'I care more about my favorite issue than democracy. I believe Trump winning is more important than democracy. I am comfortable standing aside and allowing democracy to be methodically dismantled, in plain sight,'" he wrote in the email.
green (Score:5, Insightful)
Without Ranked Choice Voting it's pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
FPTP voting will always result in a duopoly because whichever side breaks ranks and goes 3rd party loses _everything_ to whichever side doesn't. Search YouTube and you'll find plenty of videos of varying detail and amusement to explain why a 2 party system is inevitable with FPTP.
As for this election, don't bother with Green. If Green (and Libertarian) are serious they'll form a coalition with each other and all other disaffected voters to get Ranked Choice Voting.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In 2016, the Democrats' strategy was to nominate the worst possible candidate, and then try to browbeat everyone into voting for them anyway because "a vote for anyone else is a vote for Trump!" Fuck that. If Democrats really care that much about "stopping Trump," then they can damn well nominate someone who is reasonably palatable to people who aren't hardcore Democrats.
They did somewhat better this time around with Biden, at least, so maybe they learned something. Although the fact that their total nut
Re: (Score:2)
If you care about who's your president you start by finding your own candidate to support, you don't wait and hope for someone else to nominate someone you could agree with and then moan about them not satisfying your requirements. Complaining about this election is too late, now is the time for you to find your candidate for the next election.
Re:Without Ranked Choice Voting it's pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
They did somewhat better this time around with Biden, at least, so maybe they learned something.
Not really. It was clear early on that Biden was losing to various other moderate Democrats, so they essentially "cleared the lanes" to ensure that the primary became Biden vs Bernie, and Not Bernie handily won that contest.
And who knows, maybe Biden is the best candidate the Democrats have left, because they've basically destroyed their "farm teams" and have no up and coming Democrats. There's this generational gap between Biden's generation and the "new progressive" generation that's essentially infiltrated the Democratic party because they essentially gave up on recruiting younger members. (Yes, there are a lot of young people who "identify" as Democrats, but if you get them to list their views, they don't really align with the party itself. They just align slightly better with the Democrats than they do Republicans.)
But we don't really know if there was a better candidate, because the Democratic party ensured Biden won by telling everyone who was plausibly running against him (in other words, not Bernie or Warren) not to.
Biden might not be as bad a choice as Hillary was, but make no mistake, he was nominated through the same corrupt party process as she was. The Democratic Party is, ironically, trying to ensure that they never have another Obama or Bill Clinton - party outsiders who snuck in past the party filter.
Re:Without Ranked Choice Voting it's pointless (Score:4, Informative)
"They" don't nominate. People do. If you want a better nominee, vote in the primary.
If the Libertarians want to be taken seriously, they can run in the Republican primary. If they really had the support of 5% of the adult population, that's enough to take over the (R) ticket. That's what Bernie Sanders did. That's why he's taken seriously, and Jo Jorgeson isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
On a linear scale her actions certainly seem to position her to the right of Trump.
She's advocating policies I couldn't support and her actions I can't support; that I'm sat halfway between her policies and her actions makes me deeply distrust what she says.
Re: (Score:2)
That bitch will become POTUS within 12 to 16 months. Maybe sooner depending on how fast Biden is impeached by his own party.
Why would they impeach him? I've never seen a Presidential nominee who looked less like he wanted the job or had four good years in him.
Re: Without Ranked Choice Voting it's pointless (Score:5, Insightful)
> I've never seen a Presidential nominee who looked less like he wanted the job
That might be the best qualification you could ever hope for.
Re: (Score:3)
Heinlein pointed out that seeking power should disqualify you from being president.
I'd rather have an inept, weak President than a strong, fascist, authoritarian one.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How about those mass forced hysterectomies in those camps? We're *this* close to outright genocide.
Do you even read the news?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious (I don't really care) but she's loud and obnoxious seems to be a disqualifying characteristic, so loud and obnoxious compared to how ? Mother Theresa or Donald Trump.
Because if she's loud and obnoxious in an unqualifying way I'm not sure what to think of Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Ranked Choice is pus. Not may voters can figure out a third choice, and expecting them to figure out how to rank their preferences accurately is a loser.
But it sure is attractive when you don't like the outcomes...
