NM11046 Posted April 2, 2019 Share Posted April 2, 2019 @Moiraine wanted to make sure you saw this latest ASMR video :-) Link to comment
TGHusker Posted April 2, 2019 Author Share Posted April 2, 2019 1 hour ago, NM11046 said: This: I’m coming at this mostly from a work perspective. I.e. if you would take one of your male employees out to lunch alone you should be willing to do the same with a female employee. Otherwise even if you’re not conscious of it, you’re giving him a better opportunity to get promoted by default of getting to know him better. Not to put too fine a point on it, as I think many of us are on the same page here, but this is an example of privilege - we hear a lot about white privilege, but not as much about male privilege. I point it out only because I think often times it's hard to define, and once you're aware it's easier to do so and make adjustments. How many women get asked to golf with the management team? Get offered courtside seats etc. (and Moiraine I've had the same situation with sports talk, it only takes me showing them up once before that changes, I'm sure you're the same). I had the conversation recently with my boss, who I am very close to - I'd say as a friend relationship we're closer than others at the company. When I approached him and a group of male colleagues recently they stopped talking. When I asked what the topic was they said it wasn't about me, it just was not appropriate to say in front of me,, bad language and such (eyeroll) so I politely pointed out that I can drop 'F-bombs" with the best of them, so if they felt something was too salty for me to hear, then it probably wasn't an appropriate work topic. I'm no prude, so if they clammed up it was bad. He thanked me afterward and I know will be aware moving forward. Similar note - Valerie Jarrett had a book come out (yesterday?) and there are some great examples of Obama WH time where she had to help them be aware of privilege. A good practice of women supporting women by repeating ideas and giving credit instead of letting men talk over them in meetings - it's a real issue. Good post NM I use to manage a group of 20 men and women in my dept. (I thank God literally I no longer have to deal wt that frustration - Free at last, Free at last - it was the most stressful job I've ever had but for other reasons - we had a great team that accomplished a lot). Regarding the bold - I made it a practice to never show favoritism - I didn't just go to the lunch wt one guy that I supervised. If it was a lunch time out it was a team time out any who wanted to come were invited. One on one business stuff was conducted at work. Many schools, businesses have window in doors to try to keep the wrong from happening - to keep honest people honest. At my previous job, where I had 20 employees, I didn't have a window - so I first tried leaving the door open a crack - that didn't go over well. Then I decided to use the conf room wt windows for every private one on one meeting - guy or gal. If it was to discuss a very sensitive situation, I would have a HR person in the room. 2 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted April 3, 2019 Author Share Posted April 3, 2019 I'm getting to like this guy, Buttigieg, more and more on a personal level - I'll have to review his policies more. He is spot on about Trump. I still think, with or without Mueller, there is coming a time of great humbling for Trump. My hope is that the nation is spared of any repercussions of such a humbling. Pete also wasn't afraid to be critical of conservatives and Dems in how they do or do not allow faith to reflect policy values. https://www.mediaite.com/trump/mayor-buttigieg-its-hard-to-look-at-trumps-actions-and-think-he-believes-in-god/ Quote Presidential candidate and South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg said during his interview with USA Today that it is hard to look at the actions of President Donald Trump and think he believes in God. “I’m reluctant to comment on another person’s faith, but I would say it is hard to look at this president’s actions and believe that they’re the actions of somebody who believes in God,” Buttigieg said. “I just don’t understand how you can be as worshipful of your own self as he is and be prepared to humble yourself before God. I’ve never seen him humble himself before anyone. And the exaltation of yourself, especially a self that’s about wealth and power, could not be more at odds with at least my understanding of the teachings of the Christian faith,” he added. He also criticized conservatives for “saying so much about what Christ said so little about, and so little about what he said so much about,” like how the issue of abortion has become a litmus test. During an interview with The Washington Post, he also criticized Democrats for their tendencies to shun religion. “I think it’s unfortunate [the Democratic Party] has lost touch with a religious tradition that I think can help explain and relate our values,” the Navy veteran said. “At least in my interpretation, it helps to root [in religion] a lot of what it is we do believe in when it comes to protecting the sick and the stranger and the poor, as well as skepticism of the wealthy and the powerful and the established.” 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted April 4, 2019 Author Share Posted April 4, 2019 More from Pete. He confronts the 'socialist' label straight on in this interview. https://www.mediaite.com/election-2020/pete-buttigieg-says-crying-socialism-is-tired-obamacare-was-a-conservative-idea-which-they-called-socialist/ 1 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 Not cool from Bernie. He was evasive about his taxes last time, too. I don't get it. If you want us to elect you to the highest office in the lane, be transparent with us. We've had 2+ years of figuring out what it's like when presidents aren't, and it ain't good. Link to comment
commando Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 52 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: my theory is that tucker has brain constipation. Link to comment
funhusker Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 55 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: I've thought the same thing, even before the 2016 election. Whether he is trying to not to win or is just bad at the job isn't what worries me most. That would be the 40-50% of voters that are fine with either scenario. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted April 5, 2019 Author Share Posted April 5, 2019 2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: Readers Digest version please - since the story requires a subscription. Thanks Link to comment
TGHusker Posted April 5, 2019 Author Share Posted April 5, 2019 10 hours ago, Danny Bateman said: Not cool from Bernie. He was evasive about his taxes last time, too. I don't get it. If you want us to elect you to the highest office in the lane, be transparent with us. We've had 2+ years of figuring out what it's like when presidents aren't, and it ain't good. Maybe he's really a 1%er It could link back to some investigations of his wife's work I think as a college president or something - Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 10 minutes ago, TGHusker said: Readers Digest version please - since the story requires a subscription. Thanks He basically floats the idea that Trump wants out of the White House and the only way to do that is to do certain things like cutting Medicare and cutting funding to e-verify so companies can hire illegals (which are against his promises) to lose votes. It's basically the Republican's attempt to start to save face in the event Trump loses in 2020. They'll say, "well, he wanted out anyway." The punch line at the end is that the administration is actively thinking about doing the things listed in the article. It's also the Republican's attempt to save face when their savior does things that piss off their base. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted April 5, 2019 Author Share Posted April 5, 2019 6 hours ago, BigRedBuster said: He basically floats the idea that Trump wants out of the White House and the only way to do that is to do certain things like cutting Medicare and cutting funding to e-verify so companies can hire illegals (which are against his promises) to lose votes. It's basically the Republican's attempt to start to save face in the event Trump loses in 2020. They'll say, "well, he wanted out anyway." The punch line at the end is that the administration is actively thinking about doing the things listed in the article. It's also the Republican's attempt to save face when their savior does things that piss off their base. If the dems nominate a descent person, Trump won't have to try - it will occur. I wonder if the Dems nominate a far left person if Kasich could run with a moderate Dem as an Independant and win this thing - Trump gets the alt right, The Dem get the alt left and Kasich pics up the bigger middle. However, the scary thing is that trump still has support of 40-50% of people polled depending on the poll. Probably won't happen- but we need someone to come in and point out the lunacy of the alt positions and find unity in the middle. Link to comment
RedDenver Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 30 minutes ago, TGHusker said: If the dems nominate a descent person, Trump won't have to try - it will occur. I wonder if the Dems nominate a far left person if Kasich could run with a moderate Dem as an Independant and win this thing - Trump gets the alt right, The Dem get the alt left and Kasich pics up the bigger middle. However, the scary thing is that trump still has support of 40-50% of people polled depending on the poll. Probably won't happen- but we need someone to come in and point out the lunacy of the alt positions and find unity in the middle. That's a really big assumption that the "middle" is bigger. Also remember that a candidate needs 270+ electoral votes to win the Presidency - not just the largest number of votes or electors. And if none of the candidates reach that threshold, then this happens: Quote What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes? If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House. Link to comment
NM11046 Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 Is it bad that I kinda want that to happen? Link to comment
Moiraine Posted April 5, 2019 Share Posted April 5, 2019 20 hours ago, Danny Bateman said: Not cool from Bernie. He was evasive about his taxes last time, too. I don't get it. If you want us to elect you to the highest office in the lane, be transparent with us. We've had 2+ years of figuring out what it's like when presidents aren't, and it ain't good. It would be fun to see the about face Republicans do on presidential tax returns if he gets elected and doesn’t want to release them. Link to comment
Recommended Posts