• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

Didn't Louis ask the girls if they minded and they said no?

Still creepy but I don't think that deserves his career being completely destroyed over it.

Yes(ish)

Louis had a bad habit of asking women who he was in some sort of position of power over, whether direct or indirect.

So while everyone involved technically said yes, all of his public accusers felt that they were under pressure to say yes to protect their careers. I'm a fan of Louis, and I have no problem listening to his stuff going forward, but I don't feel bad for him over catching a timeout and the associated financial losses that came with it (about 35 million apparently). He did it to himself.
 
My workplace, the Canadian Armed Forces, has a policy where if I want to talk to my supervisor I can walk into his office and close the door but my female coworker has to wait until the supervisor understands what it is she wants to talk about, who has the need to know, where that person who has the need to know is, wait for them to get there, and then close the door, because its not appropriate for them to be in a situation where a man and a woman are one on one in a enclosed environment.

Same thing goes if I have a female supervisor but those are fewer and farther between.

Now that I'm commenting on all of this shit....

The solution here seems easy to me. Female and Male subordinates should have equal access to superiors, full stop. So if female soldiers need to have 2 supervisors present for any closed door talk, the same should be required for male soldiers. If that just isn't reasonably given the amount of supervisors, then there should be some sort of standardized method of having those closed doors conversation that include a 3rd party or some sort of official record of the meeting (with associated video/audio).

HL's point about it being horseshit to make it more challenging for females to get face time with their superiors than males is bang on. Regardless of the intent behind the policy, it creates an uneven playing field.
 
Last edited:
Now that I'm commenting on all of this shit....

The solution here seems easy to me. Female and Male subordinates should have equal access to superiors, full stop. So if female soldiers need to have 2 supervisors present for any closed door talk, the same should be required for male soldiers. If that just isn't reasonably given the amount of supervisors, then there should be some sort of standardized method of having those closed doors conversation that include a 3rd party or some sort of official record of the meeting (with associated video/audio).

HL's point about it being horseshit to make it more challenging for females to get face time with their superiors than males is bang on. Regardless of the intent behind the policy, it creates an uneven playing field.

Its the knee jerk reaction policy that happens when people start panicking.

In reality, a lot of abuse for soldiers is same sex so having multi supervisor closed door meetings for female soldiers is only addressing part of the problem.

At the end of the day what you suggested is the most logical way forward and when you think about it, can be mandated to society at large. No more one on one closed door meetings for any sex. No more one on one business dinners.

The problem here isn't that females are having to jump through all the extra hoops in order to prevent assault and potential false accusations, its that its only females who are needing to do jump through all the extra hoops.
 
Its the knee jerk reaction policy that happens when people start panicking.

In reality, a lot of abuse for soldiers is same sex so having multi supervisor closed door meetings for female soldiers is only addressing part of the problem.

At the end of the day what you suggested is the most logical way forward and when you think about it, can be mandated to society at large. No more one on one closed door meetings for any sex. No more one on one business dinners.

The problem here isn't that females are having to jump through all the extra hoops in order to prevent assault and potential false accusations, its that its only females who are needing to do jump through all the extra hoops.

A lot of abuse in general is same sex, we just focus on the most salacious of it, sexual abuse because we're a society of ****ing prudes. The amount of verbal and mental abuse that takes place behind closed doors in one on one meetings between superiors and subordinates is incredible. It's an expectation of employment in a lot of places.

I've been on both sides of the desk in those "behind closed doors" meetings and the only places I remember working where those meetings were pretty much all business and free of any sort of abuse as a matter of course, were unionized environments. Largely because there is always a 3rd party present to represent the employees rights.
 
A lot of abuse in general is same sex, we just focus on the most salacious of it, sexual abuse because we're a society of ****ing prudes. The amount of verbal and mental abuse that takes place behind closed doors in one on one meetings between superiors and subordinates is incredible. It's an expectation of employment in a lot of places.

I've been on both sides of the desk in those "behind closed doors" meetings and the only places I remember working where those meetings were pretty much all business and free of any sort of abuse as a matter of course, were unionized environments. Largely because there is always a 3rd party present to represent the employees rights.
Spot on.

I know Zeke is going to bothsides this, but same sex abuse is not recognized enough.

And if something is good enough to protect women in the workplace it will inadvertently protect men as well if implemented in a fair way as you described above. And if its too cumbersome to implement then it was too cumbersome for women to begin with.

Fairly easy to legislate as well, if women have to do it, men also need to do it, and if its found that men don't need to do it, its gender discrimination and a human rights complaint with a hefty fine.

Problem solved?
 
5d314388a9b4d81c5642eff2-960-633.jpg
 
US claims they shot down an Iranian drone...

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump




Iran mocks the claim....


Seyed Abbas Araghchi

@araghchi
We have not lost any drone in the Strait of Hormuz nor anywhere else. I am worried that USS Boxer has shot down their own UAS by mistake!

2,495
1:03 AM - Jul 19, 2019




It used to be easy to know who to believe in these things.

