Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

The Room Where it HappenedFollow

#102 Sep 23 2020 at 6:48 AM Rating: Good
****
4,041 posts
Must have been a glitch, it posted like five times in a row.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#103 Sep 23 2020 at 5:46 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,923 posts
gbaji wrote:
I have *never* heard of anyone using that kind of language to another employee. It's the kind of over the top stuff that exists only in the past, Hollywood depictions of corporate workplaces, and I suppose Hollywood itself (and maybe politicians)
I sure am relieved to hear that outside of Hollywood or politics that "obvious" sexual harassment has ceased. That's swell!! Thanks for clearing that up, gbaji!!
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#104 Sep 23 2020 at 6:09 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Gbaji, you're an insipid bore, and every post you write makes the world a marginally darker place.

I say this as a friend.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#105 Sep 23 2020 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,923 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Gbaji, you're an insipid bore, and every post you write makes the world a marginally darker place.

I say this as a friend.
Best friend.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#106 Sep 23 2020 at 9:27 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,262 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Why?
You're intentionally downplaying what happened simply due to politics. If this were an isolated event, then you would have a point. The man got on international television and said that he believed Putin over US intel because Putin said so. How many of these types of actions must occur before you accept that he doesn't place the US first?

Gbaji wrote:
It's posts like this that make me think you are incredibly confused about all of this. The Trump impeachment had nothing to do with Russia. Period. You keep bringing up Russia, the Mueller investigation, etc. Those weren't part of the impeachment. Yes, the Left wanted Trump removed, and that was their first attempt (which failed), but we're talking about the actual charges the house voted on and used to impeach the president. Those three charges were only related to the phone conversation with Ukraine and the withholding of funds to Ukraine. That's it.

That's why it was weak. The actual charges brought to the Senate were pitiful. That's why the Senate rejected it the way they did. Why do you keep talking about Russia?
Smiley: oyvey You like to assume the stupidest interpretation of everything then argue against it. Let me say it again. The impeachment criteria that the GOP set in the Mueller investigation was met in the Ukraine case. So by the GOP's own definition, it wasn't weak. They simply moved the goal post on the impeachable criteria.

Gbaji wrote:
Next time, maybe include the question you asked, so I don't have to go find it again. I've already rejected your notion that it was about popularity. My point about benefiting the party *and* being the right thing to do is my answer. The GOP controlled Senate would have done the same thing even if Trump wasn't terribly popular with GOP voters. I already made this point, that we do not have a Prime Minister who can be removed via vote of no confidence. We have a President, who can only be removed for committing treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Any while the Dems may hold a "by any means necessary" approach, the GOP tends to actually be sticklers for using the correct legal procedures correctly.

While I suppose we could hypothesis about an extremely unpopular president having his own party effectively turn on him and use impeachment as an excuse to get rid of him or something, that's a pretty bizarre and unlikely scenario. Just not sure why you'd bother going there, especially considering in this case it's not relevant. I mean, why not hypothesize about a president who's secretly a lizard person in disguise or something?
You're still not answering the question. If you don't think popularity is a factor, then you can still answer the question. Trump is open about supporting your opponent if you don't support him, so you can save the popularity argument. When GOP politicians oppose Trump, they tend to lose.

Gbaji wrote:
Why? I just wrote the details of voting in the Clinton impeachment, showing that folks in both parties crossed the lines at various points and on various charges. Why theorize when we have a semi-recent example to actually look at?
No they didn't. Like you said, the impeachment in the house is meaningless without the conviction in the Senate. Mitt Romney is the *first* and *only* person to have ever voted to convict the President of the same party. Do you honestly believe that's a coincidence?!?!? How many data points do you need in order to make a prediction?

So, I just demonstrated that this is all political. Now, answer the question.

Gbaji wrote:
Um. Do you know what a complex question fallacy is?
You're simply refusing to answer questions that counter your narrative. There's no fallacy. You know that the Democratic party would not seek to impeach a President Biden over Ukraine dealings with his son neither would the Republican party argue that a President Biden did nothing wrong. We already know that because they are already doing investigations on him and Obama now. This is not some bizarre and unrealistic scenario. We are currently living in political and divided times. This is the present.
#107 Sep 24 2020 at 6:21 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,262 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Yes. Which is what I literally said a freaking month ago. If they were serious about trying to remove Trump from office, they should have done more actual investigation in the House. They didn't. I've already presented several thoughts on why I think they did what they did, but at the end of the day, they didn't make anything close to an honest effort to remove him.
Which is why I found it odd that you chose to respond to me on that when we literally agree on that front.

Gbaji wrote:
Huh? Here's that muddled thinking again. The impeachment was in 2019. The phone called occurred in 2019. Why are you talking about 2018?

I'm not sure what your argument is here. The only thing I can guess is that you're saying that since she was re-elected in 2018, that she was therefore in no risk of being removed in 2020 if she didn't go forward with impeachment? Well, maybe. Except that the Mueller Report, which is what she would have tried to use to impeach him previously, also came out in 2019 (June I think). Um... So her base screaming at her to move forward with impeachment of Trump, would not have been an issue in 2018 (technically, 2017, since she'd need to do this prior to primary season), the way it was in 2019.

Believe it or not, she does face serious criticism in her district, mostly for not being liberal enough. So yeah, we can speculate that her decision to rush through an impeachment was driven by her own personal political needs.
My point is that she was in no danger of losing her seat at anytime in the past 4 years. Having criticism is not the same as being in danger.

Gbaji wrote:
I was talking about impeachment and how the decision to do so may have been driven by possible opposition from the left for her seat in her district. Whether she has on occasion criticized other party members in other districts on other issues isn't super relevant.
I know what you meant. She has already demonstrated that she is not afraid to attack the most popular of the left. Funny how you are claiming that Pelosi and the Democrats act out of fear of their seats, but it's "Bizarro world" to think of a scenario where the GOP would do the same.

Gbaji wrote:
Was there a question there? I just said that it's on the edge of what a president can legally do, you quoted me as saying that, then you said "so it's either on the edge or not". Um... Do you think it's not? I said it is. So do you agree, or disagree?


Earlier you wrote:
And the biggest whopper? He entered the US into a treaty with Iran without bothering to get it ratified by the Senate, as required quite clearly by the Constitution. That is actual Treason, with a capital "T". Get it?
You both claimed that President Obama committed Treason with a capital "T" and that it was clearly contrary to the constitution, but on the edge of what he could legally do as president.

Gbaji wrote:
So yeah, the GOP absolutely could have impeached him for that alone. But they didn't. Why? Because it would have likely backfired on them.
Re-quoting because it's relevant to the conversation. If you believe the GOP knew that impeachment for actual Treason (with a capital T) would be political backfire, why is it so hard to accept that the Democrats knew the same for something far less in crime?

Yet again, you appear fully capable of acting out hypotheticals when they support your talking points.
#108 Sep 25 2020 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,262 posts
Gbaji wrote:
What do you mean "not the same"? If he explicitly requests sex or a date in exchange for a promotion, then he is subject to termination.
It wasn't explicit, hence the point.

Gbaji wrote:
So it would be more equivalent to a new boss complimenting a new employee (perhaps not using the direct language you used), and then talking about what kind of work is expected of them, and perhaps asking them if they're willing to work overtime from time to time, but with no mention of any special reward other than those usually associated with hard work and extra hours (ie: not promising some kind of special quick rise to the top). When you remove that, then the idea that he's promising a reward for sex disappears. Again, in the absence of some more direct words or actions.


You mean a client who haven't received their paycheck, even though their contract work was already reviewed as compliant. Then when the client asks about his money, the boss start asking for a favor.Smiley: oyvey

Gbaji wrote:
I can say that as someone who's worked in the corporate world for nearly 25 years, I have *never* heard of anyone using that kind of language to another employee. It's the kind of over the top stuff that exists only in the past, Hollywood depictions of corporate workplaces, and I suppose Hollywood itself (and maybe politicians). So your example itself is a bit too over the top anyway. Remember that it's your example and your wording. I am not remotely going to defend it.
It's only sexual harassment if someone felt sexually harassed. Point being, just because the offer is on the table, doesn't mean the person will want to refuse it or feel disrespected. You don't think employers and employees have sexual relations? What do you think happened between President Clinton and Monica?

Gbaji wrote:
But setting the specifics aside, yes, if something is said that could be interpreted as inappropriate, it will rarely if ever result in immediate termination. You'll get a warning of some sort. Because we do tend to follow the same principle as we do in our legal system, and assume innocence rather than guilt
The higher up the chain you are, the less true that statement is. Regardless, the focus was not sexual harassment, but the double speak. Using double speak for sexual harassment will probably yield a different punishment for double speak for selling intellectual property.

Gbaji wrote:
If there is a pattern of this then action should be taken.
Working with foreign powers to assist in his election is the pattern.
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 10 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (10)