Your co-worker is dead because some fucking asshole shot him.
Taking away guns does nothing to fix the underlying issues in a situation like this. That fucking asshole who shot your co-worker is going to hate your co-worker and do violence to him, guns or not.
There is no silver bullet. These are complex times with complex social issues that take insightful determination to solve. Knee-jerk reactions like "take away guns", "kick out the Muslims", "build a wall", "get a gun" and the like do not go very far in terms of a solution. Bigotry, hatred, sexism aren't going to be fixed like that.
"Doing something" for the sake of reacting may not be the best choice.
A right wing terrorists shot somebody to death, there are two underlying issues. The fact that right wing extremism is being enabled at the highest ranks of the US Government, and that the US is so infested with guns that it's really easy for unstable individuals to get guns. You can try to fix both.
"Another manager threatened to beat an underperforming employee's head in with a baseball bat."
Now, that's what must be a highly motivating work environment:/
One must wonder how their hiring process works, i.e. letting such characters through the gates, since recent reports don't paint a pretty picture.
It's not the hiring process that's creating the problem, it's senior management. Management would have heard about the incident (or similar ones), and they had the ability to discipline both the manager to grabbed the baseball bat as well as his manager who didn't do anything about it. Instead they let the incident go, perhaps even laughing about it and treating it as an example of a passionate manager motivating his people.
It's like corruption in Russia, they didn't get that way by hiring corrupt government officials, they got that way by demonstrating, at the very top, that corruption was tolerated. That same baseball bat manager might have been a perfectly decent manager in a different organization, or weeded out if he couldn't play along, but put in an organization that didn't restrain his tendencies he becomes a menace.
The amount of Anonymous Cowards posting the same couple lines makes it obvious. This thread is being astroturfed.
Women are making more money than men for the same job and same amount of work today, especially in cities. Stop reading a bogus 30 year old paper crafted for a narrative and check current reports. or This or This or This and of course This Interestingly most of these are LEFT leaning sites, not Right/Conservative.
PolitiFact has given you the nuts and bolts about the 77 cents statistic -- you can read the two most important works in this area here and here. Basically, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when you compare women and men in the exact same jobs who have the same levels of experience and education. (emphasis mine)
The wage gap gets smaller when you control for job and experience, it doesn't disappear. And it's not certain you should be controlling for those things.
The stat about unmarried women in the 22-30 range earning more is part of it. For one those articles are from 2008-2012 when uneducated males were probably the hardest hit demographic, I'm not sure that stat would be true today.
Also, as they get older that gap is likely to reverse as men move out of apprenticeship positions (in labour or medicine) and as they start moving into management.
Do men get promoted into management because women make different career choices, or because we tend to view men as leaders? The answer to that question affects whether you view the wage gap as legitimate.
Just like 60% of all College students are women, 56% of all College graduates with advanced degrees are women. Yet we continue to hear that we need more women in college.
I'm an egalitarian, not a MRA. I also happen to believe in Socrates' definition of Philosopher, who must seek truth even at their own peril. Sadly the left avoids all truth and distorts everything they can for division and agenda.
More women in College isn't necessarily a sign of equality, women need degrees because uneducated women don't have the same job opportunities as uneducated men in skilled and unskilled labour. I think Iran, hardly an example of gender equality, also has more women in University.
Besides, you're arguing a straw man. The thing you actually year is not "we need more women in college", it's "we need more women in technical fields". There are a lot of well paying fields like software and engineering that women don't pursue, that's also responsible for part of the wage gap. It also leads to the creation of hostile dysfunctional workplaces like the one described in this article.
I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, I'm saying she was a normal politician.
You claimed the Clintons didn't profit personally. You were astoundingly wrong about that and turned a blind eye when cited evidence was provided.
I meant they didn't profit personally while in office. I figured this distinction was obvious since every high profile politician makes a ton of money after office, and some of that is surely influence peddling.
since she was trying to get rid of super PACs
Give me a break. The Clintons didn't give a shit about the corrupting influence of money in politics. They unabashedly played that game their whole career and profited immensely from it, both politically and personally.
Not everyone who plays the game but says they'll try to end the game in office is lying.
