-
[QUOTE=aja_christopher;3799924]To be fair to her, she called him out on the cheating to his face in a live debate aired before millions -- it's not her fault if people were too ignorant to listen.
Now if the argument is that she should have just hit him over the head with a chair instead....
I'm not ignoring anything but another terminally useless argument over Hillary Clinton's "flaws" which are practically Pavlovian for you.
But not for me, so I'm moving on.[/QUOTE]
Re "flaws": I don't think anyone in 2016 voted on the matter of perceived flaws, but in terms of self-interest, individual or group.
-
[QUOTE=Mister Mets;3803341]Or it could be that decision-makers finally felt proud of the country with Obama in the White House.
Pennsylvania had a Democratic governor, and it was one of the three states that pushed Trump over.
There is an argument that new voting restrictions made the difference in Wisconsin, but that would have changed Trump's electoral college win from 304-227 to 294-237.
[url]https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13597452/voter-suppression-clinton-trump-2016[/url]
This isn't that shocking.
The states were held to a tougher standard to past injustices committed generations ago when a different party was in charge. When they're held to the same standard as every other state, the bottleneck will be opened, and there's going to be a period of greater activity.[/QUOTE]
And
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html[/url] (includes PA}
[url]http://prospect.org/article/voter-suppression-mirror-and-looking-forward[/url]
And you ignore MI and FL and NC.
So you are in the Roberts camp of nothing to see here and that was decades ago. Even though, as soon as he took the breaks off, these same states put forth the exact type of laws and efforts that the VRA was meant to stop.
I guess as long as it helps your Party, what is the denial of a few voters rights?
-
[QUOTE=InformationGeek;3801578]This is Sam Seder all over again. F**king hell man. This guy, who said the following, is someone Disney decided to listen to:
Disney knew about these tweets from years ago before hiring Gunn and he apologized for him. The time to drop him was back then, not now and not for these reasons, especially giving the people at play here.[/QUOTE]
Once the dipstick conservatives publicized the matter-- and yes, I consider them dipsticks on the same level as the Starbucks Two, for illicitly exploiting public outrage-- Disney was placed in a position that some employee might bring suit and use their no-tolerance policy against them. Therefore, they dumped Gunn to play it safe.
More proof that liberals and conservatives suck equally.
-
[QUOTE=Mister Mets;3803351]Whenever there's this kind of controversy about someone saying something stupid in a private venue, there should be more blame for anyone with a megaphone who repeats the comments.
James Gunn made his jokes as an obscure filmmaker, years before he was offered Guardians of the Galaxy.
Ted Cruz is posting this as a prominent Senator, with millions of followers. He is the one exposing children, whose parents might have assumed that the twitter feed of a right-wing Senator would be appropriate for all-ages, to the comments that he claims to denounce.
And then there's the freedom of speech implication of calling for someone to be prosecuted over a sick joke.
Unless the Meuller investigation shows something like the hacking of election machinery, it is entirely likely that we're not going to get more evidence of the actual effects of Russian meddling. What we'll have to go on is what we have now (there were hacks, weird memes, and Russian bots.) Much of the investigation is about what people knew and when they knew it, rather than on the effects.[/QUOTE]
Agreed (10 char)
-
Speak out against injustice -- it makes a difference.
I still hope this guy finds a better job, though -- ten years without a raise means it's time to move on.
-----
[B][I]"Churchill: After outrage, Home Depot reverses course, rehires Albany man"
[/B]
"Home Depot changed its mind about Maurice Rucker.
On Tuesday, the company fired him for confronting a racist customer. On Friday, thanks to the anger expressed by many of you, the big-box retailer decided it had made a mistake.
"We've taken another look at this and we are offering Maurice his job back," spokesman Stephen Holmes said Friday evening in an email."
[B]
"I'm a black man, and I have dealt with all levels of racism all my life," Rucker said. "I am not going to accept racist behavior at work, home, the streets or anyplace else."[/B]
Many were furious with Home Depot — and not only because Rucker was fired. Ma[B]ny couldn't believe he had worked for the company for 10 years, starting in a store near Boston, yet had only seen his hourly rate increase from $12 to $12.78 an hour over the period.[/B]
Many readers fired off angry emails to Home Depot. Others spoke to management at the Central Avenue store. Several others started GoFundMe accounts for Rucker. (One raised $700 within hours of going up.) There was even a protest planned for Saturday morning outside the store, but organizers said late Friday that has been canceled.
[B]
I heard from Home Depot employees and customers who know or remembered Rucker. All the reviews were positive. I didn't hear a word that suggested Rucker wasn't a fine employee.[/B]
"Maurice was one of the nicest guys you could possibly meet," said a former co-worker. "He is quite the gentleman."
One Home Depot customer said he would seek out Rucker's register when shopping at the store, because he was always so kind and courteous. Others remembered Rucker for successfully leading their children's birthday parties as part of his responsibilities with the store's "Kids Workshop."
All of which raises the question: Why in the world did Home Depot fire this guy? Didn't his 10 years of service count for anything?"[/I]
[url]https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/Churchill-After-outrage-Home-Depot-reverses-13092691.php[/url]
-
He's running. And I bet Hillary and Bernie are running too. Can the Democrats not find anyone who is under, say, 72?
[url]https://www.yahoo.com/gma/were-midst-assault-human-dignity-joe-biden-150604047--abc-news-topstories.html[/url]
-
[QUOTE=Trey Strain;3803656]He's running. And I bet Hillary and Bernie are running too. Can the Democrats not find anyone who is under, say, 72?
[url]https://www.yahoo.com/gma/were-midst-assault-human-dignity-joe-biden-150604047--abc-news-topstories.html[/url][/QUOTE]
I saw nothing in that article that said Biden is running for office.
-
[QUOTE=WestPhillyPunisher;3803696]I saw nothing in that article that said Biden is running for office.[/QUOTE]
Of course you didn't. You didn't see anything about Hillary or Bernie running either. But you don't have to be a genius to figure it out when someone is [I]positioning himself to run.[/I]
I bet Jeff Flake will run too, if he can raise the money. You know, that guy who votes the way Trump wants him to but keeps complaining about how awful Trump is. He wants to be a version of Trump who just [I]talks nicer.[/I]
-
[QUOTE=WestPhillyPunisher;3803696]I saw nothing in that article that said Biden is running for office.[/QUOTE]
Of course not, this is just another red herring.
[QUOTE=Trey Strain;3803703]Of course you didn't. You didn't see anything about Hillary or Bernie running either. But you don't have to be a genius to figure it out when someone is [I]positioning himself to run.[/I][/QUOTE]
Why not just report them on Twitter?
-
[QUOTE=Trey Strain;3803703]Of course you didn't. You didn't see anything about Hillary or Bernie running either. But you don't have to be a genius to figure it out when someone is [I]positioning himself to run.[/I]
I bet Jeff Flake will run too, if he can raise the money. You know, that guy who votes the way Trump wants him to but keeps complaining about how awful Trump is. He wants to be a version of Trump who just [I]talks nicer.[/I][/QUOTE]
Come back to me when there are [B]VERIFIED[/B] reports from major news sources that they’re running, not wild assed guesses from your fevered imagination.
-
[QUOTE=aja_christopher;3803633]Speak out against injustice -- it makes a difference.
I still hope this guy finds a better job, though -- ten years without a raise means it's time to move on.
[/QUOTE]
That is the real injustice.
-
[QUOTE=aja_christopher;3803633]Speak out against injustice -- it makes a difference.
I still hope this guy finds a better job, though -- ten years without a raise means it's time to move on.
-----
[B][I]"Churchill: After outrage, Home Depot reverses course, rehires Albany man"
[/B]
"Home Depot changed its mind about Maurice Rucker.
On Tuesday, the company fired him for confronting a racist customer. On Friday, thanks to the anger expressed by many of you, the big-box retailer decided it had made a mistake.
"We've taken another look at this and we are offering Maurice his job back," spokesman Stephen Holmes said Friday evening in an email."
[B]
"I'm a black man, and I have dealt with all levels of racism all my life," Rucker said. "I am not going to accept racist behavior at work, home, the streets or anyplace else."[/B]
Many were furious with Home Depot — and not only because Rucker was fired. Ma[B]ny couldn't believe he had worked for the company for 10 years, starting in a store near Boston, yet had only seen his hourly rate increase from $12 to $12.78 an hour over the period.[/B]
Many readers fired off angry emails to Home Depot. Others spoke to management at the Central Avenue store. Several others started GoFundMe accounts for Rucker. (One raised $700 within hours of going up.) There was even a protest planned for Saturday morning outside the store, but organizers said late Friday that has been canceled.
[B]
I heard from Home Depot employees and customers who know or remembered Rucker. All the reviews were positive. I didn't hear a word that suggested Rucker wasn't a fine employee.[/B]
"Maurice was one of the nicest guys you could possibly meet," said a former co-worker. "He is quite the gentleman."
One Home Depot customer said he would seek out Rucker's register when shopping at the store, because he was always so kind and courteous. Others remembered Rucker for successfully leading their children's birthday parties as part of his responsibilities with the store's "Kids Workshop."
All of which raises the question: Why in the world did Home Depot fire this guy? Didn't his 10 years of service count for anything?"[/I]
[url]https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/Churchill-After-outrage-Home-Depot-reverses-13092691.php[/url][/QUOTE]The rehiring was pretty much inevitable, but I do agree that it'd be great if the guy were to get better work.
[QUOTE=Tendrin;3803370]This might be one of the more unintentionally funny things you've written in a while.
I mean, the idea that anything relating to Ted Cruz is appropriate for all ages...[/QUOTE]From the perspective of right-wingers, his stuff should be all-ages. Some of his fans made a coloring book about him.
[url]https://www.amazon.com/Ted-Cruz-Future-Coloring-Activity/dp/1619530953[/url]
-
[QUOTE=MindofShadow;3803745]That is the real injustice.[/QUOTE]
That was standard practice back when I was in management -- we had a guy just like the one in the story who had been there for twelve years. Eight of those without a raise and they finally got rid of him by reducing his hours from around 28 per week to around 12.
Another one of my workers had been there for twenty eight years and hadn't gotten a raise in eight years either -- they actually had the nerve to give her a twenty five year pin (without the raise that she asked for almost weekly) three years late when I found it underneath some old files in the HR office.
It was so bad that even when my department won district wide sales contests the top manager would complain when I spent the winnings on lunches for the employees -- we won enough monthly to reward the entire store -- because he said it was hurting "productivity".
How the hell was it hurting productivity to reward our employees if we kept winning first place in the district in sales as a result?
-
[QUOTE=Trey Strain;3803656]He's running. And I bet Hillary and Bernie are running too. Can the Democrats not find anyone who is under, say, 72?
[url]https://www.yahoo.com/gma/were-midst-assault-human-dignity-joe-biden-150604047--abc-news-topstories.html[/url][/QUOTE]
The parties don't get a say in who wants to run. That's how you got Bernie and Agent Orange in the first place.
-
[QUOTE=Kirby101;3803564]And
[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html[/url] (includes PA}
[url]http://prospect.org/article/voter-suppression-mirror-and-looking-forward[/url]
And you ignore MI and FL and NC.
So you are in the Roberts camp of nothing to see here and that was decades ago. Even though, as soon as he took the breaks off, these same states put forth the exact type of laws and efforts that the VRA was meant to stop.
I guess as long as it helps your Party, what is the denial of a few voters rights?[/QUOTE] Pennsylvania is relevant as a swing state with a Democratic Governor. That combination suggests that Republicans would have a tougher time with shenanigans. The American Prospect article about Pennsylvania notes that activities documented in 2012 that could be said to suppress the vote were lessened in 2016.
I didn't ignore Michigan, Florida and North Carolina. I posted an article from Vox suggesting that while it is possible Wisconsin was flipped due to Republican regulations due to the closeness of the result and the number of regulations, it is less likely for that to have happened in the other states.
[url]https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13597452/voter-suppression-clinton-trump-2016[/url]
Incidentally, the argument isn't that it is likely that the results were changed in Wisconsin, but that there's a better case than elsewhere.
[QUOTE]Keeping that in mind, let’s look at the swing states that had new voting restrictions in time for 2016: Ohio, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.
In Ohio, lawmakers cut one week of early voting, keeping about four weeks of early voting in place. Clinton lost that state to Trump by 8.6 points — way more than one would expect a 0 to 1 percentage point decrease in turnout to cause.
In North Carolina, lawmakers cut voting sites for early voting and Election Day, but they never managed to implement broader restrictions they passed (including voter ID and early voting cuts) after a court struck those measures down. Clinton lost the state by 3.8 points — again, more than a 0 to 1 percentage point decrease in voter turnout would likely cause.
In Wisconsin, Clinton supporters again have the most compelling case. Clinton lost Wisconsin by 1 percentage point, which could definitely fall in the realm of reduced turnout from voting restrictions. But that’s only if you assume the maximum effect that voter suppression can have.[/QUOTE]
Michigan and Florida did not have any new regulations between the 2012 and 2016 elections.
As for Roberts, the Voting Rights act of 1965 determined that due to a history of abuse at that time, nine states would need federal approval in order to change their election laws. Things had changed by 2013, when contemporary information would be more important. There hadn't been an adequately articulated argument for why these nine states must be treated differently.
[QUOTE=aja_christopher;3803548]Let's take a real objective look at this situation Mets: you keep trying to tell me what the "facts" tell us when I'm (repeatedly) telling you that we don't have all of the facts yet, so it's ridiculous to even have this argument.
Stop trying to tell me what to think, Mets -- you're welcome to your opinion, but repeating it over and over again doesn't make it any more true than it was the first time around. Maybe you feel that it's okay to repeatedly belittle and dismiss out of hand a direct Russian attack on America's democracy -- as that serves the interests of your chosen party -- but I don't.
A month or so ago we didn't even know about the extent of the Russian infiltration into the NRA and now we have an entirely new realm of corruption to explore within the Republican party.
Should be fun to watch -- especially once the subpoenas hit and the trials start.
It is a bit ironic to sit here debating this with someone who doesn't seem concerned with doing more than giving lip service to issue of civil rights -- why would you think someone is concerned with your political opinion when they don't even seem concerned with the fact that their party is openly using [B]illegal[/B] means to suppress your vote as they know that's the only way that they can win?
[url]https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/07/poll-prri-voter-suppression/565355/[/url]
[url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/janetwburns/2018/05/19/cambridge-analytica-whistleblower-bannon-sought-to-suppress-black-voters/[/url]
Despite all of the rhetoric, the bottom line is that the Republican party will do whatever it can to suppress the minority vote including taking [B]illegal[/B] action against said minority groups -- Mets seems to see this (and things like illegally separating kids from their parents) as just "politics" despite the fact that the civil rights of women, LGBT citizens and "minorities" of all different racial backgrounds are being openly attacked by the party in question.[/QUOTE]On the Russia thing, I'm not trying to tell you what to think. I'm relaying the facts, as I understand it. If there's a portion of my earlier statement you disagree with, what is it?
[QUOTE] Unless the Meuller investigation shows something like the hacking of election machinery, it is entirely likely that we're not going to get more evidence of the actual effects of Russian meddling. What we'll have to go on is what we have now (there were hacks, weird memes, and Russian bots.) Much of the investigation is about what people knew and when they knew it, rather than on the effects.[/QUOTE]
I'm curious as to what facts could be uncovered that would you provide a better understanding of the effects of Russian interference?
As for "politics," these decisions have pros and cons that can affect large numbers of people. If lawmakers make the wrong decision, some people will fail to reach their potential and/ or die. When lawmakers make the right decision, perhaps a smaller number of different people fail to reach their full potential and/ or die. In many controversies, there isn't a perfect answer; it's more about measuring different sets of consequences.
With the separated children, I am concerned that more people will die if we reward parents for bringing their children on dangerous journeys across the border.
On civil rights controversies, the wisdom of a decision depends on a particular case. But these do often come with harmful, unintended consequences.
An example would be regulations that make it so employers can't search the criminal records of potential employees, something that was seen as harmful to African American job-seekers. One consequence is that employers are now less likely to hire anyone they suspect might have a criminal record.
[url]https://qz.com/1023279/an-economist-explains-why-stopping-employers-from-doing-criminal-background-checks-doesnt-really-help-anybody/[/url]
[url]https://www.nber.org/papers/w22469[/url]