TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%
Page 44 of 558 FirstFirst ... 4914192429343940414243444546474849545964697479848994144294544 ... LastLast
Results 1,076 to 1,100 of 13944

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #1076
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Iacon
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    I do shit like showing up at "coming out day" holding a rainbow sign. You more or less have to if you want to have access to any good economic opportunities in America.
    Okay other americans who aren't a howling void of misdirected rage, how true is this? I mean I can believe people are putting on displays of enthusiasm for progressive values that they don't quite believe in, but I somehow doubt it's a criteria for passing beyond waiting tables for a living.


    Anyways


    CIS Exaggerates the Cost of Immigrant Welfare Use

    "The CIS headline result, that immigrant-headed households consume more welfare than natives, lacks any kind of reasonable statistical controls. "

    (that's from the cato institute, I thought it would be useful to not pick a lefty source to defuse knee-jerk objections)
    Last edited by Chimpy Chompy; 13th Oct 2016 at 11:13.

  2. #1077
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Chimpy Chompy View Post
    Okay other americans who aren't a howling void of misdirected rage, how true is this?
    Utter nonsense. American business generally avoids political topics - not always, and not always successfully, but it's considered gauche in general. Avoiding the topic is usually considered your best bet.

  3. #1078
    is Best Pony
    Registered: Nov 2002
    Location: The magical land of Equestria
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    There's one where Hillary is (no shit) talking about Bronies
    You had my interest; now you have my attention.

  4. #1079
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    Tony is taking a kernel of truth and exaggerating it greatly.

    It's true that many American companies are falling over themselves to project an image of being diverse and welcoming diversity. For some companies it's part of their branding strategy. For my current company, a lot of it is about recruiting. We're competing for young tech talent from good schools, and the university environments they are coming from tend to be very socially progressive and politically correct. So when we send engineers, scientists, or IT people to help recruit on campus or at job fairs, we predominantly send women. When we occasionally send men, they are usually black. About half of our static displays highlight our technology and the other half promote our diversity.

    We have a top level diversity organization that reports directly to the CEO and the diversity executives are officers of the company. There are diversity champions on the org charts at most levels of the organization. There is diversity training to take, and diversity competencies that employees can attain to pad their resume. And there are employee organizations for 10-12 different categories of diversity: black, Hispanic, women, LGBT, Asian, disabled, native American, etc., etc. Practically everything but straight white male. All employees are encouraged to join one. Even if you're a straight white male, you're encouraged to join one as an 'ally'. Half of our performance rating is on values, and values related to diversity and inclusiveness are at the top.

    We've never had a "coming out day" at work and I suspect Tony is making that up. But it is definitely the case with my employer that being a member of a "diversity" group (in our case that means being female, ethnic minority, disabled, or LGBT) gives you a significantly greater chance at being selected for one of our leadership development programs or being mentored by a senior manager, both of which are keys for advancing beyond front-line leadership. And if you're not a "diverse" person yourself, being seen as an employee who promotes and champions diversity will help your career.

    Regarding politics, while I agree with Pyrian that it is gauche to engage in partisan political debate at work, most companies are politically active to promote their business interests. My company has a PAC made up of employees and funded by employee contributions. On our internal website, you can read about which candidates the company supports and why you should support them. There are levels of membership within the PAC based on your contribution amount, and the higher levels get you invitations to meetings with senior executives where you can network and advocate for yourself or your organization or project. There's been pressure this year to be a member. I get emails almost daily from various people encouraging me to join, and membership has nearly doubled this year to ~20% of employees.

  5. #1080
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Funny you should say that, as back in the day Trump himself called Paula Jones a loser and said that Bill Clinton was the real victim.
    Back in the day, and now, Trump was a corrupt, narcissistic, immoral degenerate. Back in the day, he was also a Democrat and an ally of the Clintons'. Trump has no character, and isn't fit to be the President. His unfitness for office doesn't make Hillary fit. She's as evil, self-serving, and corrupt as they come. I won't vote for either of them, and I intend to change my registration from Republican to Independent in response to the RNC's support of the orange-headed ass-hat.

