I mean, there was a lot of negative news articles surrounding Shapiro that came out in the past few weeks. It’s not clear if those skeletons were really Shapiro’s, or if they were just made to look that way by a sudden deluge of hit pieces.

1. The sexual harassment case wasn’t covered up, and the perpetrator wasn’t even Shapiro but actually a republican aide.

2. Some of it was criticizing his views from when he was a twenty-year-old college student, which I thought was a bad-faith argument.

3. Other criticisms were regarding his support for Israel, which was valid but also misrepresented and cherry-picked.

4. Senator Fetterman did warn Harris against Shapiro (apparently he thinks Shapiro has too much personal ambition).

5. As for the Ellen Greenberg case and Shapiro’s involvement with it, I did find this article. It looks like his involvement with it is limited to his office declining to reopen the case in 2019. The article says the following:

His office stood by the city’s 2011 suicide ruling in 2019 and continued to do so through 2022, when it referred the case to another office after critics claimed Shapiro had connections to Greenberg’s fiancé’s family. While the AG’s Office insisted there was no conflict of interest, a spokesperson said at the time they referred it due to “the appearance of a conflict.”

Shapiro himself has never publicly spoken about the case or his office’s investigation into it.

[…]

As the case gained attention in online forums and true crime podcasts over the years, various conspiracy theories started to swirl, including one which alleged Shapiro was familiar with family members of Goldberg, Greenberg’s fiancé.

So, the AG’s Office has declined any conflict of interest (a relationship between Shapiro and Goldberg) and Shapiro has never publicly commented on the case.

Personally, I don’t think we can allow conspiracy theories to create a connection between Shapiro and Goldberg. A similar tactic was used to muddy the waters surrounding Hillary Clinton (for example) to the point where many believed she had someone on her staff murdered. No offense to True Crime folks, but they get things wrong more often than they get things right. We will need to wait for this to play out as the investigation continues or in court later.

(To be clear, I do agree this case should have never been ruled a suicide. People do not commit suicide by stabbing themselves in the back of the head. But not reopening a case eight years after it was closed by someone else does not automatically mean Shapiro is guilty of a coverup, or that he has connections to Goldberg. The sad reality is there are many, many murder cases that never get reopened for a variety of reasons.)

At the end of the day, I think he has a lot of things people can pick apart and dissect but I also think there were people and groups with a lot of money digging up his past and plastering it everywhere. Not saying some of them weren’t valid, but I think the campaign to discredit him was so aggressive that it actually made me wonder, “Who, with that much money and influence, doesn’t want Josh Shapiro?”

In the end, Harris chose Walz. I don’t know if we will ever know what really happened behind closed doors, but the narrative is Harris and Shapiro didn’t really vibe together while she and Walz did. Shapiro is now publicly campaigning for Harris.

Not that I have any objections - I do like Walz’s energy, and Shapiro was never my first choice anyway (I liked Mark Kelly).

I’m not sure if Vance was a true mistake yet - only time will be able to tell that for certain.

I was just saying I don’t think there would be a way for Trump to get rid of Vance without tacitly admitting he thought picking Vance was a mistake.

I do think Youngkin would have been a very dangerous pick for democrats, but I disagree with you in that I think Nikki Haley would have been devastating as well; I think her presence on the ticket would dispelled many criticisms of Trump. Granted, they would only be dispelled on a surface-level, but I think that would be enough for the ticket to be devastating for democrats.

The problem for republicans is not their own base - they are notorious for falling in line, regardless of who is at the top of the ticket. The problem for republicans is capturing independents and others who believe republicans are “good for the economy” and who don’t think the worst will happen, and Nikki Haley would have surely put some of their concerns to rest.

I’ll say he’s gonna stick with Vance. It would make Trump look weak and scared if he dumped him now.

Also, given Trump’s very strong narcissistic tendencies, his admitting he made a mistake in choosing Vance is a near-impossibility. If it happens, Trump will need to blame it on someone else, which would also be an admission that someone else had control over his campaign choices (which also doesn’t look good for his base). These are all reasons I don’t think it will happen.

All hypothetical though lol.

I guess Walz must have really nailed the interview? I admit I didn’t even know who the guy was two weeks ago.

I have to say I like his energy though lol

In a rant rife with misspellings and baseless conspiracy, Trump wrote: “What are the chances that Crooked Joe Biden, the WORST President in the history of the U.S., whose Presidency was Unconstitutionally STOLEN from him by Kamabla, Barrack HUSSEIN Obama, Crazy Nancy Pelosi, Shifty Adam Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, and others on the Lunatic Left, CRASHES the Democrat National Convention and tries to take back the Nomination.”

The ex-president continued, “He feels that he made a historically tragic mistake by handing over the U.S. Presidency, a COUP, to the people in the World he most hates, and he wants it back, NOW!!!”

Ummmmmmm

Looks like it’s Walz!

”How often in 100 days do you get to change the trajectory of the world? How often in 100 days do you get to do something that’s going to impact generations to come?” Walz asked. “And how often in the world do you make that bastard wake up afterwards and know that a Black woman kicked his ass, sent him on the road?”

Wow, Waltz calling Trump a bastard may have just made my day. Harris-Walz 2024!

Edit: Spelling

My gut says Shapiro, but I won’t be surprised at Waltz either.

Either way, she’s made her choice, and they accepted it.

Buttigieg is awesome, but I fear that putting a gay man and a mixed-race black & asian woman might be too “woke” for many independents in the US and could stir up too much enthusiasm for republicans.

Not that they wouldn’t make an effective team, but the Electoral College favors states whose population favors monoculturalism and frowns upon non-heteronormative behavior.

I mean, I always preferred Mark Kelly.

• he’s from a swing state
• his moderate views could help pull in independent voters (Harris has been as being very far left, even though she’s not)
• former military (United States Navy Captain)
• This one is more dark, but his wife was Gabrielle Giffords survived an attempted assassination attack (survived a bullet to the head). She could help serve as a counterweight to Trump’s failed assassination attempt.
• he’s also a goddamn astronaut! (how fucking cool is that?) lol

The downside is he is a Senator, and should a Harris-Kelly win (hooray) his seat would be temporarily replaced by Arizona’s current democratic governor and be up for reelection in 2026 during the midterms; this would be bad because midterm elections are historically bad for the sitting President’s party. Considering the senate already geographically favors republicans, this is Kelly’s replacement would be fighting to hold the seat in a in a very purple state and in a year that will likely not favor democrats.

All that said, if Harris does not pick Kelly I will 100% be rallying behind whoever she picks - whether it be Shapiro, Beshear, or Waltz, or someone else, I’ll be voting for the ticket.

Yeah, I just find it odd that his feet are being held to fire over a paper he wrote in college before he could even legally drink alcohol.

I mean, at twenty-years-old there is no way he could have had any sort of intimate knowledge or understanding of the Israel-Palestine issue, and it was pre-internet. I just don’t see how people are using a paper from 1993 against him in good faith; even active politicians from the 1990’s to now have changed their views on the matter, so why are we holding Shapiro to his college paper?

It just seems there is a very concentrated campaign to dig up every single piece of dirt on the guy possible.

I mean, he was 20 years old when he wrote that, and he is 51 now; presently, he not only believes a two-state solution is possible, but has also called Netanyahu “one of the worst leaders of all time.”

Basically, while he is definitely pro-israel and pro two-state solution, he is also anti-Netanyahu and anti-Hamas.

I think I would still prefer someone like Mark Kelly, but I cannot help but notice there has been a concentrated campaign to dig up anything and everything on Shapiro. I mean, a college paper from three decades ago? I do not see how that should have any sway nowadays, especially when he has made public statements confirming his stances on issues have changed since then.

I do think it is fair to point out he is now 51 and it’s been three decades since he wrote that paper. He is now a supporter of finding a two-state solution.

I also think his opinion on this issue is more nuanced than is being portrayed, because he also called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “one of the worst leaders of all time,” and says he is steering Israel in the “wrong direction”. He has also expressed concerned about the wanton violence in the region, saying “[leaders] can’t ignore the death and destruction [there]” there.

So it’s not as black-and-white as its being portrayed on lemmy. He is definitely pro-Israel, but he is also, anti-Netanyahu, is anti-Hamas, and (unlike his 20-year-old self) believes a two-state solution is possible.

Yeah this is what concerns me about him from an electoral perspective; it looks like he may pull from democrats moreso than republicans, thereby enabling the authoritarian candidate.

I think some news “leaked” that Harris was looking at governors.

I have no idea how true that is, it’s just something I saw a brief headline for.

There’s also the fact that losing a senator is arguably much worse than losing a governor. If Harris and Kelly win (Which would be incredible) whoever replaced Kelly would be up for reelection in 2026, at a time that would probably not benefit Democrats, in a state that is very purple.

This is significant because the Senate already favors Republicans, and picking a governor does not create this issue.

Personally, I still stand by my original thought that having an astronaut in the White House would be fucking cool. But I also see why it could create a problem down the line.

It is important to note the argument is that the employer-employee contract is invalid

I think this is really the part where I am not convinced.

If all parties have a mutual meeting-of-the-minds, the capacity to do the work, are compensated as agreed upon (and as legally permissible), have all of their duties and responsibilities legally permissible, are not coerced into signing the contract, and have the freedom to leave the contract on their own will, then where is the issue? If an employee agrees that the product of their services belongs to that company in exchange for an agreed upon sum, then can it not be argued the employer bought it?

I also think the article draws a line connecting slavery and the employer-employee contract, equating the two in a way I find very unconvincing.

I do agree parts of some employer-employee contracts should be invalidated (such as non-compete agreements).

As for lobbying, I would advocate for it be eliminated altogether.

This sort of company structure could work, but I think it would need to be tested to see if it were actually viable or competitive in a broad sense.

But I get the sense that this sort of company structure might only be viable for industries that don’t require much risk or have a reliable cash flow; they would probably already need to be very established companies or very small. If too many decisions are subject to decisions-by-committee then I get the sense they would avoid risk at all if they could.

I just think all this would need to be tested.

I just think this is leaning too much into how things should work in theory and not why things are the way they are in practice. There are many situations where we need people to be willing to take risks, and one of the ways we can encourage that is to provide protection from liability. I worry this would only disincentivize people from taking necessary risks.

Just using the architecture/engineering/construction (AEC) industry as an example, increasing the personal liability of the employee could lead to a drop in productivity because of what is at stake if there is a mistake, and mistakes are unavoidable in the AEC industry.

Limited Liability Companies (LLCs) are very popular and were explicitly set up to limit the personal liability and provide personal asset protection for all members against debts (business or personal), legal claims, etc. so that if something happened - or a major mistake were made - the owner and employees would only risk their company assets (should they have them) and have their personal assets legally protected; they wouldn’t lose everything they own. If the mistake is large enough, they can still lose their right to practice their chosen trade, but that wouldn’t come from a government authority (in the case of architects and engineers, whoever signed and sealed the drawing set could lose their license).

Corporations are similar in this regard, only the company is owned by shareholders which also makes it easier to transfer ownership. In the case of publicly traded corporations, we would also have stockholders and who are not necessarily even employees. In principle, corporations take advantage of this to raise fund when they are undergoing risky ventures.

This is in contrast to a sole proprietorship where the owner has much more individual control but risks losing their business and personal assets if there is a large enough mistake.

Basically, what I’m getting at is many of the systems we have put in place already exist to limit the personal risk to ones livelihood, and spreading around the liability for decision making may not be a good thing or something people necessarily want. Increasing personal risk could actually be a disincentive for people to be willing to work in certain industries. (And given the housing shortage in the US, the AEC industry is not one we want to slow down).

If certain companies want to run their business in a more democratic fashion, then all the power to them. I would be curious to see how they would contractually spread around the liability for decision making or how they might defend themselves in a legal setting; both would be necessary before it becomes a standard for any industry.

Like many libertarians I think he fails to understand the world does not work according to his ideals. That is to say, the problems they seek to solve are very complicated and their proposals are, quite frankly, too simplistic and reductionist to be effective.

I like his stance on ranked-choice voting, abortion (though a publicly funded option should always be available), police reform, and (generally) drugs. I think I agree with him on immigration and homelessness, but I would need to dive deeper to know for sure.

However, while I am a huge supporter of private industry, Climate Change must be combated with government regulation; the free market alone will not stop or mitigate it. History has also proven that unregulated private industry can destroy the environment. (Chevron needs to be restored.)

His stance on guns is also overly simplistic and I think we need better gun regulation. At a certain point, everyone having a right to a gun (regardless of their mental state) is endangering their fellow citizens right to live without fear. We require licenses to drive our cars, so why do we not require licenses to own a gun? I support background checks and gun registries at the very least.

His stance to abolish the U.S. Department of Education is also absolutely braindead. Already, we have problems with states like Texas deliberately misrepresenting history and presenting false narratives. There are also movements in states such as Oklahoma to impose a “Christian Education” on public schools. If anything, I think the Department of Education should be more centralized and states should have less individual control over their curriculums; the quality of one’s education in the United States should not depend on which state they happen to be raised in.

Lastly, I do not like his isolationist stance on foreign policy. This isn’t the 19th century and the world is global now; if the United States were to cut off aid and withdraw from global affairs, it would open up a massive power vacuum that would only be filled by China and Russia. I don’t need to elaborate on how bad this would be for the United States and our allies.

As for this election, I think he should do the moral thing, which is to drop out and endorse Harris. To be clear, I fully expect this to never happen, but he knows there’s no way he can win the Presidency, and if Trump wins the government will only become more authoritarian which is the opposite of what libertarians want. This is an election between someone who can really help the people of the United States (Harris) and someone who has explicitly stated a desire to end democracy in the US (Trump); I don’t think this is the election cycle third parties should be playing games with.

I mean, to a certain extent isn’t this just arguing the reality of the world vs our ideals?

Ultimately, capitalism supports the idea of private ownership of goods and competition via free markets. Liberalism elevates the individual, emphasizing that each person has equal rights under the law as well as innate political & civil liberties. In definition, I do not see how they must be incompatible.

I do acknowledge that neither liberalism nor capitalism exist in a vacuum. But, I find many of the critiques of capitalism are more critiques of crony capitalism, bad human behavior, or the overall prevalence of human greed (many times all three). There is no system - whether it be a government or a company structure - humankind could create that would be immune to our own bad behavior. Our current system follows the theory that it is these moments where a government (one that is also constrained in its ability to infringe upon the rights of its citizens) would step in to regulate.

I am also not convinced the workplace must reflect Buchanan’s liberalism, or that corporations should become democratic institutions. This just sounds like a recipe to make corporations even more bureaucratic, less nimble, and less willing to make difficult decisions to be competitive and innovate; a business that cannot compete is one that fails.

While I do lament the influence large corporations have over some governments (in particular in the US) I am not convinced this is a solution that would make large corporations more effective.

All just my opinion.