The Virginia Society for the Preservation and Appreciation of High-Quality Posts

[YE]

LMAO!!!
What a whiny little b****.

https://twitter.com/jeffzeleny/status/1161038562273484801

Landslide Lyndon... come on man, this isn't a 2016 rerun DEM PRIM.

It's heated up because the Washington Post are standing by their reporters (Just saw one of them earlier tonight on MSNBC) and maybe they are feeling like they are getting hit by two sides.

Amazon is still a big deal, especially in Democratic Party strongholds such as Seattle, where there has been massive community resistance against Amazon basically taking over roughly 50% of the Corporate Real Estate Market in Downtown Seattle, massively jacking up the the cost for virtually any other companies looking to lease smaller amounts of office space within the City.

It is also an issue in NYC, where Amazon abruptly pulled out of negotiations for a planned NYC HQ in Queens, NY.

https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/seven-negotiation-lessons-from-amazon-s-hq-disaster-in-queens

Additionally, we have another issue.....

With the dramatic shift on online retailing where Amazon is essentially the "Top Dog", we see a massive rise in FCs (Fulfillment Centers), as well as the traditional model of DCs (Distribution Centers),

Warehouse Work is rough setting, now that every single worker's production is measured upon "prod", where your online scanners track "units of production by worker" with no concept of safety....

There is currently in the United States a massive issue when it comes to exploitation of workers in these types of fulfillment centers (FCs), where we might start our 6 AM 12 Hour shift with a safety gig, and the Swing Shift will have their equivalent.

Sure, now I am losing employees for new Amazon FC Centers that pay in Oregon starting $15/Hr, recruiting a new generation of younger workers without much job experience, not understanding the working conditions in these facilities.

So although this might sound odd, Bernie Sanders is attuned to the working conditions in these places (Where I worked briefly for three Months after I was laid off from a professional job), and although Amazon might sound awesome (We buy their Amazon.prime, we shop in their online marketplaces), at the end of the day, the cost of cheaper goods are born on the backs of the Warehouse Workers of America....

I tried to bring an ILWU Union Local into a DC/FC and got laid off within three Months as a direct hire.....

Amazon going off on the WP might seem odd, but going off against Amazon is not....



http://archive.ilwu.org/?page_id=2518

[YE]

They suffered for basically the entire 21st century under free trade and now a little bit of brash policy and they just forget all that?

Sorry sunshine.... you seem to forget that Progressive DEMs and Greens led the charge in places like like the "Battle of Seattle" against massive global outsourcing that causes massive loss of American jobs as part of the "race to the bottom".

Your hero Trump is yet another robber baron capitalist doing the same old, same old crap that we marched in the streets against from our Union Halls to our Campus Dorms....

Grassr00ts, as I have posted consistently and frequently, the selling out of the American Working Class goes back for decades, with political leaders of both parties....

Trump is simply a phony scheister, who pretends to support whatever position might be conveniently available at any given time, but he is solidly in the pockets of the bosses and MNCs that have been selling our country down the river for decades....

It's okay, smoke a joint, drink a beer, stare at the fading Trump posters on the ceiling of your room in your parent's house in Illinois.

I'm with you man.... I have seen the consequences of Free Trade run amok in my own communities in Oregon and the economic impacts involved.

I support Free and Fair Trade with Labor and Environmental Rights, but I also know the slippery snakes of "Free Trade" capitalists that simply are creating a race to the bottom while they shut down our Union Plants, ship our jobs overseas, and then claim that "Wall Street is Doing Well"....

That's why I support Bernie for President in 2020, and despite your Republican Midwest roots, he's not doing anything to deal with the issue other than create hatred and trade wars....

The only reason why 60+% of Americans now support "Free Trade" is because of your President that has gone completely in the wrong direction on trade policy, especially regarding Tariffs against China...

BTW: you say "they just forgot all that", like you are speaking in a different voice. I would prefer you say "We suffered under Free Trade Deals from 1990 > 2010"....

WE don't forget from the Union Movements of the late '80s / early '90s to the Present Day....

[YE]

If the party fails to support actual interests of the working class the party can f*** off.

Policy matters more than party because policy affects people. People complaining about Sanders not pledging to support Democrats (which is false--he did) are nothing more than privileged a-holes who feel like the clique they're in is more important than the values they should at least be pretending to stand for. It's a commodified identity--being a member of a group as a replacement for having a personality or goals in life as more important than actually improving the quality of life of people. It's a mental block on either doing what I did--changing my ideology when I realized it didn't reflect reality--or what most people here need to do: realize the Democratic Party has been in the pocket of Wall St. for a while and must be reformed or replaced if real problems like wealth inequality and climate change are to be reflected.