  6. #1081
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Draxil, can you tell me in what respects Hillary is evil?

  7. #1082
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Amidst the gloom generated by this electioneering business, I read this.

    A few snippets:

    On further examination, I realised I had been mistaken for a man called Reuben R - my email address somehow having become attached to his identity.
    This was the beginning of a whole series of Trump-related emails, intended for Reuben R - evidently a loyal supporter of the Republican Party's presidential candidate, but instead reaching me - a left-leaning, female writer living on the other side of the Atlantic.
    I began to enjoy my double life. Next, I was selected for the honour of having my name inscribed in the official Republican Record Book - for $25. "As a top conservative, we would like to recognize you for your many years of dedication and service to the Republican Party," read the email.
    "Don't be the only Trump supporter in your neighbourhood without a sign!" urged the message - although it seemed frankly unlikely that anyone else in Finchley would have one.

    Should I put a "Vote Trump" sign up? I mused. I already had two signs attached to my gatepost - one in support of my children's school summer fair, and the other urging locals to help the homeless in Barnet. I doubted there was room for a third.
    When she didn't donate to Rubio:

    When I failed to provide a contribution, despite the campaign's success resting on my shoulders, I received an email from Senator Rubio himself: "This is disturbing," it read. "I just received a concerning update from my campaign manager, Clint. It's not good. I didn't hear back from you before the End of Quarter deadline. This puts me in a really tough position."

  8. #1083
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Land of the crazy
    That is one reason why I am registered as an independent. Around here, if you register with a party, you get inundated with mailings and pestered with phone calls.

  9. #1084
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2002
    Location: Pacific Northwest
    There's been jokes of repealing the 19th Amendment so women can't vote. I say repeal the whole fucking constitution so nobody can vote.

    Make America Great Britain Again.



    (j/king i hate tea)

  10. #1085
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2000
    Location: Portreath Cornwall UK
    So, Trump now wants drug tests before the next election debate...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us...test.html?_r=0

    There is a can of worms that perhaps should not be opened. But, after seeing Clinton being helped into her vehicle many people may well agree with him. Perhaps all polititians should be regularly tested, they are after all making extreme decisions and jingoistic rhetoric comes easily when as high as a kite.

  11. #1086
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    I will confess some curiosity as to whether Trump's debate sniffling involves a snuff habit.

  12. #1087
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    We all must agree that the media is heavily against Trump though.

    I'll admit he's a crackpot (after watching some of the debate earlier last week), but there is a thing called impartiality that the media is supposed to do during elections (but never seems to), as otherwise the public as a whole will be influenced one way or another.

    So when he came out yesterday and said that the election was rigged, I'd have to agree when factoring that into it. I have not seen 1 election in my lifetime where someone won an election when the media was HEAVILY against them, as like it or not, they sway the opinions of the people to their viewpoint.

    So with that said, he hasn't a chance in hell imo.

  13. #1088
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Not anymore, Ice. The FCC used to enforce the Fairness Doctrine, which required the media to always present all sides of any issue that was considered controversial or in the public interest. It was struck down in the early 80's as being burdensome to the media, and a violation of their first amendment rights.

    It should be no surprise to anyone that the polarization of our politics followed shortly thereafter. Kinda feels like one of those road to hell is paved with good intentions moments in retrospect.

  14. #1089
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    Well that depends. If someone is objectively awful and the media report that they are awful, is the media being biased? If the media normalises coverage of everyone to be neither positive nor negative despite their objective qualities, is that good journalism?

  15. #1090
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    It was more like there was an actual division between the news and editorials back in the day. Papers and networks could still air their opinions freely, they just had to be marked as such. But if they were running a report on, say, some hot topic issue congress was voting on, they had to first present both sides of the issue before doing so.

    Basically, it prevented spin and biased reporting, which is now our biggest problem. To use Trump as an example, a newspaper can freely run an article about his sexual misconduct, and choose not to run a counterpoint if they don't feel like it.

