US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

  • ⚙️ Performance issue identified and being addressed.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
Click to expand...
Clockwork_PurBle said:
I wonder if someone's made a YT or Spotify (lol) playlist of all his music choices.
Click to expand...
open.spotify.com

Trump Rally Songs🇺🇸

bpeters880 · Playlist · 60 songs · 2.6K likes
open.spotify.com open.spotify.com

Don't know how up to date it's kept.
Salubrious said:
That's been the most amazing thing about the last year: despite all the constant fuckups, nobody even has to fall on the sword (figuratively) anymore. It's just another day as usual no matter what happens.
Click to expand...
I kind of blame trump for that. He powered through all the shit flung at him in the first election, stuff that would have sunk a normal politicos campaign.
They seemed to have learned the lesson that for your core at least, you really can ignore optics and just motor on.
 
spiritofamermaid said:
Do you know why it's more efficient?
Click to expand...
Jaimas' post really does explain a lot of it.
Jaimas said:
No need - I will tell it to you straight, as someone who worked for them: the Establishment Dems have never been good with funds.

Ever.

When I was in the activist pool, a common joke is that if you could make it two tiers up, you were set for life, because everyone I worked with twenty years ago knew some idiot or another who landed a gig canvassing for some mid-level establishment hack, did the same work we were doing on a volunteer basis (half as well) and got paid a hefty salary for it, only to piss it away, and, if anything, that's gotten worse since I left. There was stories during 2016 of people getting paid six-figure salaries for the DNC while never even showing up. There were people who worked for the non-Hillary Dem Candidates that were still getting paid by the DNC long after the primaries were over and they were no longer needed.

On a staff level, they burn cash like crazy, but where it hits ludicrous speed is that throwing cash around in giant amounts is literally their only response to anything.

It's why they perpetually got played by the oldschool Dems at the grassroots level; they can throw money around with legendary faire, dominating airwaves with massive ad buy-ins, fucking enormous campaign promotions, and huge events intended to push turn-out, but that is literally all they can fucking do. And I'm mostly sure they do it because they feel it isn't their cash. Then the funds run dry and they're always flabbergasted when it fucking happens, even though their staff likely told them about it three years or more in advance.
Click to expand...
When one side is throwing money around like it's going out of style while also doing practically nothing to secure its own base functionality you get a -ton- of inefficiency. Not helped by the fact that they take analyst warnings as loose suggestions. So their money is almost never actually used in an efficient or precise manner.

The Republicans meanwhile, sometimes to their detriment, take analyst opinion as gospel and also ensure their own money machines are self-reliant first so they can -focus- their money.

That focus and self-reliance is very, very important to efficiency.
 
Gehenna said:
Jaimas' post really does explain a lot of it.

When one side is throwing money around like it's going out of style while also doing practically nothing to secure its own base functionality you get a -ton- of inefficiency. Not helped by the fact that they take analyst warnings as loose suggestions. So their money is almost never actually used in an efficient or precise manner.

The Republicans meanwhile, sometimes to their detriment, take analyst opinion as gospel and also ensure their own money machines are self-reliant first so they can -focus- their money.

That focus and self-reliance is very, very important to efficiency.
Click to expand...
Makes you wonder why nobody on the R side of the aisle just relaxes a bit wrt analyst opinion or why nobody on the D side is concerned about making, as you said, "self-reliant money machines". Like two halves of a retarded coin.
 
Oxous said:
Lindsey Graham just can't help himself from showing his true colors today, I suppose. Opposed to Trump pardoning 1/6 prisoners and actively cheerleading one of Biden's SC justice candidates. South Carolina GOP is a shitshow.
Click to expand...
So can we all agree that anytime either a republican does something good or a democrat goes against their own, everyone should just keep a VERY close eye on them with a magnifying glass rather than immediately act like their "based" or something? Majority of the time there's a motive to why they do the things they do, and unfortunately, it's not always "for the greater good".
 
The Ugly One said:
I mean, I know you're joking, but you have to start reporting demographic information to the EEOC once you hit 200 employees, and if you've got too many white males, doesn't matter how progressive you are, there are civil rights lawyers who do nothing but sift through data, looking for a company to file a class-action suit against.