They are also the candidates of cishet white males who are very progressive until they get confronted on personal problems pertaining to their privilege, unconscious support of Rape Culture, microaggressions, etc that they are too proud or insecure to address.

Based on your sig supporting a fascist transphobe and this post (which repeats the VERY dangerous idea that a class-based analysis of economics means you can't have a progressive analysis of social issues--when in reality the concepts REINFORCE each other) you might have the worst political views ever. Congratulations?

[YE]

The fact that the blue avatars celebrate because a smear campaign by an abusive husband against his ex-wife has succeeded makes me sick.

She posted them herself, and she committed rape too.

More Dems should be like Ralph Northam, grow a freaking backbone.

Northam had scandal after scandal down the line of succession though.

It's utterly embarrassing that Justin Fairfax is still the Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. He was accused by not one, but two women, of rape and/or sexual assault, and he is defiant as always, refusing to resign his position. Of course, we have Trump. I would ask this of Atlas Democrats, however: If you wish to hold Republican politicians to a high standard (and I'm not attacking you for that), why don't you hold your own politicians to the same? I would be all for Trump being turned out of office, if Justin Fairfax and others like him were.

IIRC, most Atlas (and national) Democrats were pretty quick to call for Fairfax’s resignation and were pretty pissed that he wasn’t impeached.  And Al Franken, John Conyers, Reuben Kihuen, Nate Boulton, Steve Loebsack, etc were all driven from office (and rightly so).  The only Democrat of note I can think of who has hung on after a #metoo scandal since the movement began is Fairfax.  The Republicans have defended and tried to rationalize supporting folks like Trump, Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Roy Moore, Jim Jordan, Steve Watkins, James Comer, etc.  Even Katie Hill just resigned while Scott DeJarlais remains in Congress without much comment from Republicans despite having repeatedly slept with patients, some of whom he pressures to get abortions.

I’m sorry, but there is simply nothing even remotely resembling equivalency about how the two parties have treated #metoo scandals.  The Democrats - while not perfect by any means - have generally wasted no time siding with the victims rather than the predators (Fairfax being a glaring and particularly egregious exception, but an exception all the same) who have sexually assaulted or harassed them whereas the Republicans have generally shown themselves to be perfectly willing to turn their backs on the victims if they think defending a sex predator will help their party cling to power.  This isn’t just my opinion, it’s a fact that has been demonstrated time and time again.

[YE]

A few thoughts, in no particular order:

1. We all want this to be over and life to return to normal, or as near to normal as it can get.

2. There are some mildly encouraging signs in some of the recent data.  Although we all are looking for hope, don't draw immediate conclusions from them!  Being optimistic is fine, but temper it with realism.  Don't assume that just because things may look a little better for a couple of days, it will all be over by the end of April!  That's wishful thinking leading you into conclusions based on what you hope will happen.

3. Life is NOT going to go back to completely normal until there is an effective vaccine.  That isn't going to happen for quite a few months yet.

4. Don't assume that we're going to get a peak (in May, June, or whenever), and then it's going to die out and everything will be over.  Some of you seem to be expecting this.  Sorry, but that's wishful thinking again.

5. This does not mean that a tight lockdown will need to extend for that entire time.  What we are doing now is designed to slow growth and buy time to put less strain on the medical system, and create more resources such as PPE and tests (both for the virus and for the presence of antibodies).

6. (corollary to 4&5) This is not an all or nothing situation!  As the lockdowns buy time and the peaks pass in various locations, restrictions can be eased.  But there may well need to continue being SOME restrictions for a longer time.

7. This is not happening at a uniform rate all over the country.  NYC will probably hit its peak soon.  Seattle may well be past it.  But there are other parts of the country that have yet to be broadly affected, so their peaks will be much later.

8. The earlier preventive action is taken, the better!  So for those areas that don't think they're badly affected -- you WILL be affected.  Taking action early will save a lot of lives in your area.  Would you rather be in the situation NYC is in, or the situation the SF Bay Area is in?

9. (corollary to 7&8 ) This means that not all places will be able to end restrictions at the same time.  It's going to depend on local conditions.

10. There is a good chance that there will be multiple waves of this, just like there is with the flu.  Even if things go back to relatively normal in a few months, there are probably going to be future waves -- and if they happen before a vaccine is available, we may need to go back into restrictions for a time.

[YE]

Before this week, I think Biden was open to a non-POC VP, but this will force his hand. With Demings (strong pick) and Harris (horrible pick) both having law enforcement backgrounds, even though more conventionally qualified, they're likely to see their odds drop.

This is a false argument. Firstly, Black voters (generalizing for the sake of discussion) voted for Biden in the primary because he already represents the politics that they believe in, so the ideological representation of Black voters is already on the ticket: at the top of the ticket. Secondly, the Democratic Party is more than just one African-American voting bloc. Other groups' ideological politics - young Black voters, LGBTQ+ voters, Hispanic/Latino voters, & all other voters - deserve to be represented as well by an ideologically left candidate. This isn't Harris, nor Demings, nor really anybody else but Warren.

I'd also recommend listening to 538's most recent podcast on this subject, which points out that it isn't clear from polling that a woman of color would encourage Black turnout (& it's not even a pro-Warren piece or anything). And I'll just say this: believing that the VP needs to be a woman of color in light of recent events - rather than an actual agenda for Black Americans (let alone a comprehensive & robust one) being needed - is why such an argument comes off as more-than-a-bit tokenizing. I heard somebody in an interview yesterday talking about police brutality & they mentioned Black politicians in Washington: he said that racial representation isn't enough because Black politicians have been unable to change the system that, thus far, has killed Black people. We've had a Black President, Black Attorneys General, & other Black politicians hold influential positions within government, & yet we continue to have a broken criminal justice system & still suffer from numerous civil rights issues.

So honestly, I can't see why it wouldn't be Warren, given the unfortunate state of our current affairs: Michigan is having issues with COVID-19 & the Edenville Dam's failure, so I don't see how Whitmer can help Biden's campaign there or in the Midwest if she's forced to shift focus from her gubernatorial duties to a presidential campaign. That's gonna leave a bad taste in people's mouths in that region & deter Democratic turnouts. The recent race riots have shed light on Klobuchar's prosecutorial record, specifically how she once declined to prosecute the officer responsible. That's not gonna appeal to voters of color, & may indeed discourage turnout. And should she become the VP pick, the recent police killings of unarmed Black people & the resultant race riots will force Harris' prosecutorial record into the media & voters' limelight yet again, particularly to the chargin of those on the Democratic Party's left. And of course Stacey Abrams still ain't happening for all of the reasons that have already been mentioned on here countless times: lacking relevant experience, next-to-no name-recognition at the national level, blatantly auditioning for the V.P. slot, etc.

Anybody else I'm missing? If not, then it's really just Warren who checks all of the boxes at this point.

[YE]

What is so hard to believe?

We are in the midst of the worst jobs crisis in our lifetimes.  We are in the midst of a pandemic that has claimed the lives of ~120,000 Americans.  We are in the midst of civil unrest, including massive protests sparked by murder of a non-violent black man by the police and captured on video.  Trump may not have caused these specific events, but the severity of the aftermath can be directly attributed to inaction/incompetence by the President and his administration.

Some of the actions Trump has taken over the last few months:
-Claimed that the virus would magically go away
-Ordered peaceful protestors tear-gassed so that he could do a photo op at a church
-Suggested that Americans could protect themselves from the virus by injecting bleach
-Touted a drug as a miracle cure for the virus, despite a lack of evidence
-Consistently contradicted the advice of experts with regard to the pandemic

I can see the above (and many more) actions directly alienating:
-Older Voters
-Younger Voters
-Black Voters
-Asian Voters
-Religious Voters
..and all of the people that care about them.

And how many voters has Trump gained during this period?  What undecided voter could look at the President's actions over the last few months and decide that Trump was the answer...to anything?

And note that Trump was significantly behind Biden even before these events occured.  Trump was only polling close to Biden during a brief period of time during the primaries (prior to SC) where Biden was struggling.  Before that, and during a period of relative economic prosperity, Trump was behind Biden by significant margins.

Given the above, is it really hard to imagine that Trump is significantly behind Biden at the moment?  I would never believe a single poll, but looking at things in the aggregate and I do not see anything from polling that is inconsistent with what I would expect in the current environment.  

[YE]

So far, only Hoyer had openly participated in this primary.
https://twitter.com/greggiroux/status/1294693774782877696

https://twitter.com/hjessy_/status/1294696586870755329

Even if that was the reason, that still doesn't excuse it. Why would you have to even it out? Why would want to be neutral in this race?