FPTP duoploy not necessarily (Score:4, Interesting)
Canadians are culturally closer to Americans than any other people. We also have first past the post. First past the post allows you to vote the government out. If you look at countries like Israel or up until now New Zealand, there are parties that were always part of the coalition government. You could never vote them out because every coalition needed them. In most countries with FPTP there are two dominant parties but also a viable third party. Occasionally the voters will vote one of those main parties into oblivion. Canada's current opposition party and former governing party, the conservatives, is really the Reform party which formed in the 80s. The governing Liberal party was the third place party a few elections ago.
So FPTP doesn't lead to duopolies, it does allow new parties to form and most importantly it allows you to vote a party completely out of government. Gerrymandering, unlimited funding and outright corruption are the reason the USA has only two viable parties.
Re: (Score:3)
Canada has a parliamentary system so it's apples and oranges. You have a bunch of small FPtP elections for ministers and then they come together to form a government and appoint a PM. So you can have many smaller parties running for MP and have a coalition government form. Third parties are viable in this scenario because both mainstream parties need them to form a government, so they get a voice even if they aren't the majority.
With the US system, that simply isn't possible on the national level. We do
Re: (Score:2)
Fairvote.org [fairvote.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Those two things would have to be broken down first. But unfortunately for the people in the US both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party would rather keep that system and abuse it towards their own goal than to get rid of it.
I am not sure what could be done against that
Re: (Score:3)
Gerrymandering refers to the drawing of congressional districts. It has nothing to do with presidential voting, which is by state.
Perhaps what you are referring to is 'winner-take-all'. That is not mandated by the Constitution, which says the states are to choose their electors 'in the manner of their choosing'. There is always a lot of wailing about winner-take-all. Of course, what the whiners really mean is OTHER states should get rid of winner-take-all. For instance, after the 2016 election there w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That thing is nothing but a grandstanding joke by the left. It has no legal force behind it, and is possibly illegal itself. If you think for one second that a legislature is going to direct its electors to vote against what its own constituents want, you are insane. As soon as an election went the opposite of what a state wants, it will ignore that compact so fast your head will spin. And since compacts between the states are illegal without the approval of Congress, and the Constution says the state L
Amendment not required (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Gerrymandering refers to the drawing of congressional districts. It has nothing to do with presidential voting, which is by state.
The party that controls the state controls a lot of levers used to put the thumb on the scale of presidential elections. I'm always astounded by how well Americans know the details of their laws and systems, but are absolutely blind to the consequences of those systems.
Re: (Score:2)
All voting is 'winner take all'. You're just trying to find a way for an almost-winner to actually prevail. Disliking the prospect of a 'winner' not actually winning a 'majority' isn't the reason to change all this. It's realizing that third choices are going to be last, last, last, and your almost winning candidate just didn't overcome that third-place loser.
This is not, BTW, a new problem. Now that it seems to be impacting the candidates of the party ready to change all the rules, well, we HAVE TO CHANGE
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, what the whiners really mean is OTHER states should get rid of winner-take-all.
No, they want ALL states to get rid of winner-take-all. Everyone acknowledges that if states run by one party changed this but states run by the other party didn't, it would only hurt the party enacting the reform. This is why you will never see even those who support the change actually enact it without federal coordination.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The structure of the Federal government and the elections does not make it feasible for a third party. You would need a Constitutional amendment in order to force newly elected Presidents to form a coalition government. This would likely influence some of the party power balance in Congress in a positive way, creating some lines of communication between parties even if it is only an uneasy truce.
The only thing stopping us from having a better nation are the people who worship the Constitution like a fetish
Re:green (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing stopping us from having a better nation are the people who worship the Constitution like a fetish object, unwilling to alter it.
It may not be perfect, but given the examples I've seen of "better nations", I'll take the Constitution, thankyouverymuch.
Re:green (Score:5, Insightful)
It may not be perfect, but given the examples I've seen of "better nations", I'll take the Constitution, thankyouverymuch.
Nice strawman. They didn't say to get rid of the Consititution, just be open to taking advantage of its most powerful and important mechanism for ensuring it stands the test of time: adding amendments. Until the 13th amendment abolished slavery these amendments were pretty rare (2 in 74 years), but considering the Constitution was new that isn't surprising. The next 106 years saw 14 new amendments, or about 1 every 7.5 years. As of July 2021 we would have had one amendment in 50 years, and it was a very minor one that only affects Congressional pay increases.
