|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
stone cold posted:sorry that you and him are bad at using words then Poor stone cold, hunting those bernie bros all alone now.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:And yet the same people who think it's disgusting to suggest sweatshops are sometimes the best available alternative for a developing economy are defending government policy that will create Chinese-style textile sweatshops in Rwanda. Sweatshops that are explicitly designed to export goods to the west. Look, I'm going to be frank here - neither of us are experts on the economics of sweatshops. But a cursory search for information on the topic reveals that there are plenty of arguments against sweatshops* from people who are experts (economists, etc). It isn't difficult to find papers addressing the points you're making here (which are basically just the standard right-wing pro-sweatshop talking points). So the question is this - why are you choosing to take this side of this argument, when you obviously haven't done much research on this topic yourself? At least there's a reasonable motivation for non-experts to take the anti-sweatshop side (because, even if they were some sort of "lesser evil", their existence is still inherently bad in many respects and ideally they wouldn't need to exist in the first place). But there isn't really any reason for a layperson to take the pro-sweatshop side of the argument unless they're just being blindly contrarian or they actually have right-wing economic views. If someone was legitimately just skeptical, the most reasonable opinion would be "I'm not convinced that there's a beneficial way to end/reduce sweatshop labor, but it would be good if there was so I think we should keep trying to think of one." Put another way, it is bizarre to settle on the "welp, looks like we gotta settle for the lesser evil" position before you've even done much research on the topic. As a side note, it's also important to distinguish between the questions "is sweatshop labor better than nothing at all" and "is sweatshop labor better than an alternative where the US (and other major buyers) mandate certain labor standards." Many, if not most, of the defenses of sweatshops rely upon interpreting the argument as the former (which basically creates a false dilemma). * defined here as work under unsafe conditions, paying less than a living wage, not allowing labor organizing, etc
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Things said by my (democrat) parents: "the democrats are bad too" "there's no such thing as a partisan judge" "you can't just oppose everything the republicans do" "they (the republicans) don't hate minorities"
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Look, I'm going to be frank here - neither of us are experts on the economics of sweatshops. But a cursory search for information on the topic reveals that there are plenty of arguments against sweatshops* from people who are experts (economists, etc). It isn't difficult to find papers addressing the points you're making here (which are basically just the standard right-wing pro-sweatshop talking points). It might be that he is a bad faith actor that likes to pretend he is the Serious Adult in the Thread, while actually on substance being no better than Effectronica.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
"we're concerned about your intolerance (towards republicans)"
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 00:52
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:"we're concerned about your intolerance (towards republicans)" 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 01:51
|
|
|
Shukaro posted:Things said by my (democrat) parents: Ah, a classic case of chronic centrism - may I suggest 200mg of fully automated luxury communism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/wxdam/status/884943951492415488
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
quote:TULSA, Okla. (KTUL) — The sample ballot has a lot of empty space, and that's because there's just one race in this special election: Gaddis versus Nunley. http://ktul.com/news/local/special-election-for-house-district-75
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
Thank God, Oklahoma Republicans are doing their best to Brownback the state. E: Hmm very important comma there
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Thank God, Oklahoma Republicans are doing their best to Brownback the state. the governor is trash and she was letting her daughter live in a trailerhome on the capitol lawn for a few months we just got a really young chair for the ok dems too: http://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/news/a45681/anna-langthorn-democratic-party-chair-oklahoma/
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 10:03
|
|
|
Posting this from Trump thread because I can't continue the conversation in there.Robot Hobo posted:She's been First Lady of an individual US state, First Lady of the United States, a Senator, Secretary of State, and did win the popular vote to be President of the USA. Because Grandma needs to shut up and go away! Election losses change things. We don't let losers run again, for obvious loving reasons. It's so frustrating to see people go "But this isn't campaigning!" as if it isn't the first baby steps towards a redemption. When we have a new, proper candidate for 2020, Hillary can come out in favor of them and get her moment in the spotlight again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Lmao Chelsea Clinton's making noises like she wants to run. What the gently caress has she ever done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
japan's "attack USA" war goal should be like annex Philippines or something
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Lmao Chelsea Clinton's making noises like she wants to run. What the gently caress has she ever done. She's tweeted. Apparently that's enough these days.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Posting this from Trump thread because I can't continue the conversation in there. Or she can go die in a ditch and stop poisoning this country for once.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
If Hillary stopped tweeting, it wouldn't change a thing in the real world. Twitter isn't the real world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If Hillary stopped tweeting, it wouldn't change a thing in the real world. Twitter isn't the real world.  Seriously? Have you noticed who's president right now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:39
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
And if Hillary stopped tweeting Trump will still be president.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:And if Hillary stopped tweeting Trump will still be president. No one here suggested otherwise. But her tweets and appearances lately kind of suggest that she's interested in running again, which would be a very bad thing for the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Posting this from Trump thread because I can't continue the conversation in there. How in the world is being First Lady an accomplishment in and of itself? By all means it makes sense to acknowledge the things she may have done as First Lady (and even more so her career prior to becoming First Lady of Arkansas), but pretty much everything beyond that point was the direct result of being with Bill Clinton. There's nothing particularly wrong with that (it makes sense to take advantage of the opportunities made available to you), but it does mean it's weird to chalk those things up as significant accomplishments. ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Lmao Chelsea Clinton's making noises like she wants to run. What the gently caress has she ever done. Chelsea should tweet an image of her in Harry Potter wizard robes. She would instantly earn the full support of liberals everywhere. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jul 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No one here suggested otherwise. But her tweets and appearances lately kind of suggest that she's interested in running again, which would be a very bad thing for the Democrats. Again, only to people who love to hate her. She isn't running and she certainly doesn't have establishment support anymore. Everyone has moved on. Of course you can find media reports designed to stoke that fear, because it gets clicks and it is way easier to talk about well-troddened figures than actually research and investigate into who is going to be the next leader. And even if she's stupid enough to want to run again, it doesn't matter what Hillary wants because the real damning factor is that Republicans will still be using her as a Boogy monster in 2019/2020. They will still be saying "yeah butter emails" and asking who killed Seth Rich. If she was some wonderkin, political genius with a pulse on the nation maybe she could make a comeback, but 2016 proved pretty convincingly that she is none of those things. Will Menaker has more of a chance to win a statewide primary or caucus for president in 2020 than Hillary. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jul 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Again, only to people who love to hate her. That doesn't make any sense.  quote:She isn't running and she certainly doesn't have establishment support anymore. Everyone has moved on. Of course you can find media reports designed to stoke that fear, because it gets clicks and it is way easier to talk about well-troddened figures than actually research and investigate into who is going to be the next leader. When I look at HuffPo or Salon or Vox and I see Clinton's name, it's not "Oh poo poo, Clinton's going to try to run again, Dems are hosed!" It's, "~Abuelita~ is back! And she's gonna CLAP BACK at Trump, yaaaaay!" Now, admittedly, those are all terrible sites, but they're good bellwethers for where the MSM is with regard to Clinton right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:When I look at HuffPo or Salon or Vox and I see Clinton's name, it's not "Oh poo poo, Clinton's going to try to run again, Dems are hosed!" It's, "~Abuelita~ is back! And she's gonna CLAP BACK at Trump, yaaaaay!" Yes, this is what concerns me. I do not "love to hate" Hillary. Ironically, I was a big defender of hers, pre-election. But losses change things. She's poison to the Dem brand and needs to go off and do speeches for a while (or charity work, whatever) and not be involved in 2018/2020.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That doesn't make any sense. The people who enjoy getting mad at Hillary and yelling at her for poo poo also enjoy getting worked up over the chance she will run again. She's the heel and her running again is an important part of the kayfabe of posting as political action. This is true regardless of what side of her you are on. That's part of why she's politically dead. Again, a fawning piece in HuffPo does not a presidential campaign make. WampaLord posted:needs to go off and do speeches for a while (or charity work, whatever) and not be involved in 2018/2020. Isn't that what she's doing? Because I agree completely about her continued uninvolvement in 2018/2020.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
ISIS CURES TROONS posted:Lmao Chelsea Clinton's making noises like she wants to run. What the gently caress has she ever done. She is the daughter of the right parents and was born to wealth and privilege. Why shouldn't she expect a long career in law, consulting, or financial services punctuated by stints occupying influential government posts? Get with the times. This is meritocracy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The people who enjoy getting mad at Hillary and yelling at her for poo poo also enjoy getting worked up over the chance she will run again. She's the heel and her running again is an important part of the kayfabe of posting as political action. This is true regardless of what side of her you are on. That's part of why she's politically dead. I find things like her "Onward Together" campaign a little concerning. Obviously that in and of itself doesn't mean that she's going to run again in 2020, but it suggests that she's keeping the door open. Personally, I think I've been pretty clear that I don't hate Clinton at all. She's a garden variety politician who is no more corrupt or mendacious than 99% of other politicians. But she was a seriously flawed candidate who never should have been the Democratic nominee in 2016, and shouldn't be the nominee in 2020 either. I'm glad to hear you agree, but I think more people in the Democratic Party and the media don't agree than you realize. I don't want Clinton to take these fawning thinkpieces and anti-Trump protests as encouragement for her to run again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
I will never not laugh at Hillary's campaign icon being an arrow pointing towards the right. She would be a magnificent republican candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
bedpan posted:I will never not laugh at Hillary's campaign icon being an arrow pointing towards the right. "I'm With Her" was such a loving ego-driven dumbass campaign slogan and allowed Donny to easily go "Well, I'm With You All!" Like, I'm just a loving Marketing major here, but maybe it should have been "She's With Us!" WampaLord fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Jul 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The people who enjoy getting mad at Hillary and yelling at her for poo poo also enjoy getting worked up over the chance she will run again. She's the heel and her running again is an important part of the kayfabe of posting as political action. This is true regardless of what side of her you are on. That's part of why she's politically dead. Actually she's politically dead because she's a terrible candidate who lost the most important election of our lifetimes
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"I'm With Her" was such a loving ego-driven dumbass campaign slogan and allowed Donny to easily go "Well, I'm With You All!" I'm the head of communications/PR at an international nonprofit, and I have to say, you're right, that would have been way better. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
bedpan posted:I will never not laugh at Hillary's campaign icon being an arrow pointing towards the right. Never forget: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Never forget: Nazis: actually left-wing 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
also: https://qz.com/423037/its-official-hillary-clintons-logo-is-actually-perfect/
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
the connection everyone missed: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:Never forget: lolololol I never knew this! She never did outgrow Barry Goldwater! Never!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:also: See, this is why those fawning HuffPo/Salon/Sam Bee pieces about Clinton irk me: because they feel like they exist under the same delusional mindset as this piece. "ACTUALLY, Hillary Clinton was a GREAT candidate, and she'd TOTALLY win if the election were held today!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:See, this is why those fawning HuffPo/Salon/Sam Bee pieces about Clinton irk me: because they feel like they exist under the same delusional mindset as this piece. "ACTUALLY, Hillary Clinton was a GREAT candidate, and she'd TOTALLY win if the election were held today!" Sure but that's a 2015 article.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:45 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:also: quote:Clinton’s 2016 looks like a campaign designed to be remembered—not just to win. Say whatever else you like about hindsight but it sure as hell knows good comedy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 18:51
|
|
