|
Post by celawson on Aug 9, 2017 14:55:59 GMT -5
What's this "without using Google" crap? You'll believe me without citations? right. No, I mean I want you to produce an original, defensible thought rather than searching for someone else's words as you desperately reach for a defense of Trump. No. I'm sure military brass have been meeting with the President (duh) and asking for more money (duh) and including "missile defense preparednes/capability etc." in their justifications (duh). This would be a true statement, umm, pretty much every year since 1946 or so. I want to know what Trump has actually done, and in what way it differs from what every other president has done and would do, that makes you feel so tingly and safe with Trump in charge and comparing nuclear dick sizes with North Korea. How am I supposed to know what Trump has done that differs from what EVERY other president has done and would do? Here' are a few of my thoughts, with no credit to Google: Trump has been blatantly pro-military in his rhetoric since day one of his campaign, with emphasis on making our military stronger and appreciating our soldiers (including VA reform). He has brought several generals into his administration in top posts. He asked for some $30 billion in spending increases and got around half that from Congress. Oh well, at least he asked. And at least there was an increase. (Unlike some years under Obama) Do I wish we had Rubio at the helm as our world goes to hell from terrorism and rogue regimes? Yes, of course, absolutely. Do I think we'd be any better off or have more spending or more preparedness under Bernie? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Do I think Clinton would be spending more than Trump, or have the same pro-military stance (though she'd be better than Bernie, I admit), or have these specific smart and respected generals helping her? Highly doubtful. So yeah, in comparison to what could have been, I am all tingly for Trump's conservative admin and pro-military attitude.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 9, 2017 14:12:35 GMT -5
For those of you who think our military spending should be decreased rather than increased, aren't you a teeeeeensy bit grateful the Trump administration has been spending $$ to improve our readiness for this problem? I know I am. Be specific - in what way has the Trump administration improved our readiness for this problem? Extra bonus points: answer my question without using Google. What's this "without using Google" crap? You'll believe me without citations? right. Mattis just stated that since the earliest days of the Trump administration, military brass has been meeting with Trump specifically in regards to N. Korea and emphasis has been placed on increasing missile defense preparedness/capability etc. I assume that costs money. Do I get any extra points? If so, may I now cite this? Anyway, I am considering, due to the recent Google hoopla, of changing my search engine to Duckduckgo. It doesn't track me and protects my privacy from both them and everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 9, 2017 13:24:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 9, 2017 12:55:33 GMT -5
I just love that name. Too bad it's not a place in a good-hearted fantasty novel. OK, now back to reality. I've got a lot of questions, and I can't believe what I'm reading each day in the headlines. Things have gotten pretty scary. So just how worried should we be about a nuclear attack on the U.S. or another country, by N.Korea? And if they decide to attack the U.S., where are they likely to strike first? What do you all think of Trump's "fire and fury" statement? General Mattis gave a statement which clearly supports Trump's words. This is big stuff. www.cnn.com/2017/08/09/politics/mattis-pentagon-north-korea/index.htmlFor those of you who think our military spending should be decreased rather than increased, aren't you a teeeeeensy bit grateful the Trump administration has been spending $$ to improve our readiness for this problem? I know I am.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 9, 2017 12:01:16 GMT -5
From NT's post above:
When I read Damore's memo, the over-arching point I got out of it is that diversity is a good thing, but Google is going about it wrong and ineffectively (which you pointed out, NT). It isn't an anti-diversity memo - I would actually call it a PRO-diversity memo. So, to me, Damore is doing exactly what you said should be done.
As Damore points out, it's probably better to try to take a different approach which takes into account the strengths of the group in which we want to increase inclusiveness, than to simply push people in to fill a quota. I think Damore is arguing for a more organic approach, and since I am not frightened or put off by gender differences and actually embrace them, I agree. (disclaimer which Damore also repeatedly said - any one individual can break the "mold") When both my experience and science have shown there are characteristics we can assign as more male or more female, why not use that knowledge to decrease the gap?
I get that Damore is fixated on gender. And maybe as a white male, he's not as concerned about race as you are, NT. And maybe, as an engineer, he's socially awkward. (That's my own bias, knowing lots of engineers and having a couple in the family) However, this more strictly biological view of male and female obviously breaks down when talking about race rather than than gender, so he really had to stop this argument at gender, right? Still - if we are prompted to look more deeply into the roots of the problem rather than the effect (which to me is what Damore is saying), we can begin to address it at the roots with other groups who need more inclusiveness, which seems to me, over time (and probably a shorter time) could produce real and lasting change in inclusiveness. This, then, could make quotas irrelevant because plenty of diversity would more naturally flow into these areas. Isn't that the goal?
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 8, 2017 14:00:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 8, 2017 10:10:14 GMT -5
It certainly didn't take long for the author's main point to be proven. Shame on Google. And it is very sobering to read the hysterical and mischaracterizing descriptions of this "manifesto" by those on the left. Do these people have no reading comprehension skills? Anti-diversity? Manifesto? Please.
He is considering suing Google. I hope he does, though I wonder if he has grounds to do so.
At least he might not be unemployed for long -
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 3, 2017 16:28:49 GMT -5
Thanks for quoting more, NT. But don't you think this particular leak is in a different league than many of the others? Who freaking cares about Scarmucci's dinner? But leaking a private conversation between the POTUS and another country's leader is on a dangerous and extremely damaging level, no matter what the end game is. Look, we all agree Trump doesn't have the temperament nor the skill set to be a stellar POTUS. And some of you are saying that these leaks didn't make the other guys look bad. But what leaders are going to trust saying anything off the cuff or confidential or "real" to any of our POTUSs in the future now that this has happened? And how can the POTUS, any POTUS, work like that? A POTUS (Obama, IMO) can seem to have his s**t together and be appropriate and intelligent and classy, but that doesn't mean he won't still do things which are to many people bad policy- Iran deal, Obamacare, crapping on Israel, etc. Conversely, though a POTUS can be like Trump, he can still have good ideas and want to implement what is to many good policy (scrap the ACA, protect our borders, reform the tax code, strengthen our military etc.). We can be concerned, but trying to destroy the man in any way possible will damage more than Trump. Using leaks like this last one is also damaging the U.S. and the ability of any future POTUS (no matter what party) to be effective. This is tragic. EDITED TO ADD: Hmmm, so apparently there WERE some things said by the other leaders that could be problematic for them. According to National Review: www.nationalreview.com/article/450131/president-trump-foreign-leader-call-transcripts-leak-dangerous-precedent
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 3, 2017 10:58:14 GMT -5
I can't read the transcript right now due to paywall, and I'm off to work soon. But I don't see what's so appalling about the conversations in the excerpts above. At this point, are we aware of any terrible repercussions from Mexico or Australia because of the phone calls? These leaks really do need to be stopped. That's the most appalling thing I see here. They are DANGEROUS and highly inappropriate.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 1, 2017 12:22:52 GMT -5
.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Aug 1, 2017 10:45:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 29, 2017 16:18:36 GMT -5
This is extremely disturbing. But let's continue to hound the Trump administration for ties to Russia.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 28, 2017 11:26:57 GMT -5
HAHAHAHA! Too bad money can't by class.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 28, 2017 11:24:13 GMT -5
By the way, one thing I find just fabulous -- that I can laugh at with some genuine mirth -- the guy refers to himself, in the third person, as "the Mooch." It's spectacularly ridiculous. Ok, is that a New York thing? Referring to oneself in the third person? Because SNL used to do a recurring skit with a guy named Jimmy who used to do that. Sorry to generalize, haha, but remember I have to deal with "The Californians"...
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jul 28, 2017 10:20:58 GMT -5
|
|