Clinton wasn't great on this regard, I don't think she really felt that the money was a big problem, but she said she'd try to get rid of the PACs I don't see any reason to doubt her.
really do think there was a subtext of sexism
What's sexist is playing the gender card.
When the playing field is slanted it's not discrimination to give a hand.
I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, I'm saying she was a normal politician. All the things she's accused of are completely typical in US politics, elected she would have been no worse than a typical politician, if anything she might be slightly better since she was trying to get rid of super PACs and the Bernie camp would have had some influence to push the system.
The thing that pisses me off about it is that people only really seemed to care about this stuff once it applied to Hillary. I really do think there was a subtext of sexism, I think people felt that for a guy to play the game it was a normal ambitious guy thing to do, but for a woman to do the same somehow became sinister.
That doesn't mean anyone who criticizes her was sexist, not remotely. But there were a lot of sexist people passionately pushing the narratives that destroyed her image.
The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation
They used it as a slush fund to pay their cronies and assistants, including Bill Clinton Inc.
So the Clinton's go to some city to do some charity work and to give some paid speeches. How should they do that?
Should they use two different staffs? That's a lot of extra money and hassle.
Should they personally pay their staff to work for the charity? Sure, but they're spending a lot of their own money.
Or they could do what they did, have the charity pay for the same staff when that staff is working for the charity.
Sure they could have done it differently, but that doesn't seem fundamentally wrong.
Promises were also made and broken when she was given the Secretary of State position.
I don't know the full story of who was responsible for allowing those donations when she was Secretary of State. But if she was President they'd be completely detached from the foundation, there would be no opportunity for someone to donate to a Clinton charity because there would be none.
Oh, really? Strange how much money the Clintons made then peddling access then back when Hillary was still a power player. How much do you think she or Bill are getting for speaking fees now?
A "power player" is not a government official, former politicians cashing in is not new, even if the politician might return to a position of power.
The difference is that Trump is currently President.
Just then the reverend wheeled about to face the singers, his back now to the congregation, and continued his sermon—oblivious as the choir mouthed back to him, in silent unison, "Whoosh."
Were there hypocrites who supported Clinton? Of course.
Is it hypocrisy to have defended Clinton on the claims I set out while criticizing Trump now? Absolutely.
I'm a realist who accepts that people always commit some level of influence peddling, and don't always follow the rules as they should. But Trump what Trump is doing fundamentally different.
The evidence speaks for itself. I don't need to consider them credible.
So what? Even if the evidence is right all it means is someone who is passionate about politics to work for a PAC is also passionate enough to engage in underhanded tactics.
As I said, even if your evidence is true, it's irrelevant.
He has tweeted at a time he was scheduled to be in a Top Secret meeting. Either he's not attending his meetings, or he's tweeting during them. Either is gross negligence, so which gross negligence is it today?
Just to be clear since some people might have misread your comment as merely accusing Trump of not paying attention.
Because when the PV videos on staging violence came out, we found evidence that Zulema Rodriguez was employed by MoveOn to be in Arizona, we have a video of her blocking the road and lying to cops, and that corroborates the video?
Your original source is a video by a guy who is famous for dishonestly editing videos... and yet you keep going back to him as a primary source.
I have absolutely zero confidence that you know how to determine if a piece of evidence is true or relevant.
It's funny that all of this stuff wasn't a big deal to you hyper-partisans when Clinton was accused of them, but they suddenly are a big deal when Trump is doing them.
Your rah-rah-my-team bullshit is fucking up our world. It's a big deal when both teams do it. (And I'm calling you out, Ami, because you were defending Clinton for these very same things.)
It's perfectly valid to point out and criticize hypocracy, regardless of whether one personally agrees or disagrees with the underlying position.
But not all claims of hypocrisy are valid.
1) A tonne of people would have know about Clinton's private email server for years and virtually none of them thought anything of it, only once the GOP got a hold of it did it suddenly become a scandal. Meanwhile everyone is telling Trump his android has to go.
2) The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation, and they planned to fully divest themselves from the foundation after the election (and the foundation would change it's name). Trump still owns all the Trump Org stuff.