But who does the world believe right now, do you think\






and now Iran is bragging about the close up pictures this drone took of the US ship, this just a few weeks after Trump called off the attack on Iran after drawing his "red line". another one for the "imagine if Obama did this?" files.
 
da best. The slow blink is legend.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kvsLog0536M&feature=youtu.be[/video]
 
Well, that took a whole day before Trump found his new "very fine people" moment.

https://www.vox.com/2019/7/19/20700941/trump-racist-chants-incredible-patriots-ilhan-omar-apollo-11

During an Oval Office event on Friday that was ostensibly to honor Apollo 11 astronauts, Trump cut off a reporter who tried to ask him about his effort to distance himself from the chants, and instead offered a full-throated defense of not only his supporters who made them but also racist tweets he posted last Sunday that incited them.

“You know what I’m unhappy with? I’m unhappy with the fact that a congresswoman can hate our country,” Trump said, alluding to Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), one of a group of four congresswomen of color whom he last Sunday admonished on Twitter to “go back” to the countries they came from (Omar is a Somali refugee; the other three women were born in America). “I’m unhappy with the fact that a congresswoman can say anti-Semitic things. I’m unhappy with the fact that a congresswoman — in this case, a different congresswoman — can call our country, and our people, garbage. That’s what I’m unhappy with.”

Trump then turned to defending the people at his rally, who chanted “send her back!” after he viciously attacked Omar using misleading claims like the ones he made on Friday. (For instance, despite what Trump claimed in the Oval Office, none of the congresswomen in question have called America or its people “garbage.”)

“Those people in North Carolina, that stadium was packed,” Trump said. “It was a record crowd and I could’ve filled it 10 times, as you know. Those are incredible people, those are incredible patriots. But I’m unhappy when a congresswoman goes and says, ‘I’m going to be the president’s nightmare.’ She’s going to be the president’s nightmare. She’s lucky to be where she is, let me tell you. And the things she has said are a disgrace to our country.”
 
A few other items

- Trump cancelled a visit to a NAACP event in Detroit. The only surprising thing here is that he ever agreed to go.

- The GOP and Trump campaign have now spent a combined 640K on the legal defence of.....Hope Hicks. Which I'm sure has everything to do with their general level of generousity to a previously helpful aide and absolutely nothing to do with the fact that unsealed documents from the Cohen case implicate her as being involved in the Stormy Daniels payments, which were of course a felony committed by Donald Trump, not that laws and shit matter anymore
 
da best. The slow blink is legend.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kvsLog0536M&feature=youtu.be[/video]

It's funny, but it's kind of scary at the same time. There are 10's of millions of Americans who deeply believe that they live in a christian theocracy and that the unwashed hordes of liberals, muslims, etc are trying to take that from them. This guy is an excellent example.
 
George Nader has been charged with sex trafficking, possession of child pornography, and "obscenity".

Why is this important? Well, because he's this guy

5b03369f1ae66232008b496b-750-562.jpg


Where this gets even worse is that the guy was convicted of possessing child porn once already in the 90's, and in 03 was in prison for abusing Czech boys. He was a greaseball for the Trump campaign, acting as a liason between TrumpCo, and MBS in Saudi Arabia, the Prince of Abu Dhabi. Nader was at the meeting between the Russian emissary and Erik Prince in the Seychelles during the election as well.

A whole bag of child touchers in Cheeto's orbit.
 
It's funny, but it's kind of scary at the same time. There are 10's of millions of Americans who deeply believe that they live in a christian theocracy and that the unwashed hordes of liberals, muslims, etc are trying to take that from them. This guy is an excellent example.

I hear you, brother. I stopped laughing at this shit a few seasons into Jon Stewart’s Daily Show.
 
George Nader has been charged with sex trafficking, possession of child pornography, and "obscenity".

Why is this important? Well, because he's this guy

5b03369f1ae66232008b496b-750-562.jpg


Where this gets even worse is that the guy was convicted of possessing child porn once already in the 90's, and in 03 was in prison for abusing Czech boys. He was a greaseball for the Trump campaign, acting as a liason between TrumpCo, and MBS in Saudi Arabia, the Prince of Abu Dhabi. Nader was at the meeting between the Russian emissary and Erik Prince in the Seychelles during the election as well.

A whole bag of child touchers in Cheeto's orbit.

Trump’s orbit is basically a self selecting mechanism for low integrity, disgusting low lifes.
Any person with a shred of decency doesn’t stick around too long.
 
Trump’s orbit is basically a self selecting mechanism for low integrity, disgusting low lifes.
Any person with a shred of decency doesn’t stick around too long.

Yep

My only remaining question is what has Trump done that we didn't know about? Is fake universities, invading the dressing rooms of teenage girls, porn star raw dogging, stiffing contractors as a normal matter of business practice, etc, etc of low enough integrity to "justify" the crowd he seems to attract, or is there more?

There are some lawsuits filed in the past that suggest a darker, more disgusting side to this guy than is generally accepted currently.
 
Trump’s orbit is basically a self selecting mechanism for low integrity, disgusting low lifes.
Any person with a shred of decency doesn’t stick around too long.

Trump has no morals or ethics and he doesn't really care what those around him do. Seriously. He just doesn't ask and doesn't care. If he can get something out of them or they are of even minute use to him he will overlook anything.
 
It's not just that he is immoral or amoral.

He is actually anti-moral. He sees morals as a weakness to exploit. He thinks moral people are stupid for having morals. He thinks you are either weak or lying when you place a moral consideration ahead of a financial one. He doesn't want you working with him if you show that kind of weakness.
 
Back
Top