Staying neutral isn't a good thing when it's a principled politician getting primaried by a shameless opportunist.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH. principled politican.

As someone who actually lives here and knows what Markey is - and don’t get me wrong I agree with many of his positions but principled is not him.

Well you’ll all get your wish sadly but my god are you being sold a bill of goods

You’re never going to explain are you

K

What is there to explain? By a lot of members here and by the red rose crew on Twitter he’s being painted as some saint of the far left who has always put his neck out when it wasn’t always the politically prudent thing to do. But that’s not the case. I’m not the smartest person on these forums and I’m not pretending to be and I’ve gotten some things wrong and I will again but I feel a little less intelligent every time I read the Markey praise.

You literally said recently that both Atlas & Massachusetts are stupid for not being as eager to bow down before JKIII as you've been. "Not pretending to be the smartest person" my ass.

The only thing that should make you feel unintelligent is the fact that you're clearly not intelligent.

You could go back and read his record for highlights but just to name a few of the notable ones: He was vehemently against busing in Boston public schools, it would’ve been the politically courageous thing to do to support it but he opposed - a decision that surely saved his political ass back then but wasn’t the morally right one. He supported the ‘94 crime bill wholeheartedly - Now I understand I support Biden who had a role in that bill but don’t tell me that Markey is this darling of the left and fights for what is right over what is politically prudent. He voted for the Iraq war - What turned out to be a foreign policy disaster for this nation, found no WMD’s and cost the nation trillions that could’ve gone to other meaningful causes.

Okay? Yeah, those all suck but he's clearly changed course, proven himself to be a great ally for the State of Massachusetts to have, & stood on the side of working families much moreso than JKIII.

Not to mention, everybody (including our party's presidential nominee who, I'll remind you, you vehemently supported in the primaries) has changed course on those issues, so it's inarguably fair to call out that hypocrisy.

But hey, keep pretending that, had JKIII been in Congress in 1994, he wouldn't have voted for the crime bill. Yeah, it was a bad bill. Markey shouldn't have voted for it, but the idea that JKIII wouldn't have done the same (which was the politically expedient choice at the time) is f**king hilarious. Same for the Iraq War, & same for every other regressive policy that Markey supported. At least Markey's had the decency to evolve.

Or have you conveniently forgotten that JKIII was anti-marijuana until he changed his stance when it was obvious he'd otherwise be left behind, voted in favor of nuclear weapons, voted "against legislation curtailing the government's data snooping power," voted to curtail Dodd-Frank by making it harder to designate financial firms systemically important, co-sponsored the bill that would've banned boycotts of Israel (which, regardless of where you stand on Israel, is just wholly undemocratic in & of itself), & heavily invested in fossil fuel companies?

You shouldn't have, considering we've reminded you about all of this on this forum time & time again. No, you didn't forget about it. You just don't care. And that's fine (I mean, it's not, but whatever), but at least be honest about it.

He spent less time in the state than every member of the Massachusetts delegation (including Warren who was RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT). He’s been known to be an absent political for years. The special election where he won the senate seat was known to be an apathetic race where Democratic voters were bored to tears with the options they had. Then in the general of that special election Markey won against a very mediocre canidate by just 10 points and actually lost more cities/towns than he won. He literally just likes holding the positions and gives off the impression he’s just going along for the ride.

Cool, except that's not a legitimate criticism in anyway. Their job is in DC. Why on Earth should somebody give two sh*ts that they don't come home? That doesn't make them bad at their job, because their job is literally in DC. They represent Massachusetts in DC, not in Massachusetts.

If the best argument JKIII has as to why one should vote for him is because Markey spends his time in the place that the people have literally employed him to go to & represent them at, then that's an excellent argument for JKIII to f**k off. "You don't spend enough time in the state" would be a great argument for a state legislator whose job is literally in the state, sure. But if that really is the best argument JKIII has against Markey (& it seems to be, as that's seemingly the only coherent argument we've all heard), then he has absolutely nothing.

JKIII promising to spend more time at his mansion in the state rather than in DC where his job actually is isn't an argument for electing JKIII. Your Senator represents you in DC, not Massachusetts.

And how can you seriously believe with a straight face that JKIII isn't the one in the race who looks like somebody who just wants power for power's sake (which, yes, is more than enough reason to deny it to him)?

Then he attatches his name to a bill introduced by an popular freshman congresswoman and he’s all of a sudden he’s this left wing darling? Give me a break.