3) The cash stream from foreign entities, via speaking fees, had already stopped during the campaign and would not have resumed for her term. Trump is still receiving foreign cash through his businesses.
4) Pay-for-access is a sin committed by all politicians, Clinton more than most but that's at least partially because of her profile. But pay-for-access is about pay to the campaign or the party, not the individual. Trump is selling access that personally profits him.
It's a false equivalence, comparing Trump and Clinton scandals is comparing mountains with molehills.
The Trump trademark was granted several months ago, when the majority of news sources still put him at a huge disadvantage in the polls. There was a 3 month period where you could dispute the trademark which ended last week.
Making up stories does nothing good to the press, it only makes people distrust them more.
China's trademark review board announced in September it had invalidated a rival claim for the Trump trademark, clearing the way for Trump to move in. In November, soon after the election, it awarded the trademark to the Trump Organization. The trademark was officially registered this week after a three-month notice period for objections expired.
Of course it could just be coincidence... but yeah, China was trying to curry favour and/or giving Trump something they could later threaten to take away.
I think we are a long way from a Trump impeachment and conviction. I still can't see the Republicans sacrificing themselves when they control Congress and, at least no.inally the White House.
The smarter way to play this is to let Trump destroy his credibility and remaining political capital, and then inform him that he can either hand over day to day governance to Pence and then spend the rest of his term playing President on TV, or face impeachment. You get an effective Pence presidency without the nightmare that would be a forced removal from office.
The Trump administration was apparently told that Flynn lied about the call for a while, it's only once intelligence officers leaked to the press that Flynn was forced to resign.
I think there's a real possibility that they're preparing to do the same to Trump at some point, they might just waiting till he's vulnerable enough that whatever dirt they have on him (ie "he shot someone on 5th avenue") is enough to get the house to follow through on impeachment.
âoePolitical correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination.
This isn't about restricting or controlling people's language or fighting discrimination, it's about stopping harassment.
Consider criminal law, assuming you don't care about safety or property or anything besides freedom, then what do you want for a set of laws?
The easy answer is anarchy, but that's wrong because under anarchy a strongman will come in and take your freedom. The laws that give you the most freedom are also going to protect your safety and property, because if others are free to threaten you then you don't have freedom.
The same applies to speech, giving people the freedom to harass gives them the power to silence.
The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN? Perhaps we should tag submissions from Anonymous Cowards, and ' BeauHD' as equally unreliable and biased...
You just had to signal that you're a loyal and enthusiastic Trump supporter didn't you?
Tell me, what exactly has CNN done that makes them "unreliable and biased" in a way that doesn't apply to other mainstream media publications?
Journalists are idiots, who only know what they're told.
Why would Intel be sharing its CapEx decision-making process with a journalist?
If the Journalist really knew, he'd go back through his "notes" and find the list of where Intel's proposed fab was going to be, then hunt down the decision-making process.
But he can't, so he basically is saying "I don't believe them because I have no information."
What an f-tard.
The past few months has been a steady line of CEOs coming to Trump to re-announce existing job creations, things that most definitely had nothing to do with Trump. But since Trump is a crony capitalist they recognize it's important to buy favour with Trump by giving him credit.
The default assumption for any new job announcement credited to Trump should be that it's more of the same, jobs created for other reasons but credited to the President to curry favour.
Unless there's evidence to the contrary there's sufficient information to assume this has nothing to do with Trump.
There are exceptions. But the vast majority of the time when I clicked through to a message board, hoping to find some insightful discussions about the movie or TV show I just saw, the discussions were just kinda stupid.
I think online communities build standards, early on/. managed to set a standard where most comments are relatively thoughtful and that seems to have persisted as the site grew. I don't think IMDB ever managed the same and the message boards have just become a bit of an eyesore.
Hitler breathed air. You breathe air. Therefore you are literally Hitler. None of the things you explicitly mentioned that Hitler did are the thigs Hitler did with certainty wrong. You hint at things he did wrong, but killing millions of people who are of a certain religious pursuasion, is nothing substantiality like prioritizing one religion over another. You may have a valid criticism about the religious prioritizing, but trying to say it is of the same issue as what Hitler did is nonsense.
I think the Hilter/Trump comparisons are mostly overblown.
