President Biden, critics corner

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

2 hours ago, normiss said:

Given the complete lack of support for Veterans by the Republicans, I cannot understand any active duty, veteran, or retired military voting for any Republican.

Yet the party has a surprising history of people supporting them while getting less than zero in return. That party has not worked for the people since I can't remember.

Because the Rs hate the same people that some veterans hate.

They don't care about 'support', or 'funding' or any of that.

They care about hating immigrants, women and 'people with dark skin'.

[lippy 918]

4 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

They care about hating immigrants, women and 'people with dark skin'.

You forgot LGBTQ....They seem to have a pretty raging hard-on going against them, too.

[billeisele 130]

16 hours ago, gowlerk said:

The much hated Hilary Clinton got more votes that the idiot who won the electoral college vote IMO it may be YOU who is not ready to vote for a female POTUS. What does being "ready" mean to you anyway?

Merely repeating water-cooler talk where some say that she may not be electable simply because the country is not ready. Others words and opinions, not mine.

I'm a Nikki Haley fan and would vote for her. She was an excellent Governor and did a good job in Washington. It sure seems like she's done many "right" things over the last few years to create name recognition and gain political support. I haven't heard her make a statement that creates political problems.  

Until Trump gets out or is pushed out, it will be a mess. Among other things, the constant name calling has turned off so many voters. And, apparently according to the polls, the bumbling Joe and Kamala show has likewise turned off many voters. Don't know if it's the economy, the border or his age ... or all the above, but they are struggling.

Plenty of interesting days ahead. Ron seems ready to announce. Tim Scott said that he has a May 20 something (next week) event scheduled in N Charleston. Many think he will jump in the race. I personal friend of mine is his national finance co-chair. Not that it matters but folks should note that Haley is the one that appointed Scott to a Senate seat in 2013 when DeMint retired mid-term.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

10 hours ago, lippy said:

You forgot LGBTQ....They seem to have a pretty raging hard-on going against them, too.

Oops. You're quite right.

 My bad.

[JerryBaumchen 1,424]

12 hours ago, billeisele said:

the bumbling Joe and Kamala show has likewise turned off many voters.

Hi Bill,

As my favorite math teacher in college would consistently say:  'Prove it.'

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,810]

12 hours ago, billeisele said:

Merely repeating water-cooler talk where some say that she may not be electable simply because the country is not ready. Others words and opinions, not mine.

I'm a Nikki Haley fan and would vote for her. She was an excellent Governor and did a good job in Washington. It sure seems like she's done many "right" things over the last few years to create name recognition and gain political support. I haven't heard her make a statement that creates political problems.  

Until Trump gets out or is pushed out, it will be a mess. Among other things, the constant name calling has turned off so many voters. And, apparently according to the polls, the bumbling Joe and Kamala show has likewise turned off many voters. Don't know if it's the economy, the border or his age ... or all the above, but they are struggling.

Plenty of interesting days ahead. Ron seems ready to announce. Tim Scott said that he has a May 20 something (next week) event scheduled in N Charleston. Many think he will jump in the race. I personal friend of mine is his national finance co-chair. Not that it matters but folks should note that Haley is the one that appointed Scott to a Senate seat in 2013 when DeMint retired mid-term.

The "bumbling Joe and Kamala show" are your words not from the poll, right?

Please put some definition to the claim; not single words like "border" or "economy" but your own actual analysis.

[gowlerk 2,245]

8 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The "bumbling Joe and Kamala show" are your words not from the poll, right?

Please put some definition to the claim; not single words like "border" or "economy" but your own actual analysis.

Maybe he is from the Ron school that teaches that analysis is not needed because it is all about "the feels". 

Edited May 17, 2023 by gowlerk

[billvon 3,059]

14 hours ago, billeisele said:

Merely repeating water-cooler talk

"People are saying she's not electable.  I'm not saying that, but everyone is saying it.  It's unbelievable how many people are saying she's just not electable, and the country's not ready.  They've turned off all the voters.  Just the other day a disabled veteran came up to me and said 'Mr. Trump, I love you and you are our only hope.  She's just not electable.'  He was crying because all the people feel very strongly about this."

[jakee 1,558]

15 hours ago, billeisele said:

Merely repeating water-cooler talk where some say that she may not be electable simply because the country is not ready. Others words and opinions, not mine.

Is there anything worse (on a forum, not in the real world obvs) than someone who tries to weasel out of standing up for what they said when they realise it hasn't gone down well? 

Not your opinion, huh? Lets just check that. You said, and I'll copy and paste so there's no mistake, "IMO the country isn't ready to elect a female".

Simple question here - what does the 'M' stand for in IMO?

[JerryBaumchen 1,424]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

"People are saying she's not electable.  I'm not saying that, but everyone is saying it.  It's unbelievable how many people are saying she's just not electable, and the country's not ready.  They've turned off all the voters.  Just the other day a disabled veteran came up to me and said 'Mr. Trump, I love you and you are our only hope.  She's just not electable.'  He was crying because all the people feel very strongly about this."

Hi Bill,

Well, here is someone who thinks she is:  Vogue's Anna Wintour to host Harris fundraiser in New York - POLITICO

Tickets for the May 30 fundraiser, which organizers are planning for 50 to 75 people, will start at $10,000.

Let's see the Trumpees match that. *

Jerry Baumchen

* If they sold all of their guns & that pickup, then they might be able to.

 

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Simple question here - what does the 'M' stand for in IMO?

Depends on how it identifies, could be IFO really.

[billeisele 130]

On 5/17/2023 at 2:26 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

As my favorite math teacher in college would consistently say:  'Prove it.'

Jerry Baumchen

Good morning Jerry. The weather here today reminds me of Oregon, unfortunately no mountains.

The polls aren't looking favorable for the current administration. This source is an aggregation of numerous polls. The "How this works" button at the top describes how they analyze and report information.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/

[billeisele 130]

On 5/17/2023 at 5:41 PM, jakee said:

Is there anything worse (on a forum, not in the real world obvs) than someone who tries to weasel out of standing up for what they said when they realise it hasn't gone down well? 

Not your opinion, huh? Lets just check that. You said, and I'll copy and paste so there's no mistake, "IMO the country isn't ready to elect a female".

Simple question here - what does the 'M' stand for in IMO?

One of my favorite word and intent twisters. But yes, I can see where the confusion is. The various statements are contradictory. So ... to clear that up.

Yes, IMO (based on what is being said around the water cooler) the country isn't ready. I disagree with the thought that a woman is not electable. As stated in Post 3226, "I'm a Nikki Haley fan and would vote for her." Also said, "Merely repeating water-cooler talk where some say that she may not be electable simply because the country is not ready. Others words and opinions, not mine."

Plenty of interesting days ahead.

 

[wmw999 2,515]

18 minutes ago, billeisele said:

IMO (based on what is being said around the water cooler)

Do you think that’s a problem? Or should we just accept the number of bigots and the amount of control they wield? BTW, this attitude (that a woman is not electable because of the opinions of people in the general population) isn’t really compatible with the statement that women have an equal opportunity

I wonder how those same water cooler folks feel about electing minorities

Wendy P. 

[jakee 1,558]

31 minutes ago, billeisele said:

One of my favorite word and intent twisters. 

At least you admit that’s what you’re doing. But then why do it at all?

31 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Also said, "Merely repeating water-cooler talk where some say that she may not be electable simply because the country is not ready. Others words and opinions, not mine."

That’s exactly the point. It isn’t the guys around the cooler standing here saying the country isn’t ready, you are here saying the country isn’t ready. It isn’t not your opinion, it absolutely is your opinion. You presented it as your opinion and just now confirmed that it was.

So why is it your opinion that the country isn’t ready to elect a woman? Just because some guys around the water cooler said so? What was it they said that convinced you? What reasons did they give that you agreed with? Or do you just trust everything the water cooler guys say without a second thought?

Edited May 19, 2023 by jakee

[Phil1111 1,149]

18 minutes ago, jakee said:

...So why is it your opinion that the country isn’t ready to elect a woman? Just because some guys around the water cooler said so? What was it they said that convinced you? What reasons did they give that you agreed with? Or do you just trust everything the water cooler guys say without a second thought?

Why? Why? Because others led the way on how to present false information:: Trump Appears to Be Making Stuff Up About 9/11. Again.

[billeisele 130]

8 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Do you think that’s a problem? Or should we just accept the number of bigots and the amount of control they wield? BTW, this attitude (that a woman is not electable because of the opinions of people in the general population) isn’t really compatible with the statement that women have an equal opportunity

I wonder how those same water cooler folks feel about electing minorities

Wendy P. 

Good morning Ms Wendy. Rain and low clouds, no jumpy today.

If u r asking if it's acceptable for a person of any race, sex, etc. to be deemed unelectable or disfavored in any way based on one of those things, no. We should all strive to treat everyone equally. 

Looked up bigotry and found this. Other definitions are stiffer requiring one to "strongly and unfairly dislike."

obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction, in particular prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

"the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry"

I bring this up because "bigot" is a strong term. The conduct doesn't always meet that threshold. There must be a less-strong term for folks that have opinions before they are labeled a bigot.

Do you think that favoring someone for a job, promotion or college selection based on race, sex, etc. is OK? Would that be a form of discrimination or bigotry?

[wmw999 2,515]

34 minutes ago, billeisele said:

bring this up because "bigot" is a strong term. The conduct doesn't always meet that threshold. There must be a less-strong term for folks that have opinions before they are labeled a bigot.

Do you think that favoring someone for a job, promotion or college selection based on race, sex, etc. is OK? Would that be a form of discrimination or bigotry?

It is a strong term; one I used as a sometimes-target of such people. Given their prevalence, is it better to wait for them to die (and hope they don’t pass those prejudices in), or to assume that people who appear to be equally qualified in fact get an opportunity? Because that’s what AA is; it’s not letting people’s natural preference for people like them direct their hiring.

I’ve know managers who were proud of giving more credit to graduates of particular universities (not just the Harvard and Yales); always their alma mater. I don’t really think that’s OK, either.

Wendy P. 

[billeisele 130]

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

It is a strong term; one I used as a sometimes-target of such people. Given their prevalence, is it better to wait for them to die (and hope they don’t pass those prejudices in), or to assume that people who appear to be equally qualified in fact get an opportunity? Because that’s what AA is; it’s not letting people’s natural preference for people like them direct their hiring.

I’ve know managers who were proud of giving more credit to graduates of particular universities (not just the Harvard and Yales); always their alma mater. I don’t really think that’s OK, either.

Wendy P. 

When AA is used in that manner it's understandable. When it's used as the reason for advancing the less qualified, that's a problem.

I get it. A company I worked for had a propensity of hiring and promoting folks from one particular university. Funny, there was a black guy that was from another university. He became a VP, was quite qualified and a good guy to work for. In casual convo he would joke about how he got hired by saying, "What do you think?"

That company had a big list of sub-par preferential hirings that were a problem, with some eventually being fired and others pushed into minor jobs. Unfortunately, in the meantime a lot of other careers were wrecked.

[jakee 1,558]

29 minutes ago, billeisele said:

I get it. A company I worked for had a propensity of hiring and promoting folks from one particular university. Funny, there was a black guy that was from another university. He became a VP, was quite qualified and a good guy to work for. In casual convo he would joke about how he got hired by saying, "What do you think?"

If he became a VP and everyone liked him then he was probably not just a qualified candidate but an outstanding candidate from the outset. Did the company always hire from one university or just usually? Because if they made exceptions for any other outstanding people, why would you assume that wasn't the case here?

29 minutes ago, billeisele said:

That company had a big list of sub-par preferential hirings that were a problem, with some eventually being fired and others pushed into minor jobs. Unfortunately, in the meantime a lot of other careers were wrecked.

Imagine how many sub-par people get hired because they're white guys. 

 

And again, why do you think the country isn't ready for a female president? What did the water cooler guys say that convinced you?

Edited May 19, 2023 by jakee

[normiss 843]

32 minutes ago, billeisele said:

When AA is used in that manner it's understandable. When it's used as the reason for advancing the less qualified, that's a problem.

I get it. A company I worked for had a propensity of hiring and promoting folks from one particular university. Funny, there was a black guy that was from another university. He became a VP, was quite qualified and a good guy to work for. In casual convo he would joke about how he got hired by saying, "What do you think?"

That company had a big list of sub-par preferential hirings that were a problem, with some eventually being fired and others pushed into minor jobs. Unfortunately, in the meantime a lot of other careers were wrecked.

Working for Intergraph in the late 80's in Jacksonville, FL. The lead engineer was a white racist from Georgia. He was also quite lazy and avoided doing his job whenever possible.

We had an open position for another engineer, when the rest of us recommended a black man as the most qualified and best fit, his response was "We ain't hiring no nig*ers here." 

I left soon after that.

[billvon 3,059]

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

When AA is used in that manner it's understandable. When it's used as the reason for advancing the less qualified, that's a problem.

Of course.  Affirmative action was conceived specifically to overcome the (racist) tendencies of people to not hire people who were of a different race.  Has it been abused?  Of course, like everything else.  But it had the HUGE advantage of getting qualified black people into industries, companies and schools they were once effectively barred from.  And once that happened, the unintentionally racist people in those companies/schools got a chance to experiene what you did - "huh, he's a black guy but he's very qualified - and a good guy to work with."  And that attitude was the goal of AA.

[JoeWeber 2,810]

Back to our poor, bumbling, demented, and scared of his shadow President.

Not heard around a water cooler in the south, when told that Putin said that providing F-16's to Ukraine is a colossal risk he replied: "It is for them".

[JoeWeber 2,810]

Well, the bumbling idiot who can't tie his shoes or walk up stairs just defeated the Freedom Caucus on the debt ceiling. Biden's Presidency is on track to be one of the most consequential in recent history. You can get on board or you can hang with MTG. 

[lippy 918]

6 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

You can get on board or you can hang with MTG. 

Better to hang with her than with Mike Pence, I guess.