We have many problems in our country which should be being solved by Constitutional amendments. Instead of having to rely on judges making obvious interpretations of civil rights laws from the early 20th century we should be writing our own new civil rights laws into the Constitution. But we have become too partisan to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing stopping us from having a better nation are the people who worship the Constitution like a fetish object, unwilling to alter it.
Equally funny (frustrating?), are those that "worship the Constitution like a fetish object, unwilling to alter it", but sure do love to quote Amendments.
Re: (Score:3)
That is stupid. The amendents ARE part of the Constitution. They are in there because 2/3 of each house of Congress,and 3/4 of the States, approved them. IF you manage to come up with a proposal that meets that criteria the Constitution will again be altered. But it shouldn't be IGNORED just because some so called progressive think it should be changed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True that. And one of the earliest acts of our nation was to enact 10 Amendments to our Constitution. Fairly quickly in historical terms.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know much about the history of the Republican Party, huh?
Re: (Score:2)
You're off-topic, we're talking recent history. As in changes that occurred in the 20th and 21st century. Much of what was possible in the 19th century is no longer possible under current elections regulation, State laws, and House and Senate rules.
Re: green (Score:2)
To think it was easier back then...
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry it's been a few decades since I got tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Be a true believer in one or the other party's pseudo-religion if you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Then that's a few decades you might have wasted not backing your own candidate. I'm just puzzled why people don't see themselves as part of bringing forth candidates. I have a few elected positions in an organisation. It never started with me announcing my candidacy, it started with others telling me that they would like me to represent them and talking me in to accepting a nomination.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If Trump had said that white supremacists and KKK were "very fine people," you would have something, but he never said that - in fact he said they "should be condemned totally."
Read Scott Adams on this [scottadamssays.com] and stop spreading this hoax.
Re: green (Score:3)
Of you don't want to be associated with white supremacists then simply don't associate with white supremacists.
Re: (Score:2)
Another moron who takes quotes out of context and thinks they are indicative of something. Well, I guess they are - your own stupidity.
Re: (Score:3)
Or you could, you know, line up with everyone else and vote Democratic, destroying the Trump (i.e. Republican) party. If literally no Republican candidate won, the party would die, leaving centrists and some conservatives with the opportunity to build a new party outside the "duopoly." That's at least as likely as there ever being enough Green Party voters to seriously influence national politics beyond their role as a spoiler.
You want my vote? Earn it! Run a candidate worth voting for. Until then I will vote for Jo Jorgenson. And yes, the intention is for your candidate to lose. And the other one as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, these pesky democratic presidents and their "It's only a goddam piece of paper" comments.
Oh, wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that actually Bob Goldthwait?
Re: (Score:2)
To a President that has a phone and a pen, a piece of paper looks pretty damned good, since it is only a piece of paper. To them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Conservatives only tout the constitution when it benefits them.
Time to put the Republican Party to bed for good (Score:5, Informative)
No, I literally can not vote conservative in this election, because the Republican Party abandoned conservatism and instead adopted some sick form of religiously-corrupt nihilistic-socialism (a theocratically-influenced kleptocratic kakistocracy) instead. I'd love to vote for a conservative, but in this case, Biden is the more conservative candidate, and he's not really conservative.
Also, fuck your whataboutisms and bothsidesisms. You America-hating, constitution-hating Republicans (and associated III%rs, gun-fetishists, and racist libertarians) created this disastrous mess. You have pissed all over my beloved constitution. Seriously, get out of my country and move to Russia already (assuming you're not already paid by the Kremlin to post here from there.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"conservatives' are the enemy of freedom, democracy, and all that is good in the world. Why in the world would I want to vote for sociopathic authoritarians just because they insist they are the opposite of what they are?
Re: What possible reason could there be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every Election Conservatives claim Liberals and Moderates are going to take their guns, force them into homosexual marriages, and raise taxes to a 173% rate. Every time liberal and moderates do nothing more than suggest people besides cis-white-males have rights, 7 year olds should pass a background check to buy a sniper rifle, and people making $10,000,000/year should pay at least as much as their assistant.