Attached his name to a bill introduced by a popular freshman congresswoman? Jesus christ, yet another issue that's been made clear to you on this forum before: not only did he co-write the resolution with her (so, if anything, it's equally his bill), but it was a full 7 years before AOC was even born when he began to lead the charge for environmental protections in the House. His long record of fighting for the environment is clear as day, especially considering he has a perfect score from the League of Conservation Voters & authored both the 2009 cap-&-trade bill as well as the 1982 Nuclear Freeze Resolution. To imply that his environmental activism is nothing more than an attempt to get the left-wing to support him in the here & now is a disingenuous, outright lie.

But you don't care that it's a lie. You know it's a lie. The only way you can actually attempt to sh*t on Markey is to lie.

And if you think some 70 something year old soon to be retired Ed Markey  - will get more accomplished for Massachusetts or have more influence for Massachusetts then a young, vibrant, enthusiastic guy who yes has the publicity & resources of the Kennedy name then I can’t help you.

For the umpteenth f**king time, the Senate doesn't operate according to publicity. It operates on seniority. If Markey wins, he starts off this next term with 8 years of seniority under his belt; if JKIII wins, he starts off with nothing (or, near nothing, depending on how many non-Representatives become freshmen Senator next year). So if I'm a Massachusetts voter & I want my Senator to carry maximum influence in the Senate, where their influence matters most, then I go for the guy who's already accumulated nearly a decade of seniority over the guy without it.

Not to mention, Markey is the ranking member on both East Asian & Pacific Affairs as well as Environment & Public Works Oversight, & it's that latter committee that's particularly key in regards to his influence, considering Markey has - again - been Capitol Hill's premier environmental activist since 1982.

As for JKIII accruing real influence, how can anybody reasonably square him being able to do that with his obvious ambitions? He's clearly proven that his House seat was nothing more than a springboard to him, & his haste here now suggests that he feels like he needs a Senate seat sooner rather than later, so who's to say the intent here isn't to just attempt to use the Senate seat as another springboard, too, meaning he wouldn't even wanna be in the Senate long enough to gain any real influence in the first place?

So no, JKIII is not gonna be able to use his "publicity" to be more influential for Massachusetts in the Senate than Markey's seniority would be because, again, the Senate doesn't operate on publicity. Seniority is all that matters: Markey's got it, & JKIII doesn't.

If you can't be honest about Markey caring more for the people of Massachusetts than JKIII, then we can't help you.

[YE]

All of these terrible hot takes about MN are mind numbing:

1) Duluth is mostly detached from the Twin Cities. It is hours north, and it has its own economy and a huge blue collar history.

2) Duluth's county will remain Democratic so long as Duluth is in it, but its surrounding municipalities have certainly slipped for Democrats.

3) MN has a heavily educated electorate with a humongous urban center that comprises nearly 2/3rds of the state's population. That area, which heavily favors Democrats and that strength grows stronger by the cycle, is also growing in population, while Republican areas in the state are shrinking.

4) There's still plenty of room to grow for Democrats in the Twin Cities' suburbs.

[YE]

It's insane to assume that parents might always be at fault. There's simply no way even good parents can know everything going on inside their child's mind, particularly in a culture where emotional expression isn't exactly encouraged, nor are close-knit families a societal norm. There are certainly some cases of negligence present in suicide cases, but either way, it certainly doesn't seem like the parents played a part here, so this argument is a complete non-sequitur.

As for the topic at hand, this issue is one of many demonstrating why I will continue to consider myself left-wing despite my increasing number of gripes with the Democrats and segments of the left. The right just keeps finding ways of getting worse and becoming an ever uglier stain on humanity. Conservatives are acting so repulsively on this issue and not showing an ounce of empathy, and there's no justification for it. It's one thing for someone to say that they can't understand how or why someone would want to identify as transgender. Heck, I can't say I can fully wrap my mind around it. Whatever one might personally believe is going on though, how hard is it to simply respect how someone wants to identify, or more to the point, not believe that they should surrender their rights and protections if they identify as something that doesn't make sense to you? Is it really necessary to intentionally make other people feel like s***, threaten their safety and well-being because their identity "offends your sensibility" or "doesn't seem logical" to you?

People are being downright cruel, and gleefully so on this issue. Maybe, just maybe, it really doesn't matter if you personally think someone who is a transgender woman is "really" a woman or not. Maybe you can realize that you're not helping "God" or whoever by proclaiming that a transgender woman is actually a man. It only makes you feel better, and I'm sorry, but as many of you might say, your feelings aren't everything.