Nikita Khrushchev posted:

It turns out the resistance trump replier doctor is a huge creep
https://mobile.twitter.com/doctormeowskis/status/1016508632652017666?s=21

he's currently melting down on his own tl about it

Terror Sweat posted:

i dont know who that is and i dont really care to be honest

Agnosticnixie posted:

The lanyards having a laugh at AOC for being worried he's going to spoil the race are probably the exact same people who blame the failure of the public option on Lieberman while also being glad that the democrats rewarded him for losing his primary.

WampaLord posted:

I thought he lived in Virginia

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

neoliberalism.txt posted:

It's very plausible that one reason American workplaces have gotten safer over the decades is that we now tend to outsource a lot of factory-explosion-risk to places like Bangladesh where 87 people just died in a building collapse.* This kind of consideration leads Erik Loomis to the conclusion that we need a unified global standard for safety, by which he does not mean that Bangladeshi levels of workplace safety should be implemented in the United States.

I think that's wrong. Bangladesh may or may not need tougher workplace safety rules, but it's entirely appropriate for Bangladesh to have different—and, indeed, lower—workplace safety standards than the United States.

The reason is that while having a safe job is good, money is also good. Jobs that are unusually dangerous—in the contemporary United States that's primarily fishing, logging, and trucking—pay a premium over other working-class occupations precisely because people are reluctant to risk death or maiming at work. And in a free society it's good that different people are able to make different choices on the risk–reward spectrum. There are also some good reasons to want to avoid a world of unlimited choice and see this as a sphere in which collective action is appropriate (I'll gesture at arguments offered in Robert Frank's The Darwin Economy and Tom Slee's No One Makes You Shop At Walmart if you're interested), but that still leaves us with the question of "which collective" should make the collective choice.

sorrynotsorry.txt posted:

It seems like the entire Internet has registered its objections to this piece I wrote on the Bangladesh factory disaster. And I have to say that my overwhelming personal response, as a writer and as a human being, is to be annoyed by the responses that I'm getting. But let me try to be mature about it instead and say—what happened in Bangladesh is a tragedy and a human disaster, and to the best of my knowledge it's also quite literally a criminal disaster under the existing laws of Bangladesh. The perpetrators ought to be punished. More broadly: Bangladesh ought to enforce its laws. Even more broadly than that: Bangladesh's citizens deserve honest and uncorrupt government rather than government that's excessively under the sway of the interests of apparel factory owners. Dylan Matthews has an informative interview with Kimberly Ann Elliott of the Center for Global Development in which she—a person who has relevant detailed knowledge of the situation—outlines a variety of modest measures that could improve the situation, and you should read it.

Here's what I did. I read a guy who pivoted from the tragedy to a call for the U.S. government or U.S. consumers to try to impose U.S. safety standards on all U.S.-supplying factories around the world. I did not have detailed information about the situation in Bangladesh, but I did—and continue to—have good reason to believe that this call was mistaken. So I wrote a post trying to outline why I think it's appropriate for rich countries to have more stringent standards than poor ones, and I absolutely stand by that conclusion.

loquacius posted:

Replies are way more chuds than baddems unfortunately

Shear Modulus posted:

lol i originally thought crowley was just stupid and didnt think to take his name off the ballot but it looks like he actually planned to try and lieberman ratfuck the election and didnt think anyone would notice or care which is even dumber

Ruzihm posted:

https://twitter.com/YannisTrittas/status/1017493204583768064

Ruzihm posted:

https://twitter.com/YannisTrittas/status/1017493204583768064



edit:
https://twitter.com/YannisTrittas/status/1017489238642880513

quote:

So let me get this straight. The WFP runs fake primaries where the winner is removed by the will of the party apparatchiks and not only are you all fine with this, failure to comply is a sign you're undemocratic.
There isn't a single element of this story you wouldn't feel 180 degrees about if the winners of the two primaries were reversed, In fact you'd be cheering Ocasio-Cortz to actually run and not simply have her name on the ballot and you know it.

Zokari posted:

what kind of soulless machine would willingly post in d&d in 2018

Relin posted:

gbs thread because lowtax got tired of people posting politics in gbs who thought dnd or cspam were too scawy

logikv9 posted:

the new kids on the block

Joementum posted:

Oh, are we looking for people who voted for Bernie in the primary and then did not vote for Hillary in the general?


*raises hand*

loquacius posted:

I voted HRC in the general but did not enjoy it

(I have been told this is just as great a crime)

loquacius posted:

I only voted how he told me

etalian posted:

Remember how PP appealed to the Trump administration to help them crush the attempts by their workers to organize a union?

quote:

Crowley won the Working Families Party nomination, despite losing the Democratic one. After Ocasio-Cortez won, WFP wanted to put her on their ballot line for the November election, and asked him to vacate. But to remove him as their nominee from the ballot, the Working Families Party would essentially have to nominate Crowley for another position on the ballot — and he’d have to accept.

“If they nominated for him the Assembly or the state Senate or an office like that, and he consented to it, he could get off the ballot,” said New York-based election lawyer Jerry Goldfeder in an interview with Vox.

In a state with so many third-party candidates, this can be confusing. In fact, Ocasio-Cortez recently received the write-in nomination to be the Reform Party candidate ... in a completely different district she wasn’t running in.

As the New York Times’s Lisa W. Foderaro pointed out, the thinking here would be for WFP to nominate Crowley for a seat that he’d have little-to-no chance of winning, “like a county clerkship in a region of the state dominated by the other party.” Some positions don’t have residency requirements, and a lawyer for the Working Families Party says it should be easy for Crowley to do this.

“I respect Congressman Crowley’s concerns, but there are common, straightforward and legal ways to remove candidates from the ballot in cases like this,” said WFP counsel Alex Rabb in a statement. “There are offices around the state for which the Congressmember could be nominated. The New York State Court of Appeals has found that it is standard for parties to substitute candidates after a primary election, and that the practice does not violate the letter or the spirit of the law.”

D.Ork Bimboolean posted:

Is this loss?

Asking for a friend.

Shear Modulus posted:

yeah mailers and TV ads are done by dem consultants who charge handsome fees but theres very little room for a consultant to insert himself between a campaign and facebook

Joementum posted:

Sheng-Ji Yang posted:

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1018070598918942720

uncurable mlady posted:

fwiw it's not entirely unreasonable to think that there's something there to the 'russians got clinton models' line. if you recall the election, a lot of people were very surprised by trump going and having rallies in shithole parts of states that were considered clinton locks.

so either trump's campaign team was a bunch of incredibly savvy political operators who realized she was weak in those areas
or they knew that there was a good reason to go to those areas because someone told them where she was weak

OmanyteJackson posted:

The whole problem with buying into the trump-russia narrative is that it's too narrow of a lens. Leftist already know that foreign oligarchs have major influence on american policy.

Like all good conspiracy theories, russia-trump has a kernel of truth, but the point of it isn't to expose the perverse incentives of power between politics and capital, instead it's about justifying a worldview where the system is fine and this one president is an anomaly.

also takes like this:


Is the problem. The fact that people watch Trump-Russia so they should continue to cover Trump-Russia is the same logic as people watch movies with white people so obviously we HAVE to make an all white adaption of AKIRA.

Agean90 posted:

all those apply to clinton (who owned slaves alongside his wife) tho