It's all well and good when redditors seethe, not so much when the seething comes from a federal judge who just slapped you with a ten-figure fine and a requirement to hire a DEI coordinator at the executive level and spend a minimum of X% of your annual budget on her office. This actually happens, and conservatives don't want to do anything about it, so it's only going to keep happening.

I worked for a growing start-up for some years, owned and run by, who else, a group of right-leaning white guys. As we approached the 200 employee threshold, I warned them that "we hire the most qualified people, and we just haven't found any black women who meet our standards" wouldn't fly with the EEOC. Anyway, they have a Director of Diversity & Inclusion now.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that be a form of government control then?

How do businesses in states like Maine and Vermont survive since they are over 90 percent white.
 
pwnest injun said:
My understanding is that the DNC political machine runs into the same problem as unions. Organizers become a class of people which continually grows, drawing more and more money to do less and less work. They collude to hire on their friends and family to do the things that were once their responsibility until you're paying 4-5x as many salaries to do the same amount of work. Meanwhile, on the RNC side, it's more corporate, where everything is results based and pros do the work as quickly and efficiently as possible so that they can get on to the next job and the next paycheck. As below so above, as it were.
Click to expand...
It wasn't always like that, but yeah, that's usually what happened.
 
SSF2T Old User said:
So can we all agree that anytime either a republican does something good or a democrat goes against their own, everyone should just keep a VERY close eye on them with a magnifying glass rather than immediately act like their "based" or something? Majority of the time there's a motive to why they do the things they do, and unfortunately, it's not always "for the greater good".
Click to expand...
bbbbut muh doomers and their purity test
 
The Ugly One said:
You can't run for reelection on "I kept maintenance & repair well-funded." Government isn't much different than the private sector this way...nobody gets a promotion to the C-Suite because they did such an excellent job at making sure nothing broke.
Click to expand...
I think you probably could nowadays.

"During the last polar vortex, houses were kept warm and with power. Roads were cleared by 10AM."
"During the wind storm, the tax money spent to force the power companies to upgrade the systems ensured that power was quickly restored."
"My administration had filled 1.2 million potholes on federal roads and enabled the counties of the state to fill in another 12.5 million potholes!"
"My administration has inspected all of the dams in the state and has repaired over a third of them, some of them getting maintenance for the first time since 1992."
"Coming up for reelection, I'd like to inform the public that the Q3 bridge inspections has been finished, bringing 50% of our bridges to "Great" condition after three years of repair."

You could run the fuck on that.

Add in: "I'll get/keep troons out of girls sports, CRT out of schools, make the school board answer to parents again, and ensure that predatory teachers aren't grooming your children!"

And you'll be golden.
 
MrJokerRager said:
Wouldn't that be a form of government control then?

How do businesses in states like Maine and Vermont survive since they are over 90 percent white.
Click to expand...

The person you're replying to is exaggerating severely. "Ten figure fines"? Bullshit.

No one at the EEOC is watching hiring numbers detached from applicant numbers. So if you're in a place where 1% of your applicants are black, even if only .6% of your actual hires are black, it's not going to trigger anything. But if you're in a field and geographic area where your applicant pool is 30% black and you are hiring 4% black people, you're going to stick out.

However, even if there's a discrepancy, it's not "you're in the wrong, pay our fine." The document outlining disparate impact rules is complicated (https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual7), but you can find the part that's most relevant here:

The history of Title VII disparate impact claims also suggests that agencies must be very cautious in the use of jurisdiction-wide population statistics. While courts sometimes allowed plaintiffs in early cases to use the population of the surrounding area as the population base for determining whether an employer’s hiring practices had an adverse disparate impact on a protected class, see, e.g., Griggs, 401 U.S. at 430, it is now clear that the legally relevant population base is the actual applicant pool or qualified applicant pool. See, e.g., Paige v. California, 291 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In evaluating the impact of a particular process, we must compare the group that ‘enters’ the process with the group that emerges from it.”); Stout v. Potter, 276 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 2002) (“Generally, the appropriate population is the applicant pool or relevant labor market from which the positions at issue are filled.”) (citing Wards Cove Packing Co., 490 U.S. at 650–51); Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299, 308 (1977)).
Click to expand...

So if you're hiring software engineers, literally nobody is going to be able to make the case that 13% of them should be black or that half of them should be women. The qualified applicant pool just doesn't look like a representative cross-section of the whole country.

