So do we know how many years Trump is facing yet? I dunno what he can plea down to (or even if he can considering the nature of his crimes being extraordinary), but I keep seeing conflicting numbers. He's facing 7 counts, and there's a maximum of 20 years for some of those counts...
...but I'm seeing people saying 136, 400, and David Pakmin's stream says 536 years... which sounds like an obvious joke lmao.
Most interesting thing I found about the Trump indictment:
What's interesting to me is not the obvious obstruction of justice, which we know is a core part of the indictment, but Trump's obsession toward "my boxes." His sense of possession is palpable: even though he knows better, he's convinced they are "my" boxes and he wants to keep them all to himself.
It continues to be a mystery why he felt this way. He doesn't seem to have actually done anything with the documents he took aside from periodically waving them around while he rants about something related. Was he keeping them "just in case"? Or what?
Trump is a wackadoodle and he just does weird, unexplainable stuff. Maybe that's all it is.
What results? I mean, media or corporations co-opting messaging doesn't make the viewpoint incorrect. It certainly emboldens fringe nutjobs to push back, but I don't think you can lay that at the feet of honest and sincere people.
The educational system exists to turn children into capitalists and should be the focus of leftist criticism. It is labor by any scientific definition of what labor is and thus child labor.
I think this isn't entirely unfair, but the alternative is private or homeschooling which would definitely be worse. Moving away from the status quo public schooling is what conservatives want.
There's is a pragmatic purpose for education, the curriculum shouldn't be left to shitkickers masquerading as state and county/city councilman.
I'm not sure where you went to school. I did go to school in the USA for a bit. I can tell you right now that if you removed everything that didn't have a specific purpose there would be very little left. Among some of the random bullshit I had to sit through in school:
Pep Rallies. Fuck them. Stupidest fucking waste of times ever. I think detention was more enjoyable.
Speaker telling us that abstinence is the best, and that if we become gay we'll get AIDS and all our friends and family will abandon us.
Language classes taught by someone who doesn't know the language they're teaching.
US history is almost as biased at Japanese history. I got to learn how Japan was the big, bullied victim in WW2 in Yokohama, then I go to school in the USA and we skip over the trail of tears and focus on how awesome the USA is. Holocaust was mentioned in the USA at least. Can't say the same for my Japanese history.
Honestly, a lot of school is an enormous waste of time.
The educational system exists to turn children into capitalists and should be the focus of leftist criticism. It is labor by any scientific definition of what labor is and thus child labor.
This is really the opposite of how it is these days. Not sure where you're getting this info, but your typical school here isn't doing much in the way of turning kids into capitalists. Many kids take their publicly funded bus to their publicly funded school and listen to teachers who feel (and are) underpaid teach subjects they aren't passionate about.
Also, the right would argue that the school system is turning kids woke and socialist. This is a new one for me. I've literally never heard someone say our education system exists to turn kids into capitalists. The politics in school are more subtle, and I think you're overanalyzing quite a bit. The bar to become a teacher in the USA is really low, and the teachers are mostly prescribed the material they teach by the state and federal government. For the most part those things are very objective subject matter, and the delivery is based specifically on the teacher. You may get a history teacher who's a WW2 buff and heavily focuses on that. Or, for instance, I had a science teacher from Russia who claimed "the Cold War was a tie." For the most part the nuances in education are people adding their opinions where they shouldn't.
Most interesting thing I found about the Trump indictment:
What's interesting to me is not the obvious obstruction of justice, which we know is a core part of the indictment, but Trump's obsession toward "my boxes." His sense of possession is palpable: even though he knows better, he's convinced they are "my" boxes and he wants to keep them all to himself.
It continues to be a mystery why he felt this way. He doesn't seem to have actually done anything with the documents he took aside from periodically waving them around while he rants about something related. Was he keeping them "just in case"? Or what?
Trump is a wackadoodle and he just does weird, unexplainable stuff. Maybe that's all it is.
