Agreed. Saying things that a complete failure might say is not necessarily definitive proof that he is a complete failure. Maybe it's just a coincidence. This is a good point.
Trump actually built a successful business and he has been a TV celebrity for decades. Is "just like Trump, except with zero accomplishments" a good selling point for a candidate for office? I think Trump is sort-of a jerk, so I don't think it is. What do you think?
Because North Carolinians want to be represented by someone who doesn't care about North Carolinians? Are there districts where voters always vote for who they're told they have to vote for in North Carolina? And if there are, why would party leaders choose Brianna Wu for that office?
Do Democratic Party leaders think Americans want to be governed by angry, grievance-obsessed second-rate game developers? Shouldn't they have learned a lesson about telling everyone they have to vote for the designated candidate despite that person having few accomplishments and being generally unappealing?
Will this person have anything to offer anyone other than complaining about whatever the latest grievance obsession is? People used to look for leaders who had accomplished something.
Also, some random person is talking in vague terms about running for congress somewhere, sometime? This is news?
Don't tell me. Tell the guy I was responding to. He's the one who argues "laws" like laws are sacred and the politicians who write them should be worshipped.
Yes. It says lunches were late. And some complaining about scheduling difficulties. And some guys got a final paycheck a little late. Not exactly earth shattering.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Saying things that a complete failure might say is not necessarily definitive proof that he is a complete failure. Maybe it's just a coincidence. This is a good point.
Every failed political officeholder has this exact same, lame excuse for being a failure: "blame the other side".
Trump actually built a successful business and he has been a TV celebrity for decades. Is "just like Trump, except with zero accomplishments" a good selling point for a candidate for office? I think Trump is sort-of a jerk, so I don't think it is. What do you think?
Republicans running in races across the country can say "See? We told you Democrats don't care about helping you."
Virtue-signaling mission accomplished. Tribal identity confirmed. Congrats!
I didn't want to distract from the point. The point is "why Brianna Wu?", not "Brianna Wu is a terrible game designer" -- because who cares?
She should move to North Carolina and run there.
Because North Carolinians want to be represented by someone who doesn't care about North Carolinians? Are there districts where voters always vote for who they're told they have to vote for in North Carolina? And if there are, why would party leaders choose Brianna Wu for that office?
Do Democratic Party leaders think Americans want to be governed by angry, grievance-obsessed second-rate game developers? Shouldn't they have learned a lesson about telling everyone they have to vote for the designated candidate despite that person having few accomplishments and being generally unappealing?
For the sake of argument, let's say Trump is a self-obsessed jerk. Should we elect more self-obsessed jerks to counter him?
Were the eight years of predator drone bombing not enough? Was the ten plus years of warrant-less spying not enough? Was the endless war not enough?
You clearly don't understand the culture of empty, shallow virtue-signaling.
Will this person have anything to offer anyone other than complaining about whatever the latest grievance obsession is? People used to look for leaders who had accomplished something.
Also, some random person is talking in vague terms about running for congress somewhere, sometime? This is news?
Versus regular cars, which never crash or injure anyone.
Anti-science? It's an Engadget blog post. Engadget is peer-reviewed as fuck. I think the blogger who posted it has 9 PhDs.
Don't tell me. Tell the guy I was responding to. He's the one who argues "laws" like laws are sacred and the politicians who write them should be worshipped.
I feel bad for you if you think getting exactly the right number of minutes for lunch at exactly the right time is what life is about.
Yes. It says lunches were late. And some complaining about scheduling difficulties. And some guys got a final paycheck a little late. Not exactly earth shattering.
Your post and the post I was responding to cite exactly zero peer-reviewed papers.
http://www.mercurynews.com/201...
I hope not. Dictators are bad. Freedom is good.
If you believe fictional stories about us, yes. Also we spend our nights huddled in our homes hiding from vampires.
No one "took away" anyone's meal breaks.
Someone should have told Scrooge that big payoffs to lawyers is a substitute for virtue.
Yes. These lawsuits are about a few people missing lunch (or getting lunch a little late) a few times.
Because it's more like "shit happened and I missed my lunch break 3 times in 2016".
Which is why employers would have meal breaks for employees even without these rights and the lawyerly looting they enable.