Meanwhile the right openly advocates to disenfranchise American citizens, undermines the right to privacy, and steals Supreme Court seats, openly admitting it's because they have the power to do so.
â(TM)Cuz, you know, â(TM)Christian Valuesâ(TM).
Re: (Score:2)
You know, based on the recent criminal filings we know at least two of them are named Igor and Dmitry. So maybe we should start using those names. I would imagine if there is an Ivan working at the troll farm, his coworkers are pretty jealous that he gets all the credit.
Deceptive gobbledygook (Score:2, Interesting)
He thinks his customers are fools.
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus Wept (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, I'll come right out and say I've already voted for Biden. Not because I think he's the best man for the job, but for the simple fact I think he'll tone down the rhetoric a bit. It was a choice between a turd sandwich and a turd sandwich with a constant stun siren attached to it, so I chose the turd sandwich.
That said, this statement:
That is so gag inducing coming from the CEO of any company through company correspondence. I mean, I don't even really disagree completely, but that's a private matter. If he wanted to he could have put out a statement outside the company stating his thoughts. As it is he just likely pissed off half his users or more when you consider the undecideds or third party voters. And for what? This statement changes nobody's mind. It just makes your company into a laughing stock for a few brief moments, then loses you a big chunk of your current customer base.
Re: (Score:3)
I think on balance, they won't suffer financially from this email. For every irate Trump supporter who quits, there will be a Biden supporter who recommends the business to his/her friends and gets Expensify new signups.
Re: (Score:2)
Most Biden 'supporters' aren't so in love with the guy they'll run to a new company just because the CEO seems to not have a good grip on his political jabber.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we'll see. I suspect most of the Trump supporters threatening to quit in a huff will be like the Hollywood types who threatened to leave the US in 2016.
Assuming the company provides decent service for a good price, quitting over an email like this is a very dumb business decision.
Re:Jesus Wept (Score:5, Insightful)
I think on balance, they won't suffer financially from this email. For every irate Trump supporter who quits, there will be a Biden supporter who recommends the business to his/her friends and gets Expensify new signups.
You... do realize that Expensify is a B2B company, right? Whether you're left or right, businesses with financial information operate on trust. You can't expect trust if you're also spamming your customers' end-user email addresses.
In this and the BusinessInsider article, the CEO describes 2/3 of the company agreeing with them. Because my company uses Expensify for expense reporting (or did, until now), they have access to banking and credit card data. If they truly feel the way they indicate in the email, why should I trust that they would keep my info private? Secure? That I won't have a $100 donation to some dis-favored cause by the employees working there blasted for all to see, since clearly the means now justify the ends.
This is inexcusable, and the company will lose far more business than it gains from this. Not only that, but if I were a VC I'd be out for blood right about now.
Re: (Score:2)
DIdn't watch the debate. I'm not American and don't live in the US, so there's no reason to voluntarily subject myself to that shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you might be excused for misreading the situation. Hell, most people that live in the situation misread it.
Yeah, keep modding me down when my take's too hot. I'mma keep spittin fuego.
Re: (Score:2)
You're more than three months late for this party. If you couldn't cut it off at "Goya, Goya, Goya [nytimes.com]" you're not going to, and you shouldn't attempt to, cut it off now.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm used to Republican supporters pulling this sort of stunt. Hell, my company CEO used to give a speech every ear to the entire company where he'd proclaim anything other than a full Republican ticket would bankrupt the company. I do find it funny how our most prosperous years as a company have always been during Democratic President's terms, but I know better than to speak logic to a company CEO.
It's odd to see a Democrat supporting CEO do this though. I suspect he's a crossover voter that was Republic
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Think about what you're saying. You're saying that desiring more than what's legal (versus what's ethical) and democratic (i.e. two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner) is "batshit insane."
Re: (Score:2)
The "two wolves and a sheep" analogy doesn't mean that the losing side is evil but that a pure democracy doesn't always achieve the greater good. As Alexander Hamilton said [archives.gov]:
Now you know why the USA wasn
Re:Jesus Wept (Score:5, Insightful)
he's basically saying that the liberal left is so mentally unstable that they will accept nothing other than their side winning. He is implying that a legal, democratic victory for President Trump will result in the liberal left flipping out so badly that they start a civil war. Think about how that sounds. He's saying that a win for Biden will result in the reasonable conservative right acting like adults, accepting that there will be another chance to fix things in four more years.