You don't remove classified documents. Period. Nobody should get a pass on it. The weirdest thing about it all is he could have declassified them as president. Instead he has them at his beach-front property in Florida. He's becoming more and more unhinged, and his base is getting ridiculous with their constantly suggesting he shouldn't be prosecuted. It's all optics for them.
r/conservative was singing Kaczynski's praises this week. To them he's a victim who made excellent points. Lots of members suggesting everyone read his manifesto, and how correct he was. It's insane to read.
What results? I mean, media or corporations co-opting messaging doesn't make the viewpoint incorrect. It certainly emboldens fringe nutjobs to push back, but I don't think you can lay that at the feet of honest and sincere people.
I think this isn't entirely unfair, but the alternative is private or homeschooling which would definitely be worse. Moving away from the status quo public schooling is what conservatives want.
There's is a pragmatic purpose for education, the curriculum shouldn't be left to shitkickers masquerading as state and county/city councilman.
I find the talk about how the education system is from people who likely didn't experience it, or who don't have kids in it to be pretty weird. I think the media puts a lot of false information out about school systems in general. The thing with the USA is it's fucking gigantic. School districts, which are the localized system in place to manage the schools in an area, run vastly different from one another. Texas (which is where my primary school took place, and my kids partially went to before moving to CO) has over a thousand school districts. You'd read in the news how the schools are teaching kids to become transgender, or how they're banning all the books they don't like. Then you realize it's a single school in a single district, and usually the ordeal causes enough of an outrage that it self resolves. The district my kids were in made the news for "book banning" but you'd go to the library, and all the books they claimed were banned are right there. My daughters didn't really have much to say about it one way or another.
I would honestly translate anything you hear in the news about schools in the USA as "What Karen would like you to think about the education system."
My mom warned me how the public schools are going to turn my daughters gay, or trans, or something. In reality the schools, believe it or not, dedicate very little time to the subject. There are no classes specifically to address gender. Even in the more liberal Colorado I have not experienced that. I also think the idea that you can convince someone to be trans is rubbish.
In a nutshell I think the one you're replying to has a flawed source of information, and I think most of the opinions on the thread have been very far from my experience.
r/conservative was singing Kaczynski's praises this week. To them he's a victim who made excellent points. Lots of members suggesting everyone read his manifesto, and how correct he was. It's insane to read.
To be fair, there's some on the far left singing his praises as well. Mostly white leftists since they like ignoring the social implications of Kaczynski's beliefs or the outright racism.
I find the talk about how the education system is from people who likely didn't experience it, or who don't have kids in it to be pretty weird. I think the media puts a lot of false information out about school systems in general. The thing with the USA is it's fucking gigantic. School districts, which are the localized system in place to manage the schools in an area, run vastly different from one another. Texas (which is where my primary school took place, and my kids partially went to before moving to CO) has over a thousand school districts. You'd read in the news how the schools are teaching kids to become transgender, or how they're banning all the books they don't like. Then you realize it's a single school in a single district, and usually the ordeal causes enough of an outrage that it self resolves. The district my kids were in made the news for "book banning" but you'd go to the library, and all the books they claimed were banned are right there. My daughters didn't really have much to say about it one way or another.
I would honestly translate anything you hear in the news about schools in the USA as "What Karen would like you to think about the education system."
My mom warned me how the public schools are going to turn my daughters gay, or trans, or something. In reality the schools, believe it or not, dedicate very little time to the subject. There are no classes specifically to address gender. Even in the more liberal Colorado I have not experienced that. I also think the idea that you can convince someone to be trans is rubbish.
In a nutshell I think the one you're replying to has a flawed source of information, and I think most of the opinions on the thread have been very far from my experience.
My cousin has two daughters that have identified as non-binary and they're moving to a different county now. My mom's interpretation of it was that it's to some degree related to it being a different school district. I need more information before I feel anything definitive about it since the notion they're moving to a more affluent and even more left-leaning county to escape that kind of educational influence seems nonsensical to me.