But I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the weird associations didn't start popping up, all the white supremacist and neo-Nazi support for Trump, demonization of minority groups, and the reluctance of the GOP to stand up to any of it. Not to mention the refusal to accept that he lost the popular vote.
Is Trump going to do mass extermination of Muslims? Of course not.
But might he try to authorize the deportation of legal resident Muslims? The shutting down of Mosques he deems extremist? Legal restrictions of the rights of Muslims? I wouldn't be shocked.
And he won't accept the result in the election he just won, what happens if he loses a close election in 2020? What happens if the President loses and refuses to concede?
The order does not affect people from other countries, it doesn't affect people from your country, and it specifically doesn't affect *you*.
To paraphrase a famous quote:
First they came for the Jews, and then some libtard do-gooder starts complaining so I said what are you whining about? You're not a Jew, you'll be fine!
So, what's the "group think" on this one? Because I don't want to be called a racist or a xenophobe...
1) If he stops the abuse and fraud in the current system it's a good thing. People should never be in a situation where they're training their imported cheap replacement, and foreign workers should never be in the position of being indentured servants.
2) As unpopular as it is to say there is some justification for the H-1B program, even accounting for the abuse and fake vacancies there are areas where there simply aren't enough Americans with the necessary skills, and to make the US productive in those areas US companies need to import some highly skilled workers.
3) Trump isn't constrained by the stakeholders who are responsible for the current abused system, so he has an opportunity to avoid issues that come from trying to appease all the different vested interests.
4) Trump isn't constrained by reality either, there's a really good chance that what he signs will be a stupid policy, or even if it isn't a stupid policy it will be incompetently administered.
5) If you think Trump is an awful President who is a threat to US Democracy and world peace, Trump doing something awesome to fix H-1B visas won't change that. It will just mean he's an awful President who is a threat to US Democracy and world peace who improved one aspect of high skilled labour laws.
The best I've found is organ donation. Like organ donation - we're talking about saving other people's lives (in fact stopping an abortion saves ONE life, organ donation saves many). Yet organ donation requires your consent. WE have so much respect for bodily autonomy that we will not interfere with it EVEN AFTER YOU ARE DEAD to save lives unless you agreed to it while you were alive. So why the hell should your bodily autonomy STOP existing when the life that could be saved is a fetus ?
But you just wiped out the bodily autonomy of the prospective mother by forcing her to go through with an unwanted process.
I think that abortion should be legal to anyone, but should only be paid for by the tax payers if it is needed to save the life of the mother or if the mother was a rape victim.
I'd add health of the mother and serious foetal abnormalities to that list or you're going to end up with a lot of very necessary abortions uncovered.
Otherwise - pay for it yourself, I do not want to pay for the result of your conscious and consensual act (after all, you could have used protection etc).
Just like I think that the government (I live in a country with national health care) should pay when somebody has to fix his tooth, but if you just want to make your teeth look whiter or implant a gold tooth, then you get to pay for it yourself.
Obesity, smoking, drunk driving, etc., I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of health care spending is caring for conditions that are the result of people's "conscious and consensual" acts. And an abortion isn't a cosmetic procedure like tooth whitening.
At the same time people don't have lasting health consequences from having non-medically necessary abortions. There's not a great metaphor either way. I'm not sure there's a good metaphor
I gave numbers of women who support the current "Feminists", and my numbers are not contrived by current political pandering propaganda polls. I also gave numbers on pro-life women, who you chose to ignore. Those numbers are also not propaganda motivated polls. Continue living in your bubble, fucking idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
No he isn't.
Your co-worker is dead because some fucking asshole shot him.
Taking away guns does nothing to fix the underlying issues in a situation like this. That fucking asshole who shot your co-worker is going to hate your co-worker and do violence to him, guns or not.
There is no silver bullet. These are complex times with complex social issues that take insightful determination to solve. Knee-jerk reactions like "take away guns", "kick out the Muslims", "build a wall", "get a gun" and the like do not go very far in terms of a solution. Bigotry, hatred, sexism aren't going to be fixed like that.
"Doing something" for the sake of reacting may not be the best choice.