  16. #1091
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    I'm sorry, but I consider that idea of balance bullshit. It's mechanical and phony. If something is a lie or at least a distortion of the truth, then that should be reported, and there's no counterpoint to that. I completely agree with faetal and would go so far as to say that a dodgy notion of balance is partly what brought about the current situation: the idea that both sides are equally bad.

  17. #1092
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    We all must agree that the media is heavily against Trump though.
    Do you want the media to be accurate? Because sometimes, being even-handed would be just lying.

  18. #1093
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirith View Post
    I'm sorry, but I consider that idea of balance bullshit. It's mechanical and phony. If something is a lie or at least a distortion of the truth, then that should be reported, and there's no counterpoint to that. I completely agree with faetal and would go so far as to say that a dodgy notion of balance is partly what brought about the current situation: the idea that both sides are equally bad.
    Well that is what democracy compared to Communism is supposed to be. Fair impartial reporting of the good and bad of both sides. Not reporting of only the bad, while placing the other person in a good light, as that's an unfair contest.

    And they are equally bad. You just see it more upfront in Trump's case.

  19. #1094
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Thirith View Post
    I'm sorry, but I consider that idea of balance bullshit. It's mechanical and phony. If something is a lie or at least a distortion of the truth, then that should be reported, and there's no counterpoint to that. I completely agree with faetal and would go so far as to say that a dodgy notion of balance is partly what brought about the current situation: the idea that both sides are equally bad.
    I disagree, and I'll tell you why.

    Okay, say that there are 8 stories out floating around in news land at the moment. 4 of them are about the democrats, 4 the republicans. Of those 4 each, 2 are stories that show them in a shining light, 2 of them showing that they've severely dropped the ball on something.

    Here's how media bias currently works. See, no one lies outright, but they can be selective with their truths. Fox news might choose to run 4 of those stories. The two that paint the republicans positively, and the two that show the democrats fucking up severely. Now what will people who solely watch Fox news get out of that? That the democrats are utterly inept, and only idiots would vote against the republicans, who are the only competent party in Washington. Their editorials would only go to further enforce their bias, because they've never run a counterpoint to argue against. They can just continually harp upon those negatives without ever acknowledging the positives.

    MSNBC would have the equal opposite problem.

    There is no such thing as perfectly balanced reporting anymore. It occasionally gets so bad you have media sites dressing up editorials as the news. They're pandering to a loyal base, which now has a skewed view of the actual situation because of this pandering.

    The end result of getting rid of the Fairness Doctrine is all around us. Back in its heyday, there wasn't nearly so sharp a political division between the parties. Democrats and Republicans had a much larger overlap of voters and interests. There was still some partisanship, of course, especially in concerns to social issues, but it wasn't so stark. That's the upside of forcing our networks to present all the facts at hand before offering their opinion. It kept them all honest, and allowed everyone to having a wider view of the inner workings of the nation.

    Nowadays, it's more like you're a part of a club, and the club newspaper you get paints all those other clubs as being really shitty and dumb. If you're a republican, you watch Fox News, like any red blooded American should. If you're a democrat, you probably watch MSNBC, like any erudite, informed human being should.

  20. #1095
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Do you want the media to be accurate? Because sometimes, being even-handed would be just lying.
    No, it's just a simple reporting of facts. If person A does something, and person B does something back, both should be reported. Only choosing to focus on A or B, making one or the other look worse in the omission, skews the story as a whole.

    This isn't being neutral for the sake of neutrality. It's merely fairly reporting all the facts as they come to light. After that's established, anyone can say whatever the hell they want about anyone else.

  21. #1096
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    And that is the point of the media in the first place. Not for pushing political agendas.

    Otherwise that is what's called - Propaganda.

  22. #1097
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Well, yeah and no. Even when the fairness doctrine was in place, everyone was allowed to air their agendas. It's just they couldn't embellish the truth to better fit it like they can now.

  23. #1098
    verbose douchebag
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Lyon, France
    The media should report the news. If you have partisan outlet A versus partisan outlet B putting their own spin on that news, then demographics A & B both lose out on the news. They aren't even watching news, they are watching, as Icemann puts it, propaganda. Even in so-called non-partisan media (like the BBC claims to be), the idea of balance is, e.g for something like anthropogenic climate change which is overwhelmingly supported by all of the relevant sciences, presented as 1 climate scientist versus 1 denier, which presents the issue as a balanced one when it is anything but.

    Did no one else find it kind of weird from a statistical standpoint how the Brexit vote was almost completely 50:50? Could be an aberration, but also could be due to the media's false framing of issues as being a coin toss.
    Last edited by faetal; 16th Oct 2016 at 15:17.

  24. #1099
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    Well that is what democracy compared to Communism is supposed to be. Fair impartial reporting of the good and bad of both sides. Not reporting of only the bad, while placing the other person in a good light, as that's an unfair contest.
    The U.S. Constitution holds that the press should be free to report as they please.

    Quote Originally Posted by icemann View Post
    And they are equally bad.
    No, that's precisely the sort of nonsense that's resulting from the media focusing on being even-handed as opposed to being accurate. Any "fair impartial reporting" would have to depict Trump terribly and repeatedly point out that Hillary's scandals are mostly hot air being blown by partisan actors. "Embassy attacks and resulting deaths dropped by over 90% during Clinton's term as Secretary of State."

    EDIT:

    Hillary Clinton's foundation accepted donations from foreign powers that should've been reported to and cleared (or rejected) by the state department, to avoid any appearance of quid pro quo. (No actual quid pro quo has been alleged that isn't paper-thin nonsense.) Is that bad? Yeah, that's bad.

    Trump's foundation used other people's money to settle his legal debts, and buy paintings of himself, at least one of which is displayed in one of his buildings, which he calls a "gift" to his foundation and presumably is deducting from his taxes. He flat-out refuses to take any actions that might mitigate his many and obvious corrupting influences, instead claiming ludicrously that having his own family run his businesses while he's president removed conflicts of interest. (Then there's his self-serving tax plan and the fact that the campaign he claimed he'd self-fund appears to instead be getting used to enrich himself.)

    These aren't in the same league.
    Last edited by Pyrian; 16th Oct 2016 at 16:05.

  25. #1100
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Utter nonsense. American business generally avoids political topics - not always, and not always successfully, but it's considered gauche in general. Avoiding the topic is usually considered your best bet.
    Not entirely true. Rabid and outspoken talk of how Donald Trump is a racist bigot, Extremely enthusiastic LGBT activism, and agonizing over "diversity"(e.g. given women/certain minorities preferential hiring and promotion) are all more or less requirements to exist in corporate America.

    Also keep in mind that I'm complaining about "diversity programs" are bullshit favoritism even when I fall into two of those categories myself (one based on career experience, other racial due to one parent). I know because I use them.

    We've never had a "coming out day" at work and I suspect Tony is making that up. But it is definitely the case with my employer that being a member of a "diversity" group (in our case that means being female, ethnic minority, disabled, or LGBT) gives you a significantly greater chance at being selected for one of our leadership development programs or being mentored by a senior manager, both of which are keys for advancing beyond front-line leadership. And if you're not a "diverse" person yourself, being seen as an employee who promotes and champions diversity will help your career.
    No, not making it up. We had a "coming out day" where the LGBT MBA students were serving cupcakes and having everone else taking photos holding signs that say "I come out as a" LGBT/Ally/etc.



    But....main point.

    I found something that is beyond bizarre in the emails.

    https://wikileaks.com/podesta-emails/emailid/1459

    Where it gets weird is when you realize Podesta has absolutely no business in Cinema or producing films, and you look at the location where that Smithsonian map points out. There was a significant event that occurred not long afterwards where that line points.

Page 44 of 558 FirstFirst ... 4914192429343940414243444546474849545964697479848994144294544 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •