Miscellaneous news items that don't warrant their own thread

[UNI88]

Even a consensual relationship with a subordinate demonstrates poor decision making. You can't be sure if it was really consensual or if the subordinate felt compelled to enter into the relationship in order to please their boss. It's ironic that a champion of the Me Too movement was brought down by a relationship with a subordinate.

Agreed but as Trip points, out, there are remedies if it turns out to in fact be coerced consent. I'm not defending the wisdom of doing this and agree the hypocrisy is delicious.

What was Trip's approach for Weinstein? Did he point out the remedies there or did he support the lynch (can I use that word) mob? Are his reactions based not just on the circumstances but also on who the alleged perpetrator and victim are? There is a lot of irony involved here.

[kalm]

Agreed but as Trip points, out, there are remedies if it turns out to in fact be coerced consent. I'm not defending the wisdom of doing this and agree the hypocrisy is delicious.

What was Trip's approach for Weinstein? Did he point out the remedies there or did he support the lynch (can I use that word) mob? Are his reactions based not just on the circumstances but also on who the alleged perpetrator and victim are? There is a lot of irony involved here.

I don't recall what Trip said about Weinstein. Did he defend Weinstein's conduct as consensual? There would seem to be a huge difference between what's been allegated here and what Weinstein is being accused of. If this story changes so be it, but I haven't seen anything beyond the photo's so far.

Sometimes I feel like the only one on here who is not dog whistled by a Trip or JSO post. Don't make me take your independent card away, '88.

[Winterborn]

Even a consensual relationship with a subordinate demonstrates poor decision making. You can't be sure if it was really consensual or if the subordinate felt compelled to enter into the relationship in order to please their boss. It's ironic that a champion of the Me Too movement was brought down by a relationship with a subordinate.

Agreed but as Trip points, out, there are remedies if it turns out to in fact be coerced consent. I'm not defending the wisdom of doing this and agree the hypocrisy is delicious.

Or the boss likes to have power over their subordinates. There are many shades behind why people do what they do and that complexity is why there are rules in companies stating that it is not permitted between bosses and subordinates.

Companies have quite abit of time and money tied up their employees. If something goes wrong, one or both of those employees are leaving and the company is out that investment.


In a perfect world, I would tend to agree with Trip's thoughts. But last I checked we are not in that world and as a result I cannot date those really hot interns that flounce around at work in the summer.

Which is probably for the best as spending 24 hours a day with somebody does not sound appealing.

[Winterborn]

What was Trip's approach for Weinstein? Did he point out the remedies there or did he support the lynch (can I use that word) mob? Are his reactions based not just on the circumstances but also on who the alleged perpetrator and victim are? There is a lot of irony involved here.

I don't recall what Trip said about Weinstein. Did he defend Weinstein's conduct as consensual? There would seem to be a huge difference between what's been allegated here and what Weinstein is being accused of. If this story changes so be it, but I haven't seen anything beyond the photo's so far.

Sometimes I feel like the only one on here who is not dog whistled by a Trip or JSO post. Don't make me take your independent card away, '88.

You're not, your's and 88's post came while I was writing my own. . As much as it is interesting to pick apart both JSO and Trip's ideas, they do bring a different perspective to the discussions.

[UNI88]

What was Trip's approach for Weinstein? Did he point out the remedies there or did he support the lynch (can I use that word) mob? Are his reactions based not just on the circumstances but also on who the alleged perpetrator and victim are? There is a lot of irony involved here.

I don't recall what Trip said about Weinstein. Did he defend Weinstein's conduct as consensual? There would seem to be a huge difference between what's been allegated here and what Weinstein is being accused of. If this story changes so be it, but I haven't seen anything beyond the photo's so far.

Sometimes I feel like the only one on here who is not dog whistled by a Trip or JSO post. Don't make me take your independent card away, '88.

I don't remember what Trip said about Weinstein either and I just used him as an example. Trip makes some good points but he tends to ignore reason that is inconsistent with his worldview and he seems to use different scales of proof and justice depending on the allegations and the perpetrator and victim.

[AZGrizFan]

They violated company policy. Period. End of story. People get fired for that shit every single day of the year. Well except when the president does it.

That still doesn't make it non-consensual. Trip is right here.

Actually, yes it does. If you understood sexual harassment rules/laws, you'd know.

So you think Clinton/Lewinsky was just two consenting adults too then, huh?

[kalm]

I don't recall what Trip said about Weinstein. Did he defend Weinstein's conduct as consensual? There would seem to be a huge difference between what's been allegated here and what Weinstein is being accused of. If this story changes so be it, but I haven't seen anything beyond the photo's so far.

Sometimes I feel like the only one on here who is not dog whistled by a Trip or JSO post. Don't make me take your independent card away, '88.

I don't remember what Trip said about Weinstein either and I just used him as an example. Trip makes some good points but he tends to ignore reason that is inconsistent with his worldview and he seems to use different scales of proof and justice depending on the allegations and the perpetrator and victim.

Fair enough. I'm trying to spend the rest of my life being as non-tribalistic as possible.

[Ivytalk]

I don't remember what Trip said about Weinstein either and I just used him as an example. Trip makes some good points but he tends to ignore reason that is inconsistent with his worldview and he seems to use different scales of proof and justice depending on the allegations and the perpetrator and victim.

Fair enough. I'm trying to spend the rest of my life being as non-tribalistic as possible.

Except when it comes to corporate personhood.

[CAA Flagship]

Fair enough. I'm trying to spend the rest of my life being as non-tribalistic as possible.

Except when it comes to corporate personhood.

And gluten.

[kalm]

Fair enough. I'm trying to spend the rest of my life being as non-tribalistic as possible.

Except when it comes to corporate personhood.

Plenty of Dems embrace it. They’re wrong too. Non-tribal.

Next!

[BDKJMU]

Even a consensual relationship with a subordinate demonstrates poor decision making. You can't be sure if it was really consensual or if the subordinate felt compelled to enter into the relationship in order to please their boss. It's ironic that a champion of the Me Too movement was brought down by a relationship with a subordinate.

Agreed but as Trip points, out, there are remedies if it turns out to in fact be coerced consent. I'm not defending the wisdom of doing this and agree the hypocrisy is delicious.

She used tax payer dollars to hire a fuck buddy subordinate..

[Ivytalk]

Except when it comes to corporate personhood.

Plenty of Dems embrace it. They’re wrong too. Non-tribal.

Next!

Name one prominent Donk who thinks Citizens United was correctly decided,

You are a fraud, sir.

Next!

[kalm]

Plenty of Dems embrace it. They’re wrong too. Non-tribal.

Next!

Name one prominent Donk who thinks Citizens United was correctly decided,

You are a fraud, sir.

Next!

Actions speak louder than words, Homes. Besides, my thoughts on the matter are based on reality. Corporations literally are not a person. Money is literally not speech.

Quit being a lawyer and use your common sense, sir.

[kalm]

Agreed but as Trip points, out, there are remedies if it turns out to in fact be coerced consent. I'm not defending the wisdom of doing this and agree the hypocrisy is delicious.

She used tax payer dollars to hire a fuck buddy subordinate..

That’s why she hired her?

You sound kind of jealous.

[CID1990]

Name one prominent Donk who thinks Citizens United was correctly decided,

You are a fraud, sir.

Next!

Actions speak louder than words, Homes. Besides, my thoughts on the matter are based on reality. Corporations literally are not a person. Money is literally not speech.

Quit being a lawyer and use your common sense, sir.

Unions aren’t people either, klam

I never heard you tilting against that windmill


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Actions speak louder than words, Homes. Besides, my thoughts on the matter are based on reality. Corporations literally are not a person. Money is literally not speech.

Quit being a lawyer and use your common sense, sir.

Unions aren’t people either, klam

I never heard you tilting against that windmill


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have. Unions are not a person either.

I want a ALL money out of politics including unions and have said that from the start.

Did you belong to the police guild?

[CID1990]

Unions aren’t people either, klam

I never heard you tilting against that windmill


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have. Unions are not a person either.

I want a ALL money out of politics including unions and have said that from the start.

Did you belong to the police guild?

I was a member of the FOP in a state where it is a drinking club only.

And I was vocal and unpopular when arguing against their organization machinations

I just don’t detect the passion out of you about unions that have been around for a century versus a corporate/political structure that has only existed since 1945

Odd that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

I have. Unions are not a person either.

I want a ALL money out of politics including unions and have said that from the start.

Did you belong to the police guild?

I was a member of the FOP in a state where it is a drinking club only.

And I was vocal and unpopular when arguing against their organization machinations

I just don’t detect the passion out of you about unions that have been around for a century versus a corporate/political structure that has only existed since 1945

Odd that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guilty I suppose. Unions have been neutered during my lifetime so they don't appear to be as much a threat. but I'll try to mindful of them from now on to make you happy.

My BiL is an under-sheriff who's had to deal with the union and the picture he paints isn't pretty. Damn near outright insubordination at times which ain't good when it comes to public safety.

[UNI88]

Unions aren’t people either, klam

I never heard you tilting against that windmill


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have. Unions are not a person either.

I want a ALL money out of politics including unions and have said that from the start.

Did you belong to the police guild?

It isn't just about money. Unions influence elections by having members "volunteer" to work in support of their preferred candidates. Corporations can't require their employees to do the same.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[kalm]

I have. Unions are not a person either.

I want a ALL money out of politics including unions and have said that from the start.

Did you belong to the police guild?

It isn't just about money. Unions influence elections by having members "volunteer" to work in support of their preferred candidates. Corporations can't require their employees to do the same.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

That’s wrong too.

[CID1990]

I have. Unions are not a person either.

I want a ALL money out of politics including unions and have said that from the start.

Did you belong to the police guild?

It isn't just about money. Unions influence elections by having members "volunteer" to work in support of their preferred candidates. Corporations can't require their employees to do the same.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

klam’s missing that bit of “nuance” which was the original point of my comment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

It isn't just about money. Unions influence elections by having members "volunteer" to work in support of their preferred candidates. Corporations can't require their employees to do the same.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

klam’s missing that bit of “nuance” which was the original point of my comment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know how bad you want me to be pro-union for the purposes of fitting your evil liberal narrative. Sorry I’m disappointing you.

[CID1990]

klam’s missing that bit of “nuance” which was the original point of my comment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know how bad you want me to be pro-union for the purposes of fitting your evil liberal narrative. Sorry I’m disappointing you.

I don’t care if you are pro-union or not

I’m just pointing out one of your numerous inconsistencies

[kalm]

I know how bad you want me to be pro-union for the purposes of fitting your evil liberal narrative. Sorry I’m disappointing you.

I don’t care if you are pro-union or not


I’m just pointing out one of your numerous inconsistencies

That would make sense if I said union money is ok in campaigns. I haven’t. Feel free to go back and look if you’d like.

Try harder and better luck next time.

[UNI88]

I don’t care if you are pro-union or not


I’m just pointing out one of your numerous inconsistencies

That would make sense if I said union money is ok in campaigns. I haven’t. Feel free to go back and look if you’d like.

Try harder and better luck next time.

You tend to be harder on Conks and corporations than you are on Donks and unions. I'm good with it though because I'm the opposite and it provides balance.