A right wing terrorists shot somebody to death, there are two underlying issues. The fact that right wing extremism is being enabled at the highest ranks of the US Government, and that the US is so infested with guns that it's really easy for unstable individuals to get guns. You can try to fix both.
"Another manager threatened to beat an underperforming employee's head in with a baseball bat."
Now, that's what must be a highly motivating work environment :/
One must wonder how their hiring process works, i.e. letting such characters through the gates, since recent reports don't paint a pretty picture.
It's not the hiring process that's creating the problem, it's senior management. Management would have heard about the incident (or similar ones), and they had the ability to discipline both the manager to grabbed the baseball bat as well as his manager who didn't do anything about it. Instead they let the incident go, perhaps even laughing about it and treating it as an example of a passionate manager motivating his people.
It's like corruption in Russia, they didn't get that way by hiring corrupt government officials, they got that way by demonstrating, at the very top, that corruption was tolerated. That same baseball bat manager might have been a perfectly decent manager in a different organization, or weeded out if he couldn't play along, but put in an organization that didn't restrain his tendencies he becomes a menace.
The amount of Anonymous Cowards posting the same couple lines makes it obvious. This thread is being astroturfed.
Women are making more money than men for the same job and same amount of work today, especially in cities. Stop reading a bogus 30 year old paper crafted for a narrative and check current reports. or This or This or This and of course This Interestingly most of these are LEFT leaning sites, not Right/Conservative.
PolitiFact has given you the nuts and bolts about the 77 cents statistic -- you can read the two most important works in this area here and here. Basically, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when you compare women and men in the exact same jobs who have the same levels of experience and education. (emphasis mine)
The wage gap gets smaller when you control for job and experience, it doesn't disappear. And it's not certain you should be controlling for those things.
The stat about unmarried women in the 22-30 range earning more is part of it. For one those articles are from 2008-2012 when uneducated males were probably the hardest hit demographic, I'm not sure that stat would be true today.
Also, as they get older that gap is likely to reverse as men move out of apprenticeship positions (in labour or medicine) and as they start moving into management.
Do men get promoted into management because women make different career choices, or because we tend to view men as leaders? The answer to that question affects whether you view the wage gap as legitimate.
Just like 60% of all College students are women, 56% of all College graduates with advanced degrees are women. Yet we continue to hear that we need more women in college.
I'm an egalitarian, not a MRA. I also happen to believe in Socrates' definition of Philosopher, who must seek truth even at their own peril. Sadly the left avoids all truth and distorts everything they can for division and agenda.
More women in College isn't necessarily a sign of equality, women need degrees because uneducated women don't have the same job opportunities as uneducated men in skilled and unskilled labour. I think Iran, hardly an example of gender equality, also has more women in University.
Besides, you're arguing a straw man. The thing you actually year is not "we need more women in college", it's "we need more women in technical fields". There are a lot of well paying fields like software and engineering that women don't pursue, that's also responsible for part of the wage gap. It also leads to the creation of hostile dysfunctional workplaces like the one described in this article.
I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, I'm saying she was a normal politician.
You claimed the Clintons didn't profit personally. You were astoundingly wrong about that and turned a blind eye when cited evidence was provided.
I meant they didn't profit personally while in office. I figured this distinction was obvious since every high profile politician makes a ton of money after office, and some of that is surely influence peddling.
since she was trying to get rid of super PACs
Give me a break. The Clintons didn't give a shit about the corrupting influence of money in politics. They unabashedly played that game their whole career and profited immensely from it, both politically and personally.
Not everyone who plays the game but says they'll try to end the game in office is lying.
Clinton wasn't great on this regard, I don't think she really felt that the money was a big problem, but she said she'd try to get rid of the PACs I don't see any reason to doubt her.
really do think there was a subtext of sexism
What's sexist is playing the gender card.
When the playing field is slanted it's not discrimination to give a hand.
I'm not saying that Clinton was perfect, I'm saying she was a normal politician. All the things she's accused of are completely typical in US politics, elected she would have been no worse than a typical politician, if anything she might be slightly better since she was trying to get rid of super PACs and the Bernie camp would have had some influence to push the system.
The thing that pisses me off about it is that people only really seemed to care about this stuff once it applied to Hillary. I really do think there was a subtext of sexism, I think people felt that for a guy to play the game it was a normal ambitious guy thing to do, but for a woman to do the same somehow became sinister.
That doesn't mean anyone who criticizes her was sexist, not remotely. But there were a lot of sexist people passionately pushing the narratives that destroyed her image.
The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation
They used it as a slush fund to pay their cronies and assistants, including Bill Clinton Inc.
So the Clinton's go to some city to do some charity work and to give some paid speeches. How should they do that?
Should they use two different staffs? That's a lot of extra money and hassle.
Should they personally pay their staff to work for the charity? Sure, but they're spending a lot of their own money.
Or they could do what they did, have the charity pay for the same staff when that staff is working for the charity.
Sure they could have done it differently, but that doesn't seem fundamentally wrong.
Promises were also made and broken when she was given the Secretary of State position.
I don't know the full story of who was responsible for allowing those donations when she was Secretary of State. But if she was President they'd be completely detached from the foundation, there would be no opportunity for someone to donate to a Clinton charity because there would be none.
Oh, really? Strange how much money the Clintons made then peddling access then back when Hillary was still a power player. How much do you think she or Bill are getting for speaking fees now?
A "power player" is not a government official, former politicians cashing in is not new, even if the politician might return to a position of power.
The difference is that Trump is currently President.
Just then the reverend wheeled about to face the singers, his back now to the congregation, and continued his sermon—oblivious as the choir mouthed back to him, in silent unison, "Whoosh."
Were there hypocrites who supported Clinton? Of course.
Is it hypocrisy to have defended Clinton on the claims I set out while criticizing Trump now? Absolutely.
I'm a realist who accepts that people always commit some level of influence peddling, and don't always follow the rules as they should. But Trump what Trump is doing fundamentally different.
> Your original source is a video by a guy who is famous for dishonestly editing videos... and yet you keep going back to him as a primary source.
There's a bunch of evidence that corroborates it, unless you don't believe the FEC pay stubs or the independent YouTube videos of her lying to the cops?
You don't believe the DC police arrest records?
The evidence speaks for itself. I don't need to consider them credible.
So what? Even if the evidence is right all it means is someone who is passionate about politics to work for a PAC is also passionate enough to engage in underhanded tactics.
As I said, even if your evidence is true, it's irrelevant.
He has tweeted at a time he was scheduled to be in a Top Secret meeting. Either he's not attending his meetings, or he's tweeting during them. Either is gross negligence, so which gross negligence is it today?
Just to be clear since some people might have misread your comment as merely accusing Trump of not paying attention.
If he brought his phone into those meetings he was potentially carrying a remote listening device.
> Why would I believe
Because when the PV videos on staging violence came out, we found evidence that Zulema Rodriguez was employed by MoveOn to be in Arizona, we have a video of her blocking the road and lying to cops, and that corroborates the video?
Your original source is a video by a guy who is famous for dishonestly editing videos... and yet you keep going back to him as a primary source.
I have absolutely zero confidence that you know how to determine if a piece of evidence is true or relevant.
It's funny that all of this stuff wasn't a big deal to you hyper-partisans when Clinton was accused of them, but they suddenly are a big deal when Trump is doing them.
Your rah-rah-my-team bullshit is fucking up our world. It's a big deal when both teams do it. (And I'm calling you out, Ami, because you were defending Clinton for these very same things.)
It's perfectly valid to point out and criticize hypocracy, regardless of whether one personally agrees or disagrees with the underlying position.
But not all claims of hypocrisy are valid.
1) A tonne of people would have know about Clinton's private email server for years and virtually none of them thought anything of it, only once the GOP got a hold of it did it suddenly become a scandal. Meanwhile everyone is telling Trump his android has to go.
2) The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation, and they planned to fully divest themselves from the foundation after the election (and the foundation would change it's name). Trump still owns all the Trump Org stuff.
3) The cash stream from foreign entities, via speaking fees, had already stopped during the campaign and would not have resumed for her term. Trump is still receiving foreign cash through his businesses.
