I saw with my own two eyes and heard with my own two ears too the state of Biden’s health. Biden’s family are elder abusers. His wife was so cringey too and came off as a power hungry megalomanic.
I understand I’m voting for Kamala Harris with my vote for Biden, but I don’t think she could beat Trump.
There’s a lot of independents still on the fence between Trump and Biden (for some reason) and I think that anyone who’s even entertaining the idea of voting for Donald Trump would never vote for a woman of color.
So, unfortunately because we’re so late in the election year, I think we’ll have to vote for the old white guy to keep the old white felon out of the Whitehouse.
The only silver lining to all of this is that they’ll probably both be dead before the next election and we can firmly remember to take age into account in the next primary if Biden wins.
If Trump wins there won’t ever be another primary or general election and I think a lot of people lose focus on that because Biden is 2½ years older than Trump.
We still have 4 months. Biden can be replaced in a heartbeat right now so we don’t get Trump. Biden stepping down is likely to increase Democrat support in all elections. The longet they wait the more likely it is that we’ll end up with more losses other than the Presidency.
I see this parroted a bit and am not convinced most of the people who repeat it know what they’re talking about. On what do you base this belief on? How do you know that voter turnout will increase if Biden steps down?
Pre debate and postdebate polls, aggregate sampling data, testing public sentiment on social media, comparing similarities to polls for Clinton to drop run in 2016 for Bernie who was polling higher, etc.
I suppose I walked into that one. Though those are big words. It doesn’t explain anything, however. Once again, you seem to be parroting. Understanding is the key here, which is what I meant under it all.
You see, the issue we face today, one of many in fact, is that people tend to read a headline, listen to a sentence, do “research” all in the name of confirming their personal theories or perspectives, not challenge them. Thus why I ask.
Because most won’t have the slightest idea, though they sure will be able to repeat what they heard.
Ezra Klein has had some good content on this topic recently. He talks about how a new candidate might be agreed upon at the upcoming Democratic National Convention, and the positives and negatives that might result from that switch. The drama of it all would likely lead to increased political engagement, too.
I’m legitimately upset about this one. It’s one of the first “company does something bullshit” that’s actually been actionable for me… and the first that was something I’d done a lot of work to find the “best place” for.
I get compressed wood pellets (sold for horse bedding or pellet stove fuel) there to use as very cheap compostable cat litter, 40lbs is $6, and if you have a good system one bag will fill 4 cat boxes about 4-6 times, so really cost effective and environmentally friendly. It’s like feline pine but not ridiculous expensive.
Next best option is almost twice the price… which is still ok, but man it still hurts…
How did THEY fall for the outrage of people claiming they won’t buy any more tractors from TSco? Am pretty sure THEY know they don’t sell tractors and those teets are from liars… I guess the sniveling cowards know their base and pander, as usual.
It’s a publicly traded company. Investors hate risk, especially short term risk, no matter how unlikely. The board answers to investors. It’s a byproduct of “growth every quarter, above all else,” AKA late stage hypercapitalism
I am voting for Biden because he’s a good president.
He could not be replaced at the snap of a finger, he’s had an extremely active first term and already pursued and heavily invested in najor progressive reforms.
Unnecessarily replacing a candidate 4 months before the election would absolutely throw the election to the conservatives.
Not it wouldn’t. A different candidate results in much higher odds of beating Trump. Do you actually want to beat Trump? Biden has done some good things but he will not be remembered for that if his elder abusing family gets their way.
Biden already hurt his numbers tremendously by supporting genocide. Now you’re asking we support elder abuse as well? Polls have shown choosing other candidates help Democrats. Not sure why we should support elder abuse as well when it also hurts our own chances of even beating Trump. I think the only people in denial are the ones saying Biden should stay in. Maybe go look at some polls. Or we can bury our heads in the sand and blame Progressives and Palestinians when Biden loses, sort of like Dems blaming Bernie supporters in 2016.
Before I report you for abusing this community’s rules how about you just move on and you can vent your frustration internally over Biden’s historically significant terrible debate performance.
