Republicans have to make a clear choice. Either you are always on the side of law and order (as you always claim to be), or you are not.
Suggesting that people should not be prosecuted for legitimate crimes because of politics makes it amply clear you are on the side of law and order only when it suits you. In the normal world, we call it "blatant hypocrist", a.k.a., Trump republicans.
What? Such garbage! Justice should be served, but not One sided and not overlooking crimes it happened only on one side as well as being silent on injustices and allowing corrupt cop only look at alleged crimes on the right and ignoring alleged crimes on the left.
Seeing that the entire administration, the House and the Senate are majority Republicans, I would suggest that you find a different tree to bark up. Unless, of course, you are privy to some major criminal conduct on the left or by the Democrats which you can produce evidence for to the FBI and DoJ.
Put it another way, what does it say about the right that the Republican administration's DoJ can only find evidence of criminal behavior and wrongdoing on the right and not much on the left.
Occam's razor says the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct. In this case, the simplest explanation is that there is more criminal conduct on the right than on the left at the moment.
16 ( +18 / -2 )
How quickly bass forgets.
Trump said that he hires only the "best people". Ergo, it follows that Omarosa was one of those best people along with Cohen, Manafort, Flynn, and all the other indicted individuals (not to mention Pruitt, Devos, etc.). Even though she had no qualification whatsoever for the job other than being on Trumps reality show (and singing his praises while there).
But then, suddenly they stopped being the best people. How quickly the "best people" fall!
How many more of these best people have to go before Trump supporters finally realize what has been going on?
7 ( +7 / -0 )
Jan 20, 2017 - Trump inaugurated as President.
Jan 20, 2018 - US government shuts down.
To be fair, Trump did say he was gonna run the government like his businesses! He gave everyone advanced warning!
The only guy to lose money running a casino. Declared bankruptcy 6 times in the past. Still thinks he is the greatest negotiator of all time. During Obama presidency shutdown in 2013, says that the buck stops with the President and it is the Presidents fault that shutdown happened. Now when it happens under his watch, says the Dems (who are in the minority) are to blame!
7 ( +7 / -0 )
CHIP has widespread popularity and as a standalone bill would pass 100-0 in the senate.
DACA has 70% popularity (give or take) in the whole country.
The Republicans could have brought a bill for these two issues at any time during the past 2-3 months and it would have sailed through.
Instead, they decided to play with the life of children and the Dreamers, and sat twiddling their thumbs for those 2-3 months. Then they attach the DACA and CHIP issue to a deeply unpopular budget and try to force it through. And when the Democrats say no to the budget, the Republicans are saying the Dems don't care for children's health and playing with their lives. I am sorry, but you don't get to play the savior of children's health when you sat twiddling your thumbs for the past few months when you could have actually dealt with that particular issue.
This is beyond cynical. It is sad that these men are playing partisan politics with issues of such importance.
And the worst part is that the Republican base will buy this hook, line and sinker. Because they just want to blame the "liberals".
katsu78Today 03:48 pm JST
It takes a special breed of incompetence to control all three branches of government and yet be unable to pass a budget.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
6 ( +10 / -4 )
He is backtracking because the Mercers have withdrawn support for him and are talking about throwing him off Breitbart. If Bannon loses Breitbart and his brigade of alt-right trolls, he loses everything.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
Doesn't matter, wouldn't change the perception and opinion of the left.
So truth and evidence doesn't matter because it doesn't change the perception of people on the left who already believe the said evidence?
So you disagree with Boris Johnson, then? And Macron and others who have all pointed to Russian meddling?
They disagree when their side wins. Its called doing mental gymnastics, and soon it will be a new Olympic sport where only Trumpers and Brexiteers will win the medals.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
Highly recommended read for those who support this bill.
There is actually very little (read: pretty much none) evidence that cutting taxes creates growth. This piece of propaganda has been thoroughly debunked over and over. And yet the Republicans in Congress seem to think that they can wish an almost impossible phenomena into existence. Perhaps it is not so strange. After all, this is the same group of people who are petrified of words like "science-based" and "evidence-based".
10 ( +11 / -1 )
Its a great result for Dems, although still depressing to think that almost half the voters voted for the child predator.
Bannon and Trump, take this L.
26 ( +27 / -1 )
But how can you blame the "family values" conservative evangelical Christian Republicans of Alabama? What choice do they have? Roy Moore may be a child-molester, pedophile, and a sleazeball, but his opponent is a Democrat, and worse, may even be a liberal! Don't you guys understand how outrageous would it be to vote for a liberal? What if their family and neighbors find out that they voted for a liberal over a proud Christian and gun-waving conservative like Roy Moore. Yeah, he may have molested a few children here or there, and he was kicked off of the Alabama Supreme Court twice, but he is still Judge Roy Moore. He is tough on crime, unless he is the one who commits them by molesting underage girls. And his opponent is weak on crime, even though he vigorously prosecuted the KKK for the killings of four African-American girls. We know Doug Jones is weak on crime because Trump said so! And worst of all, as already pointed out, he is a Democrat and a liberal!
This, in a nutshell, is the current Republican party and their argument/hypocrisy. The fact that people are willing to vote for a child molester simply because he is a Republican and claims to be a family values Christian conservative over a man who had an unsullied record, its just mind-boggling to think about.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
For Trumps cult, this doesn't change anything. As I have said before, Trump was a 100% correct when he said he could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot someone and not lose a single vote. Trump (and the rest of us) knew he was correct. His cult would find a way to rationalize it post-act, like that person deserved to be shot, etc.
Its the same with this investigation. Trump could come out tomorrow and say "Yes I and my team colluded with the Russians and I personally sanctioned it", and his base would still cheer him. His cult would rationalize it, saying things "Poor thing, he had no choice but to commit treason to make America great again and drain the swamp, and the Dems are worse and we would rather have a traitor who is a Republican than a Dem/lib in the WH".
Each and every day, facts seem to matter less and less, and we have the Dear Leader in the WH to blame for that. Hopefully, this farce will soon be ended by Mueller.
8 ( +8 / -0 )
It is tragic and sad, but what to do? Eradicating guns in the US won't solve the issue.
I see this repeated a lot of times, but would you acknowledge that eradicating guns solved the issue for Australia? No mass shootings in more than 20 years!
Its not like the US has ever actually tried gun control seriously and in good faith. Then how can you say it won't solve the issue? On the contrary, you have a perfectly good example in Australia of a country which decided to act in the safety interests of its public, and achieved results America could only dream of.
It is abundantly clear to me that this gun control issue in America will never be solved, because the NRA has clouded peoples thinking with fear and emotion. If a country could not bring itself to act after twenty elementary school children were gunned down (Sandy Hook), there is no hope. For some people, their guns are more precious than the lives of strangers, innocent as they may be, and no place getting shot up, be it a church or an elementary school, will change their minds. I just hope there doesn't come a day when it becomes too personal for them and it is their family members who were unfortunately in the wrong place at the wrong time when a deranged person decides to pick up a gun and mow someplace down.
1 ( +2 / -1 )
Harassment of women can never be tolerated: Ivanka Trump
Unless my Daddy does it. Then its totally fine and the women are liars.
28 ( +31 / -3 )
Now its not even a case of Dems/liberals vs Trump. His own Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is openly defying him. This too after he shoved his nose where it didn't belong and disrupted the State Department's efforts publicly on Twitter.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
At the end of the day, this has to have been the most satisfying operation + investment for Russia and Putin. He simply capitalized on the fact that many conservatives, after years of watching Fox news and being told liberals were monsters trying to destroy America, would go fall so far off the deep-end they wouldn't believe the high degree of confidence judgement of all American Intelligence Agencies that Russia interfered in the American Presidential elections and helped Trump win. For Putin its a win-win. He is smiling while watching America burn. All because almost half the nation can't bring itself to admit they got hoodwinked, that they made a choice out of anger and hatred instead of reason and logic.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
Here's an interesting analysis
Here's an even better analysis, by actual prominent high-profile lawyers and experts instead of some random conspiracy theory lunatic on youtube who think they know everything.
It might be beyond the capacity of some Trump's fans to get out of their bubble and read the article linked above, so let me post some snippets from the blog here.
The first big takeaway from Monday morning’s flurry of charging and plea documents with respect to Paul Manafort Jr., Richard Gates III and George Papadopoulos is this: The president of the United States had as his campaign chairman a man who had allegedly served for years as an unregistered foreign agent for a puppet government of Vladimir Putin, a man who was allegedly laundering remarkable sums of money even while running the now-president’s campaign, a man who allegedly lied about all of this to the FBI and the Justice Department.
The second big takeaway is even starker: A member of President Trump’s campaign team admits that he was working with people he knew to be tied to the Russian government to “arrange a meeting between the Campaign and the Russian government officials” and to obtain “dirt” on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of hacked emails—and that he lied about these activities to the FBI. He briefed President Trump on at least some of them.
Before we dive any deeper into the Manafort-Gates indictment—charges to which both pled not guilty to Monday—or the Papadopoulos plea and stipulation, let’s pause a moment over these two remarkable claims, one of which still must be considered as allegation and the other of which can now be considered as admitted fact. President Trump, in short, had on his campaign at least one person, and allegedly two people, who actively worked with adversarial foreign governments in a fashion they sought to criminally conceal from investigators. One of them ran the campaign. The other, meanwhile, was interfacing with people he “understood to have substantial connections to Russian government officials” and with a person introduced to him as “a relative of Russian President Vladimir Putin with connections to senior Russian government officials.” All of this while President Trump was assuring the American people that he and his campaign had "nothing to do with Russia."
By the way, wasn't Trump the "law and order" candidate? Wasn't he the "tough on crime" candidate? How come he hired a person known to have a dubious reputation to run his campaign? Surely there must have been alternatives abound? But you see, its tough to be angry at someone for committing a crime (tax evasion and money laundering) when you yourself are probably guilty of the same crime.
Also, given that the indictment states that Manafort laundered close to $75 million and his well-documented fondness for money, isn't it strange that Manafort never took any salary from the Trump campaign? Surely even Trump's fans don't believe he is someone who will work for free? Whose payroll was he is on?
8 ( +8 / -0 )
Prosecutors demanded Dentsu be fined 500,000 yen
Is this some sort of a sick joke? Just 500k yen in fines? Is that the price being put on the life of a single worker at Dentsu?
16 ( +17 / -1 )
This is what happens when you have idiotic ideologues in your government. Bannon is not an economist, yet has the President's ear on economic policies and is trying to promote trade wars. He is not a strategic or military expert, but was afforded a seat on the National Security Council where he wanted to curb NATOs influence.
The Republicans sowed the seed for this disaster long ago, when they decided to forego reason and forfeit logic in favor of appealing to the basest instincts of fear and panic.
One can only hope that this nightmare of an administration meets its end soon.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
Is it just me or is the media intentionally fanning the flames here.
The media is doing its job and asking questions.
I have my fair share of grievances and complaints about leftist activists, but to even imply that those protesting against the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville are on the same level as KKK and Neo-Nazis is just pathetic and shameful.
Which means it is par for the course for DT and his supporters.
The President of the United States of America thinks that people who protest Neo-Nazis and white supremacists like the KKK are partly to blame for the violence. I wonder how all those fallen American heroes who fought Nazis and Nazism in WWII would feel about this.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
It would be so easy for the POTUS to just say - "These people are white nationalists and neo-nazis. They are despicable, and deserve no place in modern America. They do not represent our values, and I will not let them spread hate and prejudice in my, my staff's or America's name".
But he won't do it.
That says all you need to know.
What does he even mean by "many sides"?
The white nationalists are the one showing up in militia gear with fully loaded assault rifles, in Nazi paraphernalia, in KKK dresses. They are the ones making the racist and anti-Semitic chants. And they are doing it in his name. Explicitly so.
His refusal to name and condemn them only emboldens the far-right. His silence on the identity of the perpetrators says more about the POTUS than all his silly tweets and idotic interviews.
Pretty ironic that he always called out Obama for not calling radical Islamic terrorism by its name (something I too wish Obama had done).
14 ( +22 / -8 )
If you are so intent on putting words into the author's mouth which he never uttered, it's useless to continue.
I invite you to re-read the document.
I invite you to read the following material in order to get a better understanding of gender differences.
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature by Steven Pinker (book can be purchased at Amazon)
0 ( +0 / -0 )
The statements are not a justification for women not being able to work in tech. The letter makes no assertion of the sort. Many women are perfectly capable of working in tech and do so with great skill.
I think it is important to point out that there is a difference between not being able to work in tech (something a lot of detractors are attributing to the author when he never said it), and not being interested in working in tech (something that is observed in large populations on average). This can easily be corroborated by looking at the numbers of graduates in STEM fields by gender. Majority of STEM field graduates are males, even in engineering, although the numbers vary by major. For example, mechanical and electrical engineering can be up to 90% male while computer sciences are less so. If the percentage of new women employees being hired at Google is proportional to the number of new graduates in STEM fields, then there is no representation issue at all.
The larger point is that a statement about average differences in large populations is not a statement about a single individual from said population. If a woman is attracted to or interested in tech (and a lot of women are), she should be given all the tools and encouragement to succeed, and society and businesses should do all they can to remove the barriers that prevent them from achieving their goals. However, a percentage of women working in tech does not invalidate the aforementioned statement about the gender differences in large populations between men and women. They are not contradictory statements, and both can and do hold true at the same time.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I have read it. I would again like to draw your attention to words such as "On average", and "Generally". Also,
*I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ "in part" due to biological causes*
As I said before, average population differences does not mean all members of the population show the characteristic differences. Nor does it speak about individual person's ability or traits.
If the difference between those 2 statements is not clear, I would recommend taking classes in logical reasoning and statistics.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
A 100% scientifically correct fact. As I mentioned above, men and women are biologically different, as can be seen in physical differences.
The last two quotes you cite are from studies in peer-reviewed journal. The author is reported to have a PhD in Biology from Harvard.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
The assertions made in the letter are widely accepted scientifically. The author of the letter reportedly has a PhD in Biology from Harvard.
Jonathan Haidt of NYU-Stern: “If you think that moral reasoning is something we do to figure out the truth, you’ll be constantly frustrated by how foolish, biased, and illogical people become when they disagree with you.”
1 ( +2 / -1 )
I must say, it is amazing to watch that people on the left throw a fit when some right leaning person denies climate change or evolution. But then these same people on the left turn around and peddle junk science about the human nature and physical and psychological differences between genders observed in large populations (an equally corroborated scientific fact on par with climate science and evolution).
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Did you read the document? I get that it is fashionable to be outraged in order to subvert discussion, but seriously, at least bother to read what the author wrote before making assumptions about the intent of the letter. Nowhere did it "state that women are not biologically fit to work in tech and the company should stop inclusion/diversity." The letter was very nuanced and did not make the gross over generalization that you accuse it of.
I wrote the above comment to help elucidate the intent of the letter that I understood. But in case it was not clear, let me restate it. I will highlight the important words for easier understanding.
When examining large populations, differences are observed in personalities/traits (although there is still significant overlap) between the 2 genders. Some of these are physical. For example, men overwhelmingly do the physical labor jobs such as coal mining, drilling, etc. As a result, majority of occupational deaths (93%) involve men. There are also mental and cognitive differences between the 2 genders on average. This means that if you take large groups of men and women, on average women tend to perform better on social tasks and men tend to perform better on system tasks. Note that this does not say anything about the ability of an individual man or woman, just that these differences are observed in large groups. Also note that these are well established opinions based on vast and replicated scientific studies by evolutionary psychologists and biologists.
These findings have implications in understanding why there are fewer women on average in tech and leadership positions. If we are to define equality as equality of outcome (as opposed to equality of opportunity), then ignoring the biological part of the equation is the only way to make the assertion that anything less 50% representation is solely an outcome of systemic oppression and discrimination. An attempt to approach the problem of under representation as purely one borne out of biases and discrimination as opposed to being partly biological nature is bound to fail in finding a solution, and will breed further resentment and implicit discrimination.
It is again important to stress that average differences do not say anything about the ability of the individual. On individual level, a woman may out perform all the men in her organization. But when the population is large enough, the differences are observed and may help explain the gap in representation. So for you to say that the doc said women are biologically unfit to work in tech is a gross misrepresentation and over generalization that the doc absolutely did not make. I would really recommend reading the letter again with all its nuances before throwing a social justice fit.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
I fail to understand why news articles insist on calling the letter an anti-diversity memo. I think it would be helpful if people actually curbed the outrage and bothered reading the document for themselves first.
The employee wrote what I thought was reasoned and respectful letter outlining his point of view. I have read the whole document, and I think it is very mild in its tone and tenor. The author makes several assertions for which there seems to be good scientific evidence. But his larger point is not that steps to diversify the workforce, especially in tech, have gone too far. His point is that Google has created an ideological echo chamber where even discussing or debating the underlying reasons for gaps in representation as well as the effectiveness of the current policy measures to remedy the situation is forbidden. Due to the overwhelming left-leaning culture of Google, extremists have been emboldened to the point that they can shut down any discussion with accusations of sexism (which the news outlets then promptly illustrated). As a result, people don't feel safe expressing an opinion or discussing in a reasoned and calm manner topics that really should not be outside the realms of discussion for the fear of witch hunts by frenzied mobs.
The underlying reasons for population differences in job preferences and representations and their solutions can and should be fact-driven. To that extent, the author suggests removing at some level the sentimental morality attached to the issue in order to get a rational, factual, data-driven understanding of the matter.
What part of this is anti-diversity, I fail to see.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
7 of these lawyers being tied to heavy Democratic voting
Both Mueller and Comey are Republicans. Strange, never seen you mention that fact.
So you think the POTUS being a sexual predator and using the oval office as his bedroom is a small thing?
This, from someone who supports Trump is just a tad bit too ironic. I am gonna need to go puke a bit.
The red capes are coming! The red capes are coming!
7 ( +9 / -2 )
CNN, the channel Trump reserves special ire for as fake news, fired people for publishing a misleading or wrong story. Fox, the channel actually caught willingly and knowingly publishing fake news, will most likely do nothing. In fact, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if they promote the people involved or have them quit to take up jobs at the White House.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
The donor, Ed Butowsky, is depicted as being intimately involved in a story on the Rich case being prepared by Fox reporter Malia Zimmerman. Butowsky met with outgoing White House press secretary Sean Spicer to talk about the investigation's findings.
Oh! So the guy pushing for the story met with the Press Secretary at the WH to talk about the story and try to distact from the Russian meddling! Wow. Fox sure seems like the propaganda outlet for this WH.
The lawsuit also claimed Trump read Zimmerman's story two days before publication and was anxious to see it run — even backing the inclusion of two quotes from Wheeler that the investigator claims he never said.
So, the POTUS has a history of lying and getting others to lie for him, that is no secret. But this is getting a major news outlet to lie for you.
Fox, however, hasn't specifically addressed the issue of any Trump administration involvement in the story.
In other words, they didn't deny it. It doesn't take much to say "The Trump administration wasn't involved". The fact they didn't means it definitely happened.
The WH seems to have been caught peddling a false story that made a circus of a person's murder and brought enormous grief to his family. And they have a major news outlet in cahoots with them who published a made-up story knowingly to help the WH in distracting from an ongoing federal investigation.
These people are so incompetent they can't even collude properly.
5 ( +6 / -1 )