The vast majority of these people have no clue what is being taught to their children in school, they only pay attention their grades, if that. They see an outlandish story (that is probably not even factual in the first place, there's countless examples of this - just look at the litter box story lol) from their favorite professional liar and that informs their entire viewpoint on the downfall of western pedagogy. Meanwhile teachers are paid nothing, are now being pushed by these same people to be armed in school or harassed if they're queer.
My cousin has two daughters that have identified as non-binary and they're moving to a different county now. My mom's interpretation of it was that it's to some degree related to it being a different school district. I need more information before I feel anything definitive about it since the notion they're moving to a more affluent and even more left-leaning county to escape that kind of educational influence seems nonsensical to me.
The vast majority of these people have no clue what is being taught to their children in school, they only pay attention their grades, if that. They see an outlandish story (that is probably not even factual in the first place, there's countless examples of this - just look at the litter box story lol) from their favorite professional liar and that informs their entire viewpoint on the downfall of western pedagogy. Meanwhile teachers are paid nothing, are now being pushed by these same people to be armed in school or harassed if they're queer.
You mean they're moving because their daughters identified as non-binary?
A lot of people expect the school system to be a third parent to their children. Mine are still fairly young but I haven't got any weird assignments or questions regarding things in class. We are in the Denver area, which is pretty liberal (I mean, first to legalize weed in the USA, and now psychedelic shrooms are legal I believe) and the curriculum is pretty standard. Only difference is the teaching quality seems much better than TX. There isn't as much parent outrage at everything in Colorado. In Texas it felt like no matter what the school does, it became political. Things as simple as changing how you teach multiplication and division would cause community outrage.
You mean they're moving because their daughters identified as non-binary?
A lot of people expect the school system to be a third parent to their children. Mine are still fairly young but I haven't got any weird assignments or questions regarding things in class. We are in the Denver area, which is pretty liberal (I mean, first to legalize weed in the USA, and now psychedelic shrooms are legal I believe) and the curriculum is pretty standard. Only difference is the teaching quality seems much better than TX. There isn't as much parent outrage at everything in Colorado. In Texas it felt like no matter what the school does, it became political. Things as simple as changing how you teach multiplication and division would cause community outrage.
I think it's a game of telephone, AFAIK my cousin isn't dumb enough for that to be the reason but it seemed to be a point of contention at least. The non-binary thing isn't even "new" so it being the root cause leaves me doubtful lol
Most people don't care unless there's something to complain about. And lo and behold the usual suspects have given them that again.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Fox News is hilarious man, really. You have all of the Libs acting how damning this is like it matters.
I mean, it's a pretty funny clip, but pretending that all or most of the people mentioned in the video aren't going to be silent at best and servile little worms at worst the moment Trump wins the nomination again is the real comedy here.
2024 is going to be a joke, and subsequently the next four years as well.
Trump will probably win the nomination, and choose someone like MTG as his running mate. Biden will probably win the election but he's so old that it wouldn't be crazy to think he might not see 2028.
Was not a fan of how Kamala Harris worked in CA, and I don't think she'd be anything impactful as a VP. Don't hate her, but she made truancy a big point of her presence in CA.
Then we have Pence, who, let's face it, has zero chance of winning anything. It's kind of ridiculous that he's an actual evangelical, but your typical old church goers would give their vote to the what, thrice-divorced "billionaire" known for bankruptcies, scandals, indictments, and not paying for services?
This was absolutely insane. That cop is a hero and I really regret that we live in a society where people like him are necessary. Too bad other cops don't typically model this behavior (looking at you, Uvalde).
SC has voted to end Affirmative Action, which is bullshit because it evened the playing field for disadvantaged people. That combined with what's going on with student loans, I'm betting the goal is to have wealthy families continue to benefit while those who aren't well off do even worse as they either can't afford a degree or have to pay off high amount, if they even get into college against legacy kids and kids from a wealthy background.
SC has voted to end Affirmative Action, which is bullshit because it evened the playing field for disadvantaged people. That combined with what's going on with student loans, I'm betting the goal is to have wealthy families continue to benefit while those who aren't well off do even worse as they either can't afford a degree or have to pay off high amount, if they even get into college against legacy kids and kids from a wealthy background.