This gets a little fuzzier the larger a corporation you are and the more unskilled the positions you offer are, because your applicant pool will start to look more and more "like America." If McDonald's only hired 2% black people or 10% women, the EEOC would take notice and probably levy huge fines, because it's very unlikely that these groups represented such a small part of the qualified applicant pool.
 
Jet Fuel Johnny said:
I think you probably could nowadays.

"During the last polar vortex, houses were kept warm and with power. Roads were cleared by 10AM."
"During the wind storm, the tax money spent to force the power companies to upgrade the systems ensured that power was quickly restored."
"My administration had filled 1.2 million potholes on federal roads and enabled the counties of the state to fill in another 12.5 million potholes!"
"My administration has inspected all of the dams in the state and has repaired over a third of them, some of them getting maintenance for the first time since 1992."
"Coming up for reelection, I'd like to inform the public that the Q3 bridge inspections has been finished, bringing 50% of our bridges to "Great" condition after three years of repair."

You could run the fuck on that.

Add in: "I'll get/keep troons out of girls sports, CRT out of schools, make the school board answer to parents again, and ensure that predatory teachers aren't grooming your children!"

And you'll be golden.
Click to expand...
I will say this is more important than ever for local/state elections too, as evidenced by Youngkin's campaign in Virginia. He kept his campaign as on-point as possible unlike how McAuliffe went all-in with celebrity endorsements and other Democrat IdPol cliches that belittled the constituency. It was ultimately enough to get Youngkin over the final hurdle.

These days, inflation, fuel prices, supply shortages, crime rates, gainful employment, and other basic things you'd see on the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs are being noticed constantly by Joe and Jane American. Anybody who campaigns on restoring those basic needs instead of the fully-automated luxury gay space communism you see at the top of the hierarchy will have much better odds at success.
 
Diana Moon Glampers said:
So if you're hiring software engineers, literally nobody is going to be able to make the case that 13% of them should be black or that half of them should be women. The qualified applicant pool just doesn't look like a representative cross-section of the whole country.

This gets a little fuzzier the larger a corporation you are and the more unskilled the positions you offer are, because your applicant pool will start to look more and more "like America." If McDonald's only hired 2% black people or 10% women, the EEOC would take notice and probably levy huge fines, because it's very unlikely that these groups represented such a small part of the qualified applicant pool.
Click to expand...

Note that the feds are starting to scrutinize what a "qualified applicant" is. One thing that keeps blacks out of the applicant pool is refusing to hire felons. Activists have started to target this as an implicitly racist hiring standard. Based on how everything has gone in the past, it will soon be illegal to exclude convicted felons from your hiring process.

Part of the push to relax higher ed standards is money, but another part is that requiring a college degree has replaced aptitude testing as the way to do a first pass exclusion of dumb people for a given position. Back when this started, liberals believed that education techniques could overcome IQ deficits; after 50 years of failure, they've now resorted to just demanding that colleges start handing out degrees in a more racially equitable way.
 
The Ugly One said:
Note that the feds are starting to scrutinize what a "qualified applicant" is. One thing that keeps blacks out of the applicant pool is refusing to hire felons. Activists have started to target this as an implicitly racist hiring standard. Based on how everything has gone in the past, it will soon be illegal to exclude convicted felons from your hiring process.

Part of the push to relax higher ed standards is money, but another part is that requiring a college degree has replaced aptitude testing as the way to do a first pass exclusion of dumb people for a given position. Back when this started, liberals believed that education techniques could overcome IQ deficits; after 50 years of failure, they've now resorted to just demanding that colleges start handing out degrees in a more racially equitable way.
Click to expand...
Any idea over who are these activists?
 
Diana Moon Glampers said:
So if you're hiring software engineers, literally nobody is going to be able to make the case that 13% of them should be black or that half of them should be women. The qualified applicant pool just doesn't look like a representative cross-section of the whole country.
Click to expand...
Not that I would know or anything, but I'm guessing when I went to college that there was 1 black student per grade level in all the computing sciences put together.

You could literally automatically hire every single black person that applies for the job and you still wouldn't hit 13%.

I've alluded to this in other threads, but TL;DR black women do not fuck black male STEM students, so black men are completely disincentivized from even trying. Those that had any incentive to begin with that is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom