In this case, it was simply referring to "people who accuse others of being misogynists"; that's why I quoted you right above it. That is, people who charge others with misogyny are usually simply sexists. (I suggest you look up the terms "sexism" and "racism" since you seem to be a bit fuzzy on their meanings.)
I think the preponderance of the evidence indicates that he is just a sociopath with authoritarian tendencies.
Probably, since that's the prerequisite for wanting to be president in the first place. What Hillary adds to that baseline is a proven track record of incompetence, corruption, sexism, and lying. With Trump, we don't know yet since, as you pointed out, he is pretty cagey and hard to pin down.
Yeah, like so many people who pretend to stand up for the poor and sick, you really look down your nose at them and despise them. Thanks for showing your true colors... again. You're despicable.
I was worried that shopping for pickles and 32-packs of toilet paper would actually require me to engage the muscles in my hand to reach into my pocket and pull out a credit card.
And by "credit card", you mean the insecure, expensive, fraud-prone payment mechanism created by a small number of monopolistic companies and their government cronies; you know, what arrogant rich people like you use.
According to German courts, on a slope, you need to use both the parking brake and put your car in gear: https://www.deinfuehrerschein.... You may also have to curb your wheels.
Once again a Clinton is exonerated but you're emotional invested in the narrative.
Clinton avoided a criminal indictment, nothing more. From a future president, we demand integrity, honesty, and competence, and she lacks all of those.
I'm describing the sort of place where if you are not a relative you will end up having an idiot teenager as a manager someday. Do you get the example now?
I got it before. Your example isn't typical.
Fish for talent in a very tiny pond and you can't find a lot of talent, and such places are a perfect example and DO have a very high failure rate. The ones that do not fail bring in talent from elsewhere.
Actually, family businesses are doing at least as well as large publicly traded companies in terms of survival.
Not what I am doing at all. I'm merely arguing against the opposite extreme and pointing out why inexperienced HR types have a bias towards friendship
Yes, you're making stupid, unfounded generalizations about what businesses and their HR types do. And you seem to have some stick up your ass about family businesses.
Try working for a small family owned company for an extreme example of how much bullshit that is [...] With such small groups the normal rules of morality are not seen to apply to outsiders.
Many family owned businesses are doing very well. But if you think you are more skilled at running a business than other people, put your money where your mouth is and run a successful business yourself. That's the only way you can demonstrate that you aren't an idiot when talking about business.
"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" Didn't seem to work there did it?
Do you not understand the difference between hiring a JavaScript coder and a cabinet level position?
A LOT of things have been fucked up by hiring via nepotism. It should be obvious, if you hire the top people in an international bank from a single college tennis club you end up with something run no better than a college tennis club.
Yes, for the top people in an organization, you ought to go out of your way to find the best people. Those best people are going to come from top schools, which are not diverse. And for the rest of the organization it doesn't matter.
I have no idea why you are defending such a ridiculous thing - is some high school debating club in your very recent past and you haven't been in the workforce long enough to consider that some day you may be in a position to hire other people?
I have hired lots of people over the years, the majority of them actually from minorities. What's ridiculous is your utterly ignorant defense of diversity for its own sake, or for executive-level recruiting for run-of-the-mill positions. I have to say, it is fascinating to see your kind of thinking in action.
Are you kidding? There is massive political pressure on companies to meet various diversity goals and legions of "diversity consultants" engage in training programs to ensure that companies consider the largest possible applicant pool and don't say anything that might offend someone. While I don't really care that this is a waste of time and money for companies, what I do care about is that it is harmful to the very people who these programs are supposed to help, being one of them.
I thought I was merely stating what should be "common sense" but is not - fish from a small pool and you have little chance of getting the best.
Do you investigate every single plumber in your area? Do you look at every single car brand? Do you evaluate every single coffee shop? Of course not. For most choices in life, selecting from a small pool is good enough, and that's also true for hiring.
How else do you expect to run a public transit system? Run trains completely without any supervision 24/7? Hire more people to patrol the cars constantly? Who is going to pay for that, given that public transit systems already require massive subsidies for their operations?
Come on you folks who advocate public transit: what is your solution?
Anything that makes data sharing between UK, French, and German spy agencies harder will be an improvement to cybersecurity and privacy. It's too bad that Brexit won't probably make a significant dent in it long term.
You repeated the fabrication that diversity is generally good for companies and their businesses. That raises two questions: (1) what are your motivations for repeating such fabrications, and (2) what are the actual effects of increasing diversity at corporations.
(1) Many people who prefer workplace diversity and equality of outcome (e.g., more women and minorities in software development) do so because of their political views and agenda. But political agendas by themselves are not convincing to businesses; therefore, they are looking for economic justifications for their political objectives. As in many other fields, you can easily find some economist to cook up some theory and data to support whatever political views you hold (usually by ignoring hidden costs and looking at a subset of companies), so that is why and how people promote the "diversity is good for business" idea.
(2) The actual effect of increasing diversity in many businesses is to hurt minority businesses and destroy minority cultures, because if you encourage or force existing businesses to cover market niches arising from diverse cultures and minorities in society, you destroy the very market niches that minority businesses could have thrived in.
Now, I didn't "write your name" on anything. I didn't pretend to know what your motivations are; perhaps you really do want to hurt minority businesses and destroy minority cultures, but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I do like to see minority businesses and a diversity of cultures thrive in our society, and the best way to make that happen is an honest, laissez-faire approach to diversity.
Anyway this discussion is pointless since I was just pointing out a common problem with inexperienced HR people who will ignore selection criteria when faced with someone who likes the same football team.
No, you merely claimed that it is a problem, without evidence.
In my experience, lesbian auto repair shops, all Muslim software development companies, all Indian financial companies, and all white plumbing businesses seem to be doing just fine, and those are just B2C examples. Some of those specialize in serving particular demographics, others simply don't need to know much about their customers. B2B businesses have even less need to deal with cultural diversity.
I find it fascinating how frequently people who decry corporatism and cultural in the US then turn around and demand "diversity" in companies, illustrating again that progressives actually are responsible for creating the very problems that they claim to fight against. Of course, most of the people who make such demands then aren't consistent about it and celebrate certain high non-diverse businesses, while generically condemning other businesses for lack of diversity that they have no control over.
Unless you think it's best that the next president just rolls over for Putin to minimize the chance of conflict at any cost to the US
Yes, that is exactly what I'm thinking: there is no pressing issue that the next president should get tough on with Russia.
I'd like to see Hillary's track record of dangerous antagonism.
Look at her record as Secretary of State: aggressive, antagonistic, interventionist, and a failure.
No, I mean worse - such as killing terrorists' families, and new and (unspecified but) more brutal forms of torture. Torture which Obama ended and Trump would restart.
What rock have you been living under? "Unspecified forms of brutal torture" and "killing terrorist families" is exactly what Obama has been engaging in.
Jill Stein? Good luck with that. The candidates for the two major parties are set, unless something wildly unforeseen happens.
Why should I fucking care what the candidates for the two major candidates are? Choosing between the war-mongering whore of Wall St and the orange Oompa Loompa is no choice at all; this isn't even a "lesser of two evils" situations, it is hard to think of two less qualified for president. That means that one is free to actually express one's opinion. And, yes, third party candidates matter. If you like Jill Stein, vote for her.
Yeah, a few companies actually benefit from diversity, most don't. A company that makes steel fasteners, or wines, or mustard, or benzene, or Japanese kimono, or compilers, or a host of other things doesn't benefit from the perspective a transgender person or a Texan cowboy brings to the table. Furthermore, as many successful companies show, you don't have to be a member of a group in order to figure out how to sell to that group.
So your argument is that "access to the presidency will cause Hillary to demonstrate unforeseen dangerous behaviors." So if you're worried that a fairly boring politician like Hillary will do this
You said it yourself: Hillary is "a shrewd political veteran who wouldn't make things easy for Putin". That is, according to you, she is going to get tough on Putin and antagonize him. That is what makes her dangerous. (Furthermore, there is nothing "unforeseen" about Hillary's dangerous behaviors; she has a long track record.) If "Putin can play that halfwit manchild like a cheap fiddle", great: that means less opportunity for conflict. I don't want the US president, whoever it is, to mess with Russia over the next several years, so if your primary complaint about Trump is that he is a "halfwit manchild", that's just fine with me.
I'd be more worried about the person who's openly expressed interest in committing war crimes.
You mean the same kind of "war crimes" that Bush and Obama have engaged in, and that Hillary would certainly continue: drone killings of civilians and various "enhanced interrogation" techniques? The "war crimes" that Obama promised to end during his campaign and that he then greatly expanded? That's supposed to shock me? Are you so gullible to believe Hillary isn't going to bomb anybody she damned well feels like bombing, regardless of what she says now? Sorry, I fell for this bullshit once from Obama, I'm not going to fall for it again. And I think Obama at least was honest in his intentions, Hillary just says whatever she thinks will get her the most votes.
I'll look at all the candidates and then make a decision in November. But the idea that Hillary is some kind of experienced, steady, moderate candidate is laughable. Furthermore, this isn't a two person race anyway, there are other candidates besides Trump and Hillary.
I disagree. In the past, Hillary was constrained by not being president, but the presidency would give her delusions free reign, and she wouldn't give a damn about either Congress or the courts.
Slashdot Mirror
In this case, it was simply referring to "people who accuse others of being misogynists"; that's why I quoted you right above it. That is, people who charge others with misogyny are usually simply sexists. (I suggest you look up the terms "sexism" and "racism" since you seem to be a bit fuzzy on their meanings.)
Probably, since that's the prerequisite for wanting to be president in the first place. What Hillary adds to that baseline is a proven track record of incompetence, corruption, sexism, and lying. With Trump, we don't know yet since, as you pointed out, he is pretty cagey and hard to pin down.
Yeah, like so many people who pretend to stand up for the poor and sick, you really look down your nose at them and despise them. Thanks for showing your true colors... again. You're despicable.
And by "credit card", you mean the insecure, expensive, fraud-prone payment mechanism created by a small number of monopolistic companies and their government cronies; you know, what arrogant rich people like you use.
According to German courts, on a slope, you need to use both the parking brake and put your car in gear: https://www.deinfuehrerschein.... You may also have to curb your wheels.
What exactly do you want to "investigate" them for? What are you accusing them of?
Clinton lied about not having classified information on her server. She lied about only deleting personal E-mails, and she destroyed evidence.
Pointing out that Hillary is incompetent, arrogant, and dishonest has nothing to do with Trump.
It's people like you who keep making this about sex and how measures men and women by different standards.
Clinton avoided a criminal indictment, nothing more. From a future president, we demand integrity, honesty, and competence, and she lacks all of those.
I got it before. Your example isn't typical.
Actually, family businesses are doing at least as well as large publicly traded companies in terms of survival.
Yes, you're making stupid, unfounded generalizations about what businesses and their HR types do. And you seem to have some stick up your ass about family businesses.
Many family owned businesses are doing very well. But if you think you are more skilled at running a business than other people, put your money where your mouth is and run a successful business yourself. That's the only way you can demonstrate that you aren't an idiot when talking about business.
Do you not understand the difference between hiring a JavaScript coder and a cabinet level position?
Yes, for the top people in an organization, you ought to go out of your way to find the best people. Those best people are going to come from top schools, which are not diverse. And for the rest of the organization it doesn't matter.
I have hired lots of people over the years, the majority of them actually from minorities. What's ridiculous is your utterly ignorant defense of diversity for its own sake, or for executive-level recruiting for run-of-the-mill positions. I have to say, it is fascinating to see your kind of thinking in action.
Are you kidding? There is massive political pressure on companies to meet various diversity goals and legions of "diversity consultants" engage in training programs to ensure that companies consider the largest possible applicant pool and don't say anything that might offend someone. While I don't really care that this is a waste of time and money for companies, what I do care about is that it is harmful to the very people who these programs are supposed to help, being one of them.
Do you investigate every single plumber in your area? Do you look at every single car brand? Do you evaluate every single coffee shop? Of course not. For most choices in life, selecting from a small pool is good enough, and that's also true for hiring.
Vandalism, pickpocketing, violent crime, hooliganism, and public intoxication, all of which occur commonly in public transit systems.
I'm sorry, but what "problem" have you pointed out? I don't see a problem with audio and video surveillance of public transit systems.
Funny you should say that, because that's my solution too, next time I'm asked to vote for additional funding for public transit.
You mean with staff and transit police patrolling the trains? Since wages keep rising, that is getting increasingly expensive.
How else do you expect to run a public transit system? Run trains completely without any supervision 24/7? Hire more people to patrol the cars constantly? Who is going to pay for that, given that public transit systems already require massive subsidies for their operations?
Come on you folks who advocate public transit: what is your solution?
I expect these things will get spray painted rather quickly.
Also, delivery bot napping: dragging them into a van and using them for spare parts, or just holding them hostage.
Anything that makes data sharing between UK, French, and German spy agencies harder will be an improvement to cybersecurity and privacy. It's too bad that Brexit won't probably make a significant dent in it long term.