4) Pay-for-access is a sin committed by all politicians, Clinton more than most but that's at least partially because of her profile. But pay-for-access is about pay to the campaign or the party, not the individual. Trump is selling access that personally profits him.
It's a false equivalence, comparing Trump and Clinton scandals is comparing mountains with molehills.
The Trump trademark was granted several months ago, when the majority of news sources still put him at a huge disadvantage in the polls. There was a 3 month period where you could dispute the trademark which ended last week.
Making up stories does nothing good to the press, it only makes people distrust them more.
Not quite
China's trademark review board announced in September it had invalidated a rival claim for the Trump trademark, clearing the way for Trump to move in. In November, soon after the election, it awarded the trademark to the Trump Organization. The trademark was officially registered this week after a three-month notice period for objections expired.
Of course it could just be coincidence... but yeah, China was trying to curry favour and/or giving Trump something they could later threaten to take away.
Is Trump going to appear with the CEO to take credit for this one as well?
I think we are a long way from a Trump impeachment and conviction. I still can't see the Republicans sacrificing themselves when they control Congress and, at least no.inally the White House.
The smarter way to play this is to let Trump destroy his credibility and remaining political capital, and then inform him that he can either hand over day to day governance to Pence and then spend the rest of his term playing President on TV, or face impeachment. You get an effective Pence presidency without the nightmare that would be a forced removal from office.
The Trump administration was apparently told that Flynn lied about the call for a while, it's only once intelligence officers leaked to the press that Flynn was forced to resign.
I think there's a real possibility that they're preparing to do the same to Trump at some point, they might just waiting till he's vulnerable enough that whatever dirt they have on him (ie "he shot someone on 5th avenue") is enough to get the house to follow through on impeachment.
âoePolitical correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination.
This isn't about restricting or controlling people's language or fighting discrimination, it's about stopping harassment.
Consider criminal law, assuming you don't care about safety or property or anything besides freedom, then what do you want for a set of laws?
The easy answer is anarchy, but that's wrong because under anarchy a strongman will come in and take your freedom. The laws that give you the most freedom are also going to protect your safety and property, because if others are free to threaten you then you don't have freedom.
The same applies to speech, giving people the freedom to harass gives them the power to silence.
Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems? Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?
Welp, they're in charge so I guess they get to make the rules, but did they even bother to change the laws first?
Trump and the GOP are hypocrites?
That's unpossible!
The summary mentions Russia Today and Fox News, but not CNN? Perhaps we should tag submissions from Anonymous Cowards, and ' BeauHD' as equally unreliable and biased ...
You just had to signal that you're a loyal and enthusiastic Trump supporter didn't you?
Tell me, what exactly has CNN done that makes them "unreliable and biased" in a way that doesn't apply to other mainstream media publications?
Journalists are idiots, who only know what they're told.
Why would Intel be sharing its CapEx decision-making process with a journalist?
If the Journalist really knew, he'd go back through his "notes" and find the list of where Intel's proposed fab was going to be, then hunt down the decision-making process.
But he can't, so he basically is saying "I don't believe them because I have no information."
What an f-tard.
The past few months has been a steady line of CEOs coming to Trump to re-announce existing job creations, things that most definitely had nothing to do with Trump. But since Trump is a crony capitalist they recognize it's important to buy favour with Trump by giving him credit.
The default assumption for any new job announcement credited to Trump should be that it's more of the same, jobs created for other reasons but credited to the President to curry favour.
Unless there's evidence to the contrary there's sufficient information to assume this has nothing to do with Trump.
There are exceptions. But the vast majority of the time when I clicked through to a message board, hoping to find some insightful discussions about the movie or TV show I just saw, the discussions were just kinda stupid.
I think online communities build standards, early on /. managed to set a standard where most comments are relatively thoughtful and that seems to have persisted as the site grew. I don't think IMDB ever managed the same and the message boards have just become a bit of an eyesore.
Hitler breathed air. You breathe air. Therefore you are literally Hitler. None of the things you explicitly mentioned that Hitler did are the thigs Hitler did with certainty wrong. You hint at things he did wrong, but killing millions of people who are of a certain religious pursuasion, is nothing substantiality like prioritizing one religion over another. You may have a valid criticism about the religious prioritizing, but trying to say it is of the same issue as what Hitler did is nonsense.
