BjorgenFjorgen
Well-Known Member
I poked my head in here for the first time in weeks and I knew it would be a mistake.
Political Discussion
- Thread starter David A.
- Start date
Joe Mac
Well-Known Member
No they spent so long trying to undermine him BECAUSE Johnson was likely to be the consequence. The time period in the report you quote was well in advance of the 2019 election. I’m actually originally from one of the red wall constituencies that him loosing was devastating. It was obvious that he has lost them in mid 2018, I actually said it on the old forum. That’s without talking about how accenting to Boris’ dream of an early election was his decision and political suicide. Boris should have been made limp on with a ineffective minority supported by the fickle DUP until such a time as his true character came out.
Last edited:
TenderLovingKiller®
Well-Known Member
LOL, You don’t enjoy watching a snake eat it’s own tail? Come on, join the fun!
BjorgenFjorgen
Well-Known Member
If the Supreme Court matters so much, better vote for the dude responsible for getting Clarence Thomas on it!
BjorgenFjorgen
Well-Known Member
Ah, it was fun for a while but it turned quick. Now I try to keep this place for good vibes and Twitter when I need to get macabre.
TenderLovingKiller®
Well-Known Member
Long Dong Silver and coke pubes enter the Senate record.
Joe Mac
Well-Known Member
American politics in general is substantialy to the right of European politics. I think the relative positions and temperaments are analogous.
Joe Biden's campaign is twisting a New York Times story to defend against the Tara Reade allegations
On Tuesday night, CNN's Don Lemon asked former Georgia state lawmaker (and potential vice presidential pick) Stacey Abrams about allegations made by a former Senate staffer that Joe Biden had sexually assaulted her in the early 1990s. Here's how she responded (bolding is mine):
www.cnn.com
High Rant District
Active Member
Why shouldn't they? The party of the 'woke' and Kancel Kulture nominated a person accused of multiple instances of sexual misbehavior. Nothing makes sense.
ayayrawn
Well-Known Member
A bad faith argument, but people on the left already know there's nothing "woke" about the current iteration of the democratic party.
High Rant District
Active Member
That's when accusations mean you lose your job.
Except when politics are involved. We all know that makes them immune.
So that's why Trump let the stay at home guidelines expire.
So he could take a weekend vacation and Camp David.
Yup, Trump is taking the weekend off.
So he could take a weekend vacation and Camp David.
Yup, Trump is taking the weekend off.
A federal judge dismissed the US Women's Soccer lawsuit against the US Soccer Federation for unequal pay after US Soccer Federation filed a motion to have the lawsuit dismissed. This is a major blow for the US Women's national team's fight for equality.
The reason according to the judge? The US Women's base pay is the same as the Men's and the women played more games due to their success in the world cup and therefor, actually made more money than the mens team. Therefor they have failed to prove inequality.
While that is true, the men do make a lot more money through bonuses related to performance. They have had nowhere near the success yet get much bigger and more frequent bonuses. The bonuses are why this lawsuit was filed and the proof US Women's soccer had of inequality. Apparently the judge didn't even take bonus into consideration and only base salary.
The news report I saw didn't mention why the bonuses were not taken into account by the judge. Anyone have thoughts as to why? With the bonuses the Men's team makes more than the Women's team.
Doing a quick google search I found an article from last year on the Washington Post that explains the salary differences after bonuses.
The same base salary argument comes out of the fact that the Women's team has a base salary of $100,000. The men's team has no base salary. However, they earn a $5,000 bonus for each game they lose. So if the men's team and the women's lost all 20 of the regular seasons games, they would both make $100,000.
Because the women played more games due to their success they actually earned more than the mens team according to the judge.
But the men's team didn't lose all 20 games. And with bonus related to the ones they met, the women's players made about 38% that of the men's players even while winning the world cup.
The reason according to the judge? The US Women's base pay is the same as the Men's and the women played more games due to their success in the world cup and therefor, actually made more money than the mens team. Therefor they have failed to prove inequality.
While that is true, the men do make a lot more money through bonuses related to performance. They have had nowhere near the success yet get much bigger and more frequent bonuses. The bonuses are why this lawsuit was filed and the proof US Women's soccer had of inequality. Apparently the judge didn't even take bonus into consideration and only base salary.
The news report I saw didn't mention why the bonuses were not taken into account by the judge. Anyone have thoughts as to why? With the bonuses the Men's team makes more than the Women's team.
Doing a quick google search I found an article from last year on the Washington Post that explains the salary differences after bonuses.
The same base salary argument comes out of the fact that the Women's team has a base salary of $100,000. The men's team has no base salary. However, they earn a $5,000 bonus for each game they lose. So if the men's team and the women's lost all 20 of the regular seasons games, they would both make $100,000.
Because the women played more games due to their success they actually earned more than the mens team according to the judge.
But the men's team didn't lose all 20 games. And with bonus related to the ones they met, the women's players made about 38% that of the men's players even while winning the world cup.
Someone told me the bonuses can't be taken into consideration because they are a different payment structure. Also, that the US Women's soccer had the opportunity to switch over to the same bonus payment structure that the Men's team had a few years ago, but rejected it. Because they rejected it, there is no "what if" and can't be used as evidence to support inequality.
The women's soccer team rejected it because their bonuses would not have paid out the same as the US Men's soccer team.
They were only making around $30,000 base salary at the time. And it was a better deal for them to push for a $100,000 base salary as they would make more money with that than the bonuses they were being offered.
The women's soccer team rejected it because their bonuses would not have paid out the same as the US Men's soccer team.
They were only making around $30,000 base salary at the time. And it was a better deal for them to push for a $100,000 base salary as they would make more money with that than the bonuses they were being offered.
Unemployment claims from Asian Americans have spiked 6,900% in New York. Here's why
In New York state, about 147,000 Asian Americans have filed initial unemployment claims in the last four weeks alone, up 6,900% from the same time a year ago. That's by far the largest percentage increase experienced by any one racial or ethnic group.
www.cnn.com
Asian Americans have been hit the hardest and have disproportionately seen more unemployment claims than any other nationality.
For asian Americans, trouble started in January. Business for asian restaurants and Chinatown slowed to a crawl. They were in financial trouble and closing / furloughing workers well before stay at home orders went into place.
In NYC, a very popular asian restaurant saw there business cut in half in January. By mid February they had to make the call to be closed on on weekdays and only be open on the weekend. By early March they found themselves unable to bring in enough money to continue to pay employees and were forced to close both their locations and furlough all staff.
Many asian american businesses, even if essential and allowed to be open or provide curbside pickup are not seeing the business. People are associating them with the virus and avoiding them at all costs.
I love people who think they are far left but believe a presidential election could be a radical revolution.
I despise Biden, but we are already so fucked by the judicial nominations during the Trump presidency (not only on the Supreme Court), that we truly can't afford a second GOP term. Yes, the Democratic party--and Biden in particular--is only the lesser evil, but when those are the options, I'll go with less evil. Yes, the 2-party system sucks, but it's what we have.
California to reopen some businesses this week as lockdowns ease across US – as it happened
‘It has only happened for one reason: the data says it can happen,’ the state’s governor said
www.theguardian.com