You repeated the fabrication that diversity is generally good for companies and their businesses. That raises two questions: (1) what are your motivations for repeating such fabrications, and (2) what are the actual effects of increasing diversity at corporations.
(1) Many people who prefer workplace diversity and equality of outcome (e.g., more women and minorities in software development) do so because of their political views and agenda. But political agendas by themselves are not convincing to businesses; therefore, they are looking for economic justifications for their political objectives. As in many other fields, you can easily find some economist to cook up some theory and data to support whatever political views you hold (usually by ignoring hidden costs and looking at a subset of companies), so that is why and how people promote the "diversity is good for business" idea.
(2) The actual effect of increasing diversity in many businesses is to hurt minority businesses and destroy minority cultures, because if you encourage or force existing businesses to cover market niches arising from diverse cultures and minorities in society, you destroy the very market niches that minority businesses could have thrived in.
Now, I didn't "write your name" on anything. I didn't pretend to know what your motivations are; perhaps you really do want to hurt minority businesses and destroy minority cultures, but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I do like to see minority businesses and a diversity of cultures thrive in our society, and the best way to make that happen is an honest, laissez-faire approach to diversity.
No, you merely claimed that it is a problem, without evidence.
In my experience, lesbian auto repair shops, all Muslim software development companies, all Indian financial companies, and all white plumbing businesses seem to be doing just fine, and those are just B2C examples. Some of those specialize in serving particular demographics, others simply don't need to know much about their customers. B2B businesses have even less need to deal with cultural diversity.
I find it fascinating how frequently people who decry corporatism and cultural in the US then turn around and demand "diversity" in companies, illustrating again that progressives actually are responsible for creating the very problems that they claim to fight against. Of course, most of the people who make such demands then aren't consistent about it and celebrate certain high non-diverse businesses, while generically condemning other businesses for lack of diversity that they have no control over.
Yes, that is exactly what I'm thinking: there is no pressing issue that the next president should get tough on with Russia.
Look at her record as Secretary of State: aggressive, antagonistic, interventionist, and a failure.
What rock have you been living under? "Unspecified forms of brutal torture" and "killing terrorist families" is exactly what Obama has been engaging in.
Why should I fucking care what the candidates for the two major candidates are? Choosing between the war-mongering whore of Wall St and the orange Oompa Loompa is no choice at all; this isn't even a "lesser of two evils" situations, it is hard to think of two less qualified for president. That means that one is free to actually express one's opinion. And, yes, third party candidates matter. If you like Jill Stein, vote for her.
Yeah, a few companies actually benefit from diversity, most don't. A company that makes steel fasteners, or wines, or mustard, or benzene, or Japanese kimono, or compilers, or a host of other things doesn't benefit from the perspective a transgender person or a Texan cowboy brings to the table. Furthermore, as many successful companies show, you don't have to be a member of a group in order to figure out how to sell to that group.
You said it yourself: Hillary is "a shrewd political veteran who wouldn't make things easy for Putin". That is, according to you, she is going to get tough on Putin and antagonize him. That is what makes her dangerous. (Furthermore, there is nothing "unforeseen" about Hillary's dangerous behaviors; she has a long track record.) If "Putin can play that halfwit manchild like a cheap fiddle", great: that means less opportunity for conflict. I don't want the US president, whoever it is, to mess with Russia over the next several years, so if your primary complaint about Trump is that he is a "halfwit manchild", that's just fine with me.
You mean the same kind of "war crimes" that Bush and Obama have engaged in, and that Hillary would certainly continue: drone killings of civilians and various "enhanced interrogation" techniques? The "war crimes" that Obama promised to end during his campaign and that he then greatly expanded? That's supposed to shock me? Are you so gullible to believe Hillary isn't going to bomb anybody she damned well feels like bombing, regardless of what she says now? Sorry, I fell for this bullshit once from Obama, I'm not going to fall for it again. And I think Obama at least was honest in his intentions, Hillary just says whatever she thinks will get her the most votes.
I'll look at all the candidates and then make a decision in November. But the idea that Hillary is some kind of experienced, steady, moderate candidate is laughable. Furthermore, this isn't a two person race anyway, there are other candidates besides Trump and Hillary.
I disagree. In the past, Hillary was constrained by not being president, but the presidency would give her delusions free reign, and she wouldn't give a damn about either Congress or the courts.