While I have significant concerns with his email, he doesn't imply any of the things you have claimed. He simply claims Trump is a danger to many US democratic institutions. He doesn't spell out the details, but even if you don't agree with Democrat talking points its clear he means things like voter suppression, appointing judges who limit the right to vote, his use of the Attorney General's office as Trump's private attorney, praise of authoritarian rulers over and above our allies and even our intelligence agencies, the lack of checks and balances from the Senate and soon the Supreme Court, and plenty of other examples.
You don't need to agree with any of these observations to at least acknowledge these are among the actual reasons many Americans are concerned by Trump's actions. Your talk of liberal retaliation, civil war, or conservatives "acting like adults" is all divisive nonsense.
does it help or hurt his business to do that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good point.
I do business with companies that agree with me politically, and even get a bonus in getting my dollars when they sell something I need.
I do business with companies that shut up and stay out of politics.
Companies that cross me politically end up on my shit list.
I figure my opposite exist somewhere.
If I were running a business, unless my business specifically focused on selling to a narrow section of the population that agreed with me, I would keep my damned mouth shut so that I wouldn't
He may run afoul of campaign finance law. (Score:3)
As long as he has backing of his Board I guess its within his right to do that.
I was a bit surprised by some of this, as I was under the impression that the limits on activity by corporations and their officials, as such, were more stringent.
But, as I read the federal campaign finance law explanation on the Federal Election Commission's site [fec.gov]:
If he did it on his own and it's not against his company's policies he may be OK legally. If it took him more than four hours or If he ordered (rather than conspired w
Re: (Score:3)
Expensify is a private corporation, owned by him. He can do whatever he wants.
Inflated sense of his own influence (Score:5, Insightful)
Lemme see, CEO of a company I buy stuff from tries to tell me how to vote, and I'm supposed to follow his advice? That'll have to wait until I check in with my plumber, the mailman, and the cashier at the grocery store.
I'm guesiing he may have alienated some right-wing customers, but didn't change anybody's mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with what he said, (Score:5, Interesting)
but I think he's a fuckwit for using his customers' email addresses as a platform for his political views. And in some cases it could backfire - I can see people who might still be on the fence deciding to vote for Trump as a 'fuck you' to some asshole who thinks that their money going into his company gives him the right to preach to them.
If you want a political platform, take out newspaper and TV ads, use social media, climb up on a soapbox - but don't spam your customers.
Re: (Score:2)
As a business decision, that was a poor choice. He probably just alienated himself from at least 40% of his customers, possibly more.
Worse yet, the business owners (the ones cutting the check for his service) send to support tax cuts for the wealthy. They would never vote for Biden, and making them angry can cost you business down the line.
incredibly stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Typically only a little over half of eligible voters vote, and only about half of them vote for a Democrat. He's condemning doing anything but voting for Biden.
If you don't think he's stupid for his politics you should at least think he's stupid for that.
Irony Explosion! (Score:2)
The amount of irony in this story has broken the entire Internet.
A Republic, Ma'am... (Score:2)
If you can keep it.
cf. Sinohawk.
A reasonable viewpoint. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah - I know the business consequences - but as an investment into making a nation that you can work in - that seems quite a reasonable choice.
Sure - if you were in the top 1% of wealth ownership among business owners, it would make more sense to do otherwise - but event that's a really short-sighted take.
Businesses do really well in Democratic administrations. Yes - some taxes go up, but as many will tell you, as long as that's applied evenly across the market, then it's just a pass-through cost. The boost to the economy by having a stronger infrastructure and societal base is far stronger. Hell, the increase in base research and science has a much stronger chance of causing a boost in new product lines over time - which is also crucial.
I never understood the common view that right-wing politics was somehow 'better' for economics... economists don't generally agree, nor do most accountants I've worked with. Historically, neither does the stock market.
Perhaps taking a stand is a gamble in this scenario - but considering the pandemic response, I think it's a bad gamble if you see the harm that's coming otherwise.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
>>Perhaps taking a stand is a gamble in this scenario - but considering the pandemic response, I think it's a bad gamble if you see the harm that's coming otherwise.
Edit:
Perhaps taking a stand is a gamble in this scenario - but considering the pandemic response, I don't think it's a bad gamble if you see the harm that's coming otherwise.
Ryan Fenton
What's the point? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If a vendor of mine (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Its a SAAS company... unless your willing to take a match to the data archives for that software....ending the vendor relationship a divorce.
Any competitor worth its salt has migration playbooks from all similar services onto their own platform.
FEC? (Score:3)
I wonder what the Federal Election Commission thinks of this. The value of those emails should be considered a campaign contribution, no?
Re: FEC? (Score:2)
No they shouldn't be.
Non-partisan message: Don't vote with the stoopids (Score:2, Insightful)
We could have saved the world from Trump AND Brexit if people just didn't vote with the stoopids.
Did he report this campaign donation? (Score:2)
Using his company's resources for a Biden campaign advertising message qualifies as an "in-kind" donation, which should be reported to the Federal Election Commission properly.
As an individual, he's well within his rights to email everyone he personally knows about his feelings, from his personal email address.
Doing so from a company email address, to the company's customer base, is a different matter, on several legal fronts. The /. crowd already dislikes that companies like Uber are doing it in California
If you can't run a succesful business.. (Score:2)
regardless of who wins the presidency, then you are an incompetent businessman.
For the past 70 years, no party has been in control for more than 16 years. So you need to run your company with the expectaion that it will have a president of the 'wrong' party in power.
Even if you truly believe that one party is anti business (and the economic history does NOT support this), then whatever faults exist in the government affect your competition as much as they affect you.
That is, you if the other guys can do
Re: (Score:2)
Irony? (Score:5, Funny)
So the CEO sent out an email blast... (Score:2)
As far as I can tell, the only difference between this guy telling customers to vote for Biden and a televangelist telling their millions of followers to vote for Trump is that Expensify actually pays taxes.
Privacy policy violation? (Score:2)
Didn't he just violate the company's privacy policy and is now liable for damages?
In any case, the great thing about America is that voting doesn't matter much. Imagine living in a country where your vote actually changes your government. That means that the ruler can reach down to the majority of people's lives and make them miserable, which is horrifying.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't he just violate the company's privacy policy and is now liable for damages?
I don't see how. I got the e-mail but didn't see anything about anyone else associated with his company. So unless someone else has a different experience than that then the answer is no.
P.S. Put me in the list of people who think this is a dick move but is voting for Biden regardless.
Block that .fy! Block that .ly! (Score:3)
Come on, man... what would you expect from a 'CEO' of a company with a 'cool' name ending with .fy (or .ly but this happens to be a .fy).
Here's an easy way to remember:
If the domain ends in .fy, .ly .fy and .ly are banned by you.
just hit 'block', don't even try
Should the domain end in
just block it, you don't need it, see,
Things just work the way they're meant to do
when
It's his company (Score:2)
A lot of opinions spouting here on if this was a good call or not - but at the end of the day this is his company (Expensify is not public), his customers, and as a private citizen running his own company he can do whatever he wants to do.
Maybe it will cost him customers, maybe he did some reach that says it won't, frankly I have no idea nor do I care, it's his prerogative - and frankly, I find it highly impressive that he had the backbone to do this, regardless of if I agreed with him or not.
Re: (Score:3)
This isn't threatening though. It's partisan, sure, and explicitly bringing politics into the workplace, but from TFS it seems more like friendly letter of advice rather than any sort of threat. And this is not a normal election, he's entirely right about the situation, and extraordinary situations call for extraordinary measures.
Re: This is a terrible idea (Score:2)
Agreed. I've never been told to vote Dem but I've been told to vote Rep many times by employers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I've never had my presidential vote count towards the candidate I voted for since I live in a state that's winner take all and I hardly ever agree with where my state lands. I'll sometimes toss a 3rd party grenade just because I know my vote doesn't matter, but this year I went Biden for the simple fact that in the grand tally I'd like there to at least be a statistical blip for anyone other than Trump in my state and in the popular vote. I know it doesn't ACTUALLY matter, but I do a lot of other sh
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the threateneing violence letter [disquscdn.com] to neighbors who vote for Trump.