Affirmative action always felt like a kind of poor blanket solution to a much bigger problem (racial bias). One thing I've observed (obviously anecdotal) is that affirmative action creates a paper problem for companies. They hire however many people they need to fill the specific requirements. It's bitten me in the ass at least once, where I had a worker who was literally not doing anything - she would come into work and be on FB all day long, and never completed a single task. At that company I wasn't able to fire her unless we could find a woman to replace her. It was a really lame process where we interviewed a ton of really great candidates but weren't really allowed to hire 95% of them because I'm in a very male-dominated field. There's also certain jobs where I would really just prefer they hire the most qualified person, regardless of politics. I don't want an affirmative action hire flying my family across the world. I don't think removing it was the right path forward, but I feel like in general it was an easy thing for companies to fudge the numbers and not actually take seriously.
I think the problem is you can't legislate racism and bias away - you have to introduce that generationally and it would take years and years. The duality is of course the elephant in the room - the notion of an "affirmative action hire" where extremely capable people have to overcome the barrier of perception that they are only where they are due to affirmative action. I've mentored a few (usually black) programmers who are absolutely amazing, but feel that the company was tokenizing them. Had a really good programmer at my last company who was fairly low level, and the CEO / CTO would come over and shoot the shit with him daily and pretend they were basketball fans, get some pictures, etc.. At the end of the day he could easily see what it was all about and found it annoying which he confided in me.
Welp, you could make a distinction professional and educational setting but realistically speaking it's still impossible to not view beneficiaries as... affirmative action hires/students. Just yesterday I was having a conversation with someone from another country who commented she was surprised about how there were so many females in presidential pairings for the upcoming elections in my country. I could see her die a little inside when I told her that by law presidential pairings are required to have one woman and one man (which yes, is some anti democratic inane BS).
Affirmative action always felt like a kind of poor blanket solution to a much bigger problem (racial bias). One thing I've observed (obviously anecdotal) is that affirmative action creates a paper problem for companies. They hire however many people they need to fill the specific requirements. It's bitten me in the ass at least once, where I had a worker who was literally not doing anything - she would come into work and be on FB all day long, and never completed a single task. At that company I wasn't able to fire her unless we could find a woman to replace her. It was a really lame process where we interviewed a ton of really great candidates but weren't really allowed to hire 95% of them because I'm in a very male-dominated field. There's also certain jobs where I would really just prefer they hire the most qualified person, regardless of politics. I don't want an affirmative action hire flying my family across the world. I don't think removing it was the right path forward, but I feel like in general it was an easy thing for companies to fudge the numbers and not actually take seriously.
I think the problem is you can't legislate racism and bias away - you have to introduce that generationally and it would take years and years. The duality is of course the elephant in the room - the notion of an "affirmative action hire" where extremely capable people have to overcome the barrier of perception that they are only where they are due to affirmative action. I've mentored a few (usually black) programmers who are absolutely amazing, but feel that the company was tokenizing them. Had a really good programmer at my last company who was fairly low level, and the CEO / CTO would come over and shoot the shit with him daily and pretend they were basketball fans, get some pictures, etc.. At the end of the day he could easily see what it was all about and found it annoying which he confided in me.
In terms of education, Affirmative Action fought against legacy and wealthy/connected recruiting. Problem is, Ivy League universities tend to accept kids whose parents went to that university or are from "good" backgrounds, which is not fair for the students who worked hard to get great grades. Few years ago, a lot of people learned that wealthy celebrities often bribed universities to accept their kids, which shut off admission for kids that actually qualified through merit. That sort of shit shouldn't be supported.
In terms of employment, Affirmative Action is supposed to combat racism and bias, and it is still necessary because without it, more white men are likely to be hired, promoted, and get pay raises while women, Black people, and etc are likely to be overlooked for one reason or another. Companies often did not hire the most qualified people to work for them, nor would Affirmative Action allow someone who's not good at risky jobs like flying to actually become a pilot. That was quite an ignorant statement to make, unless you have proof that Affirmative Action has allowed incompetent pilots to fly planes?
Companies aren't taking it seriously, they only do it to avoid getting in trouble and to look good for PR reasons. They can have some of the most competent and qualified minorities working for them and still keep them in a minor role with low pay regardless. The whole opposition to diversity hiring is just bullshit because it takes away the advantages that white men had and evens the playing field a bit more.
Company likely was, but at least they're getting money for it. Without AA, they wouldn't be getting anything, most likely.
A poor solution is still an attempt, which is more than what most conservatives care to entertain. They go through life unironically believing in the meritocratic lie told to us starting in 7th grade civics class.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
Impeach Thomas and pack the court to restore balance to it and maybe more people will give a fuck, John
--- Double Post Merged, ---
Curious what sort of conflict of interest needs to exist in order for recusal to be something these people consider? Because if the court is intended to be impartial and recusal is something that happens with other jurists at every other court level, why is it so fucking hard for these people to do the same? Oh, that's right, forgot integrity at their convenience was a thing.
--- Double Post Merged, ---
The only thing more devastating than what's happening in the SCOTUS lately is that said events give an excuse for Hillary stans to feel even more vindicated. Disgusting.
A poor solution is still an attempt, which is more than what most conservatives care to entertain. They go through life unironically believing in the meritocratic lie told to us starting in 7th grade civics class.
Poor solutions to complex problems often causes more harm than good. I'm not really trying to look at this from a Conservative vs. Liberal standpoint. I don't have much expectation of conservatives so I'm not really sure how it's relevant beyond the conservative court acting exactly as you'd expect here.
In terms of employment, Affirmative Action is supposed to combat racism and bias, and it is still necessary because without it, more white men are likely to be hired, promoted, and get pay raises while women, Black people, and etc are likely to be overlooked for one reason or another. Companies often did not hire the most qualified people to work for them, nor would Affirmative Action allow someone who's not good at risky jobs like flying to actually become a pilot. That was quite an ignorant statement to make, unless you have proof that Affirmative Action has allowed incompetent pilots to fly planes?
It has literally happened. Conrad Jules Aska. While of course there is no record of who is and who isn't a "diversity hire," this pilot crashed a plane prettyclose to where I lived at the time in 2019, and he had a strong track record of being utterly incompetent at his job. So yes, this is an actual concern. Not ignorance. I'm just glad he made his horrible mistakes over an empty swamp and not during his final descent into Houston.
Companies aren't taking it seriously, they only do it to avoid getting in trouble and to look good for PR reasons. They can have some of the most competent and qualified minorities working for them and still keep them in a minor role with low pay regardless. The whole opposition to diversity hiring is just bullshit because it takes away the advantages that white men had and evens the playing field a bit more.
Company likely was, but at least they're getting money for it. Without AA, they wouldn't be getting anything, most likely.
Unqualified and poor performers shouldn't be getting money for doing a piss-poor job. There are entitlement programs that exist to aid those who struggle with employment. I don't really get the constant focus on the white man in this. Most of the people pushing diversity down my throat at work have been white men (I am an asian man, fwiw).
Diversity sometimes provides benefits, but this whole "We don't have any person of ____ ethnicity, so we need to hire them. The only person has no experience, but let's give it a try!"
My last company made what I consider valiant efforts to improve diversity outside of AA. We hosted a get-together at a local arcade / bar and invited anyone interested to come train with us to become programmers, and paid them to do it. The effort was respectable and the plan seemed fine, too. The requirements were that you had to come from a non-traditional background - which meant lower income, women, hispanic / African, etc.. The program probably cost several hundred thousand dollars as they re-allocated resources to train these people. The problem was that out of the whole pool of about 50 of them, we only really got two good hires, and the rest were an HR nightmare. My point being is I think you're incredibly jaded. I've personally not worked for a company that's not trying to hire with diversity in mind, and most companies that aren't seem to be places you'd not want to work anyways.