You haven’t corrected anything. You just hurl insults without facts. But let’s not be children okay. Maybe Biden losing if he stays in will be your defining moment.
the country is less progressive now then when Biden was in office with Obama
on that note US citizens enjoy less rights than their counterparts living in the 60s
fucking sad Americans are willingly ready to suck Biden or Trump depending on your favorite color
all voters could just protest by voting someone else if the top two choices suck but hey the democrats wouldn’t like that because that would be a vote for Trump
As much as I don’t think Biden should run at his age, you’re basing the “changing the nominee now wouldn’t cost votes” on nothing whatsoever. There is a proven benefit to incumbency. I don’t like it, but it’s true. And the other massive question mark is who does a majority of the country like enough in the Democratic Party (that the Democratic Party actually wants being its nominee) to just install? Because you also have to factor in the mileage the right would get out of “the Democratic Party’s nominee was installed like a dictator!” shit. No to mention the optics of a party elite-chosen candidate. You can’t say a change wouldn’t lose votes without a definitive other candidate to compare to and without considering the optics.
So basically, what you’re saying is mostly just nonsense. This is a terrible situation for us to have to be I . But we’re in it. No use pretending.
For real, everything Alec Baldwin comes up there’s always this what about game for blaming other people. They’ve already punished other people, he’s next.
If by “throwing under the bus” you mean punishing those involved, especially the one that pulled the trigger on a firearm that did not malfunction, then yeah we are. I’ll never understand why people defend him so much, he made a huge awful mistake, and just like anyone else he needs to see the consequences.
I agree with no live ammo. But it’s crazy to me that people hop to his defense when it would taken seconds for him to make sure it wasn’t loaded. Regardless of everyone else’s job. I know whenever I’m handed a firearm, the first thing I do every time is check if it’s loaded.
Well, that firearm shouldn’t be capable of firing live rounds. It’s a movie prop. There should never be a question if it’s dangerous, because the answer will always be “no”
Sure that should always be the case. But this time it wasn’t. And because of his actions someone died. As an actor and a producer he should never have even had a chance of firing a live round while they weren’t filming, but he did. If the round never hit anybody this would be an entirely different case, unfortunately that’s not how it went down.
Trusting actors who studied Shakespeare in college to be responsible for determining if a prop is actually a lethal weapon is absurd. That’s why there’s a trained person on set where that’s literally their whole responsibility. I like Baldwin’s acting. I’ve also heard he’s shitty to his daughter. I’m not defending him as a person. I’m defending him because he’s innocent of this charge. His job was to point something that resembled a gun at someone and pull the trigger. It was someone else’s to ensure that would be a safe action.
It wasn’t even during a scene and even if it was, Alec had violated all four rules of firearm safety for it to happen. Studying Shakespeare in college is tough, learning the four rules is not, don’t even need a college degree for that
Actors are not and should not be responsible for gun safety on set. You expect a low IQ former drama kid with a coke habit who worships scientology from a country where it’s not even legal to own a firearm to be responsible? When every other scene in an action film explicitly requires that they break every single one of the 4 rules of gun safety?
If it’s during a scene, sure let’s break those rules. Once everything has been determined safe by everyone involved. Also yes, no matter who it is, I would expect anyone handed a gun to be responsible with the gun. I’ve never argued that other people aren’t responsible as well, just that Alec should be held responsible for his role. Let’s not forget that this actor killed someone, and he should face the same consequences that any average person would.
just that Alec should be held responsible for his role
Which is fine, but you’ve misattributed what the part he played that makes him guilty is. Had it been any other actor they’d not be guilty, as has already been explained actors cannot reasonably be expected to know they’ve been handed an unsafe weapon by the armorer.
Baldwin was a producer and directly involved in the hiring process of those on the crew. He hired an incompetent armorer AS WELL as misbehaved on set as a producer leading to an unsafe work environment. Baldwin is guilty no matter who pulled that trigger.
If you’re bringing in the four rules in a discussion about gun safety on movie sets then you’re not arguing in good faith. As an actor you must trust that the armorer is never going to hand you an unsafe gun. If they do, it’s on the armorer.
Because in the film industry, actors are not the ones responsible when it comes to firearms. There are armourers/props, people, and even assistant directors who are responsible for on set safety, actors and crew trust other departments to do their job correctly and safely. There are so many rules and regulations for how guns are handled on set, on every set I have worked on guns were locked in a safe with the armourer being the only one with the key, they would have to have their eyes on the weapon at all times with no exceptions when it was outdside the safe. You don’t hold an actor responsible if there is a stunt gone wrong or a piece of the set falls down because it isn’t their job unless he was behaving recklessly or outrageously. Although he may hold some culpability due to his role as a producer and the financial stuff, i.e., budget cutting, hiring inexperienced crew, etc. I can’t stand the man myself, but he is not the one who is most responsible for this incident
That’s not true on movie sets though. Actors rely on armorers to keep everyone safe. Expecting actors to also be responsible would be unduly onerous. The system, when it works, works incredibly well. There have only been a handful of firearms accidents on sets. Which is crazy seeing as how almost every movie these days has guns in it somewhere.
The rust shooting had failures at multiple levels but the actor isn’t responsible for those failures.
Prosecutors allege that the two did not follow proper safety protocols in a number of ways. “On the day of the shooting alone, evidence shows that no less than a dozen acts, or omissions of recklessness, occurred in the short time prior to lunch and the time of the shooting, and this does not include the reckless handling of the firearm by Baldwin,” the statement says. “Baldwin, by act or omission or failure to act in his position as a producer, directly contributed and/or failed to mitigate numerous reckless and dangerous actions during a very short time period.”
Did take companies long to stop pretending like they care.
Of course they care, they care about what their customers think because that's where their money comes from. This is just how corporations work, and it would have the opposite outcome if their customer base wanted those goals of theirs.
If you want corporations to change then convince them that they'll make more money that way, by whatever means. Through customer preferences, regulations, etc. Don't expect a corporation to "do what's right because it's right," any more than you should expect a shark to "do what's right." It's not designed that way.
this is a nice thought, but ignores the fact that most of these 'customers' are being guided by propaganda from other corporations.
its not like those customers are naturally coming to 'i want to destroy my own planet' conclusions. they are led around by a ring in their nose just like the animals they feed.
It's not meant to be a good thought or a bad one, just a description of how things work. If you want the customers of this company to change their mind then you'll need to direct your own arguments and/or "propaganda" (as it will likely be perceived by some) at those customers and outdo what they're being fed by opposing groups.
Their actual customers were giving them a lot of love for being supportive, especially during pride month. Then the alt-right crybabies caught wind and started throwing a tantrum and they instantly folded.
Tell me you don’t know anything about DEI without… oh ffs I don’t even have energy for this this morning, and you could honestly learn a lot just using Google. We both know you have no interest in learning even the tiniest bit though.
Company after company have made statements they will have x% of certain positions filled by people of specific races. You don’t achieve that without taking race into consideration when choosing people to work there.
No. What they’re being told is to hire all races in proportion to their population in the country. White people are not better at doing anything than other races.
Taking race into consideration acknowledges the struggles which have been imposed onto people of other races by the dominant race that has always held most power in American society. Acknowledging that other races have the right to exist equally is NOT racism. Refusing to treat them equally absolutely is. The only reason society has to push these policies is because white people in power cannot be trusted to treat others equally, as you keep demonstrating.
White people are not better at doing anything than other races.
I think this is doing a disservice to one of the goals of DEI. White people are more qualified for certain types of jobs because historically they’ve had better access to education and healthcare. Even if access has become more equal lately, there are still other barriers that take longer to remove (eg. being the first person in the family to go to university, not having wealthy parents, etc.)
That has nothing to do with racial attributes though, just with racist systems. This distinction is important, and intentionally ignored by people who whine about diversity, equality, and inclusion.
Of course. I just think it’s important to mention that there are societal reasons why there is a higher percentage compared to the general population of qualified whites applying for a job.
But do tell me you think a resume by a woman named LaShonda has a chance of being taken as seriously by a white HR manager than a resume by a woman named Mary often enough for this to not be a problem.
You didn’t “show evidence” you utter fucking cabbage – you just went conclusion shopping on Google to find the first fucking piece of unsourced “trust me bro” garbage that you thought would support your opinion.
The worst thing that actually happens is if they happen to meet with two applicants with the same exact skill level, they will hire the one from the more diverse background.
Also if a bigot happens to be e.g. a “10x developer” (does not truly exist), I wouldn’t want them anywhere near my company.
What you and most other anti-DEI people fail to realize is there inherent value in having people on the team from different backgrounds with different views and ways of finding solutions. The best person for the job is not necessarily the person who has the most training or experience in an area. Outside the box thinking often leads to better outcomes, so there is value in having people who think about/see the world in different ways.
“We believe this deal is in the best interest of the flying public, our airline customers, the employees of Spirit and Boeing, our shareholders and the country more broadly,” Boeing President and CEO Dave Calhoun said in a statement late Sunday.
Quick, someone post the press release when Boeing outsourced Spirit. I bet they said the outsourcing was also in the best interest of the flying public.
Boeing announced in April 2004 that it was studying the possible sale of its plants in Wichita , Tulsa and McAlester . Boeing included balancing the interests of employees, customers, shareholders and its plant communities in its criteria for the decision.
“We firmly believe that this decision provides the best available outcome for the Wichita/Tulsa Division and its plant communities by creating new opportunities for sustained growth as a separate operation. Onex shares this perspective, and we look forward to a long and productive relationship together,” Mulally said.
If only folks had gotten off their tail and voted for an alternate candidate rather than sitting on the couch whining about our political system and making memes…
You can’t just vote for an alternate candidate. That’s a non-viable strategy. In a fptp system (and one that requires owner money) ,you are reliant on party leadership to put forth worthwhile candidates. Democrats should have started grooming the heir apparent on Jan 21, 2020.
True, I’m more referring to the primaries in 2016 and 2020. You get all too many around here clamoring for 3rd party protest votes or disengagement.
Even with the sketchy goings on during those two, if there was an overwhelming vote for Bernie (who’s no younger mind you, but it’s an alternate that appeals to a different demographic) it’d be a tough sell to go against that even if the party did get a court to agree they could.
Even without party backing though, if there was a particular person that people took to en-masse the rules don’t preclude them from office or appearing on national ballots. Look at Trump, people at first wrote him off as a joke, similar to the other times he ran before, now he’s a major threat to both parties.
Oh, I completely agree. This is way too complicated to fit into simple comment chains. There will be books upon books about this (assuming we’re still allowed to write books in the future).
I know the word “rigged” is overused in politics these days but I’m not sure how else to describe the method the RNC and DNC use to select candidates. We have a matchup of historically unpopular individuals who were both President already, and yet most feel as though there was an inevitable quality to each receiving his party’s nomination.
I live in a primary state where party registration is arbitrary and I could have easily participated in the process for either major party (just providing this background lest I be accused of being something I’m not). Problem is, by the time it rolls around to my state, the momentum of previous caucuses and primaries has all but secured the nomination already and my ability to influence the process is effectively zero.
The DNC and RNC have created a system of managed coronation disguised as some sort of democratic process. And what’s worse is they now set the precedent of rigged debates designed to exclude meaningful alternatives. If they have a second debate they’ll probably make up something about minimum Twitter mentions or shoelace color to purposely exclude RFK and other 3rd party candidates again.
I asked in another thread what candidate other people canvassed for and maybe they shouldn’t be complaining if they didn’t canvass for anyone. I didn’t canvass for anyone and said so. I got one person who said they canvassed for Bernie Sanders. And they have my respect for that. But mostly other than that, I just got downvotes. It didn’t surprise me, but I think it kind of proved what I was saying.
We got Biden in 2024 because not enough people, myself included, did enough to get anyone else. Frankly, in my case, I wasn’t offered an alternate candidate who threw their hat into the ring (Bernie did not) and who I thought would be electable. I don’t have an issue canvassing for a candidate who hasn’t announced they would run, but I personally don’t think it’s a good use of my time.
I didn’t find anything about Doug Burgum or especially Marianne Williamson that made me feel like I should work for their campaigns. They didn’t convince me to put the effort in.
To be clear, Biden didn’t convince me to put the effort in either.
“I know you didn’t like when I tried to sell your baby to score some meth, but if you just give me some crack, I’m sure I can think up a solution that’ll make everyone happy.”
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.