Fox's midterm engagement strategy is telling its viewers that Democrats are coming to kill them https://t.co/vdZD8Nu6xX

As usual, the network's commentators are taking cues from Trump, who argued Saturday that Democrats were "an angry left-wing mob" that is "too extreme and too dangerous to govern.

Tomi Lahren said this morning that "The average citizen, if you're on the right, should be concerned and in danger.” Sebastian Gorka chimed in that Democrats had “normalized violence in America.”

Sean Hannity says the choice for voters is between "mob rule or law and order." Laura Ingraham says its "Mob rule or the rule of law? Perpetual rage or real results?" Tucker Carlson compared Democrats to the Hutus before the Rwandan genocide.

We're well past the already-risible claim that Democrats were the "party of crime," unwilling to protect voters from danger. Now, the argument from Trump and his propagandists is that the Democrats *are* the danger.

1- My thread for tonight:
100 years of climate change headlines.

Hey folks, my new thread is ready above, please check it out. Cheers.
@FriendsOScience @babraham1988 @99freemind @CrammAdam @sideshow_bo @costellodaniel1 @Aquafugitive @Evenings_Star @GtoPmd

As of today, it’s virtually impossible for someone to explore all career opportunities (and offers).

Most people find new jobs by proactively reaching out to companies OR getting poached.

Unless you quit your current job, you never get the opportunity to broadcast that you are looking for new jobs.

It feels like there is an interesting opportunity for a company to be built around ‘free agents’ in the business world.

This company would essentially give you 1-3 months of salary/benefits, in exchange for a percentage of compensation increase.

💡Mind Hack💡

— Otherize yourself —

What the hell does that mean??

Well....this has to be a Thread because it’s too good to be watered down into one tweet

Ready to hack your brain and take control over your perspective??

Let’s jump in...

[THREAD]

Cc: @iamjustincscott @Sociopathlete @ConquerorVlad @MomoTheDisciple @WesternMastery @Nappyb0yy @ArmaniTalks @TJRicks_TSP @AJA_Cortes @JamesPDowling @ApexOliver

It’s Sunday

You invite everyone over for football

Your boys start getting a load on and....[Glass shatters]

Your buddy just dropped a beer bottle on the ground and it shattered

Beer is everywhere

What’s your response?

👇🏼

You would most likely say something like...

“It’s all good bro, it’s just a beer. Grab a few paper towels, no biggie!”

But if you droppped the glass, what would your response be like?

You be PISSED as yourself

You’d call yourself names and get mad

Why?

👇🏼

Because when your friend dropped the glass, you objectively viewed the situation

“Ok...it’s just a glass and some beer, no biggie”

You seen the situation for what it IS

But when you do it, you see the situation differently

👇🏼

BREAKING: Nikki Haley resigns as Trump’s U.N. ambassador

As someone who covered climate change a decade ago, I feel like the rest of the world is only just catching up to the following realities:

1. Avoiding truly epic amounts of climate change is technically feasible but economically and politically totally infeasible

2. Accepting that we are going to return our planet's climate to a state not seen in tens of millions of years is important. Because it's the truth. Anyone who wants to tell you differently is trying to sell you their ideology.

3. Knowing the earth is going to undergo multi-degree warming is no excuse not to decarbonize our energy system. We needed to do that anyway. And the less warming, the better.

4. Talking about really serious amounts of adaptation is not accepting defeat, it's grappling with reality. And you'd be surprised how having to actually spend money to deal with the coming warming will help people also accept (3)

5. There are no easy solutions. Geoengineering is extremely problematic. Carbon draw down of any scale is still a fantasy. We are going to have to both adapt and mitigate. Getting serious about it will probably take generational turnover in the power structures of this country.

President Trump and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley will meet in the Oval Office amid reports that she is resigning

The world's top climate scientists are about to announce that—without radical coordinated action—the world has locked in warming of at least 1.5°C.

Heroic efforts are now necessary to save the world from catastrophic climate change.
Be a hero.
Watch live: https://t.co/hKTSlTMD7k

IPCC: Limiting climate change to below 1.5°C would require "unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society."

(Less than 400 people worldwide are watching this lifestream right now.)

IPCC: The world has already warmed 1.0°C above pre-industrial levels.

On our current path, the world will reach 1.5°C warming in as little as 12 years.

IPCC: Limiting warming to less than 1.5°C would save 10 million people from sea level rise displacement vs. warming of 2°C and *several hundred million* people from climate-related extreme poverty.

***several hundred million*** people.

A story of hope. Thread.

So behind my office at Landmark Towers, there's a body of water that links to the seas. White fishermen show up a lot and cast their nets to catch some fish.

They are welcome, treated with respect and assisted by the locals. The men in turn behave.

I'd like to speak the obvious necessary things about the Republican Party, the most central of which is that this is not an organization that is participating in democracy.

Rather, they are cynically utilizing our democracy's vulnerabilities.

The last two Republican Presidents to enter the White House did so without the popular vote.

The last Republican President to enter the White House with the popular vote did so in 1989.

Yet, when they win, they behave as though they have the mandate that comes with a landslide.

For example, they upend the healthcare program.

They give out trillions in corporate welfare.

They start torture programs.

They start surveillance programs.

They lie us into wars.

They gerrymander at every level they can. They deliberately disenfranchise. They make our elections so imbalanced they can get less votes than Democrats but win 60% of the seats.

They are not interested in democracy. They are not participating in a democracy.

When a Democrat actually does win the popular vote—by a lot—they behave as if they are a majority opposition.

They stall. They filibuster. They delay. They engage in deliberate sabotage to gain political advantage.

They are not participating in our democracy.

A rather long thread about newly minted Nobel laureate Bill Nordhaus’s “debate” with Nicholas Stern over the vexed issue of discounting. tl;dr: Though very different from one another, I don’t think their views on discounting are inconsistent.

As Robert Nozick wrote of his rival John Rawls's landmark book _A Theory of Justice_, "Political philosophers now must either work within Rawls' theory or explain why not." The same goes for Nordhaus and his pioneering work in climate economics.

For example, Nicholas Stern & Simon Dietz wrote in 2015: "‘To slow or not to slow’ by Nordhaus is a landmark in econ research. As the first analysis of the costs and benefits of policies to abate greenhouse gas emissions, it opened the profession to a new field of application.”

Stern & Nordhaus are standardly treated as rivals, in the way Nozick & Rawls definitely were. The key issue that is supposed to divide them is discounting, which concerns the relative weight economic models give to future costs & benefits, compared to equivalent c’s and b’s today

Both Nordhaus & Stern work within the framework pioneered 90 years ago this year by Frank Ramsey (whom the Nobel committee bizarrely mis-cites as “A.S. Ramsey” in its Nordhaus background document). Their disagreement is about how to calibrate of a famous equation named for Ramsey

O QUE HADDAD FEZ COMO PREFEITO DE SÃO PAULO

1- Construiu 3 UPAs e deixou 12 em construção, antes de sua gestão, São Paulo não possuía nenhuma;
2- Recuperou mais de R$ 278 milhões desviados em esquemas corrupção para o cofre da cidade;

#AgoraéHaddad

3- Construiu 33 hospitais Dia da Rede Hora Certa;
4- Construiu 3 hospitais gerais;
5- Construiu mais de 400 creches, a ponto de quase zerar a fila de espera;
6- Construiu universidade nos CEUs com o UniCEU;
7- Criou um órgão de auditoria independente;
#AgoraÉHaddad

8- Deu passe livre a 700 mil estudantes;
9- Reduziu a dívida do município para MENOS DA METADE, sendo o primeiro prefeito da história da cidade a entregar uma dívida menor do que recebeu.
10- Levou a Virada Cultural para periferia;
#AgoraéHaddad

11- Aumentou o Piso Salarial dos professores;
12- Acabou com a máfia do ISS;
13- Primeiro Plano Municipal de Cultura da cidade;
14- Reduziu as mortes no trânsito, com medidas como a redução de velocidade nas marginais;
15- Mais de 140 praças com Wi-Fi;
#AgoraéHaddad

16- Aprovou o plano diretor, premiado internacionalmente e elogiado pela ONU;
17- Construiu mais de 400km de corredores e faixas de ônibus;
18- Entregou 400km de ciclovias;
19- Centenas de ônibus com Wi-fi, ar-condicionado, carregador de celular e de bilhete único;
#AgoraéHaddad

Imagine a bunch of people are in a tent. It’s an awful tent. Call it the Awful Tent. why is it awful? I dunno. Uhhhh there are bears outside and maybe a bunch of mosquitoes inside. It just sucks. It’s an awful, sucky tent for everybody.

Periodically people in the Awful Tent have discussions about their circumstances. “How are we gonna get out of the Awful Tent?” “I’m sick of being bitten by mosquitoes.” “Omg the constant growling of the scary bears outside gives me anxiety.” Everyone commiserates.

But the thing is, not everyone’s position in the tent is the same. Some people have staked out a spot in the center where they can’t hear the bears. Some people are more or less prone to getting bitten by mosquitoes. Some people are allergic to the damp, mildewy, Awful Tent.

The Awful Tent has holes and some people have been stuck for a long time under the holes. Every time it rains they get wet. They’re perpetually sick and soggy as a result.

To make matters worse, some people in the tent have actually caused harm to others. Some people have pushed and shoved to make sure the people getting rained on keep getting rained on. Some people have stolen and hoarded bug spray. Some people have shoved others out to be bears.

A rather long thread about newly minted Nobel laureate Bill Nordhaus’s “debate” with Nicholas Stern over the vexed issue of discounting. tl;dr: Though very different from one another, I don’t think their views on discounting are inconsistent.

As Robert Nozick wrote of his rival John Rawls's landmark book _A Theory of Justice_, "Political philosophers now must either work within Rawls' theory or explain why not." The same goes for Nordhaus and his pioneering work in climate economics.

For example, Nicholas Stern & Simon Dietz wrote in 2015: "‘To slow or not to slow’ by Nordhaus is a landmark in econ research. As the first analysis of the costs and benefits of policies to abate greenhouse gas emissions, it opened the profession to a new field of application.”

Stern & Nordhaus are standardly treated as rivals, in the way Nozick & Rawls definitely were. The key issue that is supposed to divide them is discounting, which concerns the relative weight economic models give to future costs & benefits, compared to equivalent c’s and b’s today

Both Nordhaus & Stern work within the framework pioneered 90 years ago this year by Frank Ramsey (whom the Nobel committee bizarrely mis-cites as “A.S. Ramsey” in its Nordhaus background document). Their disagreement is about how to calibrate of a famous equation named for Ramsey