Poor solutions to complex problems often causes more harm than good. I'm not really trying to look at this from a Conservative vs. Liberal standpoint. I don't have much expectation of conservatives so I'm not really sure how it's relevant beyond the conservative court acting exactly as you'd expect here.
Maybe not entirely applicable to what we're talking here or implying anything about your point, but some statistics worth noting
It's very difficult to characterize the issue as being about affirmative action itself. It just looks like affirmative action benefiting black people as being the main motivation of getting rid of it.
It has literally happened. Conrad Jules Aska. While of course there is no record of who is and who isn't a "diversity hire," this pilot crashed a plane prettyclose to where I lived at the time in 2019, and he had a strong track record of being utterly incompetent at his job. So yes, this is an actual concern. Not ignorance. I'm just glad he made his horrible mistakes over an empty swamp and not during his final descent into Houston.
So you don't know if he was a "diversity hire" or not, you're just assuming he is based on? Him being a person of color? But I googled him, and he apparently lied about his abilities, which isn't necessarily related to Affirmative Action. But his family also sued Amazon, so there's that. Still seems like ignorance on your part.
Unqualified and poor performers shouldn't be getting money for doing a piss-poor job. There are entitlement programs that exist to aid those who struggle with employment. I don't really get the constant focus on the white man in this. Most of the people pushing diversity down my throat at work have been white men (I am an asian man, fwiw).
Diversity sometimes provides benefits, but this whole "We don't have any person of ____ ethnicity, so we need to hire them. The only person has no experience, but let's give it a try!"
My last company made what I consider valiant efforts to improve diversity outside of AA. We hosted a get-together at a local arcade / bar and invited anyone interested to come train with us to become programmers, and paid them to do it. The effort was respectable and the plan seemed fine, too. The requirements were that you had to come from a non-traditional background - which meant lower income, women, hispanic / African, etc.. The program probably cost several hundred thousand dollars as they re-allocated resources to train these people. The problem was that out of the whole pool of about 50 of them, we only really got two good hires, and the rest were an HR nightmare. My point being is I think you're incredibly jaded. I've personally not worked for a company that's not trying to hire with diversity in mind, and most companies that aren't seem to be places you'd not want to work anyways.
Yet they are just for knowing the hiring manager or someone who works for the company, or because they're white. What part of Asia?
Well, when it comes to jobs like piloting an airplane or rocket science, I highly doubt diversity will allow someone incompetent to be in charge of other people's lives, whereas it can ensure a person of color is more likely to be hired in an office role or something.
I'm not sure if you know the history of employment, especially when it comes to Black people and women.
So you don't know if he was a "diversity hire" or not, you're just assuming he is based on? Him being a person of color? But I googled him, and he apparently lied about his abilities, which isn't necessarily related to Affirmative Action. But his family also sued Amazon, so there's that. Still seems like ignorance on your part.
Did you read the outcome of that lawsuit? His family let it quietly die because the FAA ruled him 100% at fault for his own demise.
What I’m saying re: not knowing if he was a diversity hire, is that there’s never a way to know. Companies don’t exactly tell you you’re the diversity hire. I assume he was based on the fact that he ever passed a flight exam to begin with.
Yet they are just for knowing the hiring manager or someone who works for the company, or because they're white. What part of Asia?
Well, when it comes to jobs like piloting an airplane or rocket science, I highly doubt diversity will allow someone incompetent to be in charge of other people's lives, whereas it can ensure a person of color is more likely to be hired in an office role or something.
I'm not sure if you know the history of employment, especially when it comes to Black people and women
I know the history well. My wife has been targeted in discrimination for being pregnant. As I said I also mentored many black software engineers from varying backgrounds. My point is not that they shouldn’t get a job, but that merit should be the only thing considered. We should be teaching kids at a young age why discrimination is wrong, and continuing a culture of shaming racists and those who do discriminate. Creating a number requirement just makes the problem easy for employers to bullshit their way through. It was much more helpful for breaking ground in the 60s but were past that point now.