I think the Hilter/Trump comparisons are mostly overblown.
But I'd feel a lot more comfortable if the weird associations didn't start popping up, all the white supremacist and neo-Nazi support for Trump, demonization of minority groups, and the reluctance of the GOP to stand up to any of it. Not to mention the refusal to accept that he lost the popular vote.
Is Trump going to do mass extermination of Muslims? Of course not.
But might he try to authorize the deportation of legal resident Muslims? The shutting down of Mosques he deems extremist? Legal restrictions of the rights of Muslims? I wouldn't be shocked.
And he won't accept the result in the election he just won, what happens if he loses a close election in 2020? What happens if the President loses and refuses to concede?
I don't get it either.
The order does not affect people from other countries, it doesn't affect people from your country, and it specifically doesn't affect *you*.
To paraphrase a famous quote:
First they came for the Jews, and then some libtard do-gooder starts complaining so I said what are you whining about? You're not a Jew, you'll be fine!
So, what's the "group think" on this one? Because I don't want to be called a racist or a xenophobe...
1) If he stops the abuse and fraud in the current system it's a good thing. People should never be in a situation where they're training their imported cheap replacement, and foreign workers should never be in the position of being indentured servants.
2) As unpopular as it is to say there is some justification for the H-1B program, even accounting for the abuse and fake vacancies there are areas where there simply aren't enough Americans with the necessary skills, and to make the US productive in those areas US companies need to import some highly skilled workers.
3) Trump isn't constrained by the stakeholders who are responsible for the current abused system, so he has an opportunity to avoid issues that come from trying to appease all the different vested interests.
4) Trump isn't constrained by reality either, there's a really good chance that what he signs will be a stupid policy, or even if it isn't a stupid policy it will be incompetently administered.
5) If you think Trump is an awful President who is a threat to US Democracy and world peace, Trump doing something awesome to fix H-1B visas won't change that. It will just mean he's an awful President who is a threat to US Democracy and world peace who improved one aspect of high skilled labour laws.
>I'm not sure there's a good metaphor
The best I've found is organ donation. Like organ donation - we're talking about saving other people's lives (in fact stopping an abortion saves ONE life, organ donation saves many). Yet organ donation requires your consent. WE have so much respect for bodily autonomy that we will not interfere with it EVEN AFTER YOU ARE DEAD to save lives unless you agreed to it while you were alive.
So why the hell should your bodily autonomy STOP existing when the life that could be saved is a fetus ?
But you just wiped out the bodily autonomy of the prospective mother by forcing her to go through with an unwanted process.
I think that abortion should be legal to anyone, but should only be paid for by the tax payers if it is needed to save the life of the mother or if the mother was a rape victim.
I'd add health of the mother and serious foetal abnormalities to that list or you're going to end up with a lot of very necessary abortions uncovered.
Otherwise - pay for it yourself, I do not want to pay for the result of your conscious and consensual act (after all, you could have used protection etc).
Just like I think that the government (I live in a country with national health care) should pay when somebody has to fix his tooth, but if you just want to make your teeth look whiter or implant a gold tooth, then you get to pay for it yourself.
Obesity, smoking, drunk driving, etc., I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of health care spending is caring for conditions that are the result of people's "conscious and consensual" acts. And an abortion isn't a cosmetic procedure like tooth whitening.
At the same time people don't have lasting health consequences from having non-medically necessary abortions. There's not a great metaphor either way.
I'm not sure there's a good metaphor
I gave numbers of women who support the current "Feminists", and my numbers are not contrived by current political pandering propaganda polls. I also gave numbers on pro-life women, who you chose to ignore. Those numbers are also not propaganda motivated polls. Continue living in your bubble, fucking idiot.
I'm sorry, your 7% number was pretty obviously made up or talking about something completely different. I mean 10% of American men consider themselves strong feminists.
You really expect me to believe you found a legitimate poll that suggested only 7% of Americans support the feminist movement?
As for abortion they don't have the exact question to match the direction of the Trump administration, but only 19% of Americans think abortion should be illegal.
I don't know where you think the goalposts are, I'm not even sure if you're on the right field.