|
Regarding the trans athlete thing, a major reason conservatives are trying to get them out of sports is to further ‘other’ them from mainstream society
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:04 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 22:14 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They actually try to punish some of these crimes? Am I missing something here? The referral isn't a necessary part of the process. A shitload of evidence plus a referral doesn't compel or forbid any action on the part of the DOJ that the pile of evidence by itself wouldn't. It's just part of the traditional process. Decorum, if you will. As for why Congress didn't refer, it could be that Congress is trying to avoid the DOJ looking like it's taking marching orders from Dems in Congress. It could be they're a bunch of fuckweasels. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Jun 14, 2022 |
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:13 |
|
Add another one to the "Definitely running" pile: https://twitter.com/politicoalex/status/1536767190833168384 That makes the "99+% chance they will run" group: - William Hurd - Tom Cotton - Ted Cruz - Mike Pence - Ron DeSantis - Larry Hogan - Asa Hutchinson And the "Likely to run, but not 100% sure to run/Non-Trumps who want to run, but probably won't run if Trump runs/Will run, but probably only to audition for VP" group: - Donald Trump - Nikki Haley - Kristi Noem - Greg Abbott - Chris Christie - Josh Hawley - Marco Rubio - Rick Scott - Mike Pompeo
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:14 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:They actually try to punish some of these crimes? Am I missing something here? A criminal referral from the committee has no real impact on whether or not the DOJ prosecutes. If the committee presents enough evidence that the DOJ thinks is prosecutable, then the DOJ is not going to need a referral to prosecute. If the committee does not, then a referral isn't going to make them prosecute. This is different from the contempt thing where the DOJ won't even consider charging contempt of congress unless the congress asks them to with a referral. And remember DOJ declined to prosecute Meadows and Scavino because DOJ determined they do have a valid claim of executive privilege (and the committee already has all of Meadows' documents). On the other hand, they chose to prosecute Navarro and Bannon because they determined those dudes don't have a valid claim of executive privilege. Frankly, I don't think anyone should be able to avoid a congressional subpoena--you are in essence being called forth to testify to the entire nation and it should be seen as a patriotic duty--and I also think claims of executive privilege are overblown and too often used to avoid congress's scrutiny. But I don't run the DOJ.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:20 |
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:
???
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:23 |
|
syntaxrigger posted:So is this you just dismissing my question because you don't feel I listened to your previous post? I don't think you've listened to anything that doesn't reinforce your belief that the article is accurate, and you've asked a question that was both already addressed by Selec, and is based on a belief that the article is an accurate representation. Despite your knowledge of this matter coming almost entirely from the article and confirmation bias.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:25 |
|
PeterWeller posted:Frankly, I don't think anyone should be able to avoid a congressional subpoena--you are in essence being called forth to testify to the entire nation and it should be seen as a patriotic duty--and I also think claims of executive privilege are overblown and too often used to avoid congress's scrutiny. But I don't run the DOJ.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:25 |
|
The 99+% group are people who have publicly said, "I am planning to run," "I will run even if Trump runs," or have told major donors/groups that they definitely will run and it was reported on in the press. Reportedly, Trump hasn't made a decision yet and there haven't been any leaks or public statements confirming that he has decided or is making moves yet. That is why he is listed as very likely, but not 100% sure.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:27 |
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The 99+% group are people who have publicly said, "I am planning to run," "I will run even if Trump runs," or have told major donors/groups that they definitely will run and it was reported on in the press. https://twitter.com/vanityfair/status/1536530870223372288?s=21&t=mBhxPOfkT-Yld8ygWXp5KQ
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:30 |
|
Jaxyon posted:I don't think you've listened to anything that doesn't reinforce your belief that the article is accurate, and you've asked a question that was both already addressed by Selec, and is based on a belief that the article is an accurate representation. I was more looking for my explicit question of "What do you do?" to be answered that didn't seem to be addressed by the posters you mentioned. Regardless, I'll shut up and mind my own business as advised.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:30 |
|
FlamingLiberal posted:There is a report I saw today that Trump is considering announcing his 2024 run as close to the Florida governor’s mansion as possible as a shot at DeSantis The article they are sourcing it from says this: quote:The former president hasn't made a final decision about running in 2024. Some advisers say he could set a bid in motion as early as this summer. Which I think qualifies as "likely, but not 100% sure."
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:34 |
|
No way in hell he's not running unless he's dead, incapacitated, or in custody/exile. And for some of those it's still 50/50
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:42 |
|
syntaxrigger posted:I was more looking for my explicit question of "What do you do?" to be answered that didn't seem to be addressed by the posters you mentioned. Regardless, I'll shut up and mind my own business as advised. You said: quote:Leftists now are focused on having these organizations do everything for them but don't seem to operate well in hierarchical organizations and all the progressive non-profit organizations are structured in a hierarchical nature. So what do you do in the face of this? As Selec pointed out, the organizations mimic the hierarchical nature of for-profit businesses and thus replicate the problems inherent in those structures that may not be in alignment with the goals of a advocacy non-profit. With one solution to that being to explore different org structures. So what you want me to do is, forget that, and instead assume that it's the fault of leftists for being ungovernable, and then come up with solutions to that problem that you think exists because you really liked an article? I didn't tell you to shut up and mind your own business, I asked you to listen to what people are saying in stead of credulously believing an article that is clearly written with executives complaints in mind and to deliver to biases of people who view leftist organizations in terms of cliches. But since you took some mild push-back as being told to shut up, I imagine you're not ready to have your biases challenged and ironically are behaving like the org leaders in the article.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:47 |
|
Failed Imagineer posted:No way in hell he's not running unless he's dead, incapacitated, or in custody/exile. And for some of those it's still 50/50 And he will run purely to try and stave off most of those things happening to him via reobtaining presidential immunity. He's just paranoid enough to know that the complete inertia of all would-be interested parties that might possibly bring him to justice is not a completely sure thing, so he's going to hedge his bets and try to grab the ring again just to be sure.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:48 |
|
nine-gear crow posted:And he will run purely to try and stave off most of those things happening to him via reobtaining presidential immunity. He's just paranoid enough to know that the complete inertia of all would-be interested parties that might possibly bring him to justice is not a completely sure thing, so he's going to hedge his bets and try to grab the ring again just to be sure. And just the fact that he's running would probably be enough to terminally derail those investigations, he doesn't even have to win
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:52 |
|
Failed Imagineer posted:And just the fact that he's running would probably be enough to terminally derail those investigations, he doesn't even have to win
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 19:55 |
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Yeah but I'm pretty open about being dumb, ridiculous, and overall a court jester. I just encourage the rest of you to get on my level and be more honest about how dumb and ridiculously we are. Isn't that...a gimmick?
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 20:14 |
|
Here's an interesting article and study about how one Blue city (in Texas) is doing housing right. By building 3x as many new houses as the rest of the major urban areas of the country, putting the homeless up in temporary free housing for at least a year while they get employed and save an initial nest egg, and keeping housing relatively cheap so that both 1) fewer people fall into homelessness due to housing costs in the first place and 2) it is easier for the homeless who get their 1+ year of free housing to transition to permanent housing when they have reliable income. It's very long and detailed, but a very good read. The one problem is that Houston has a lot of free space and rentals with vacancies that don't exist in places like San Francisco or New York that makes it harder to replicate the strategy completely in those places. https://twitter.com/IDoTheThinking/status/1536784169656672257 quote:How Houston Moved 25,000 People From the Streets Into Homes of Their Own
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 20:14 |
|
Jaxyon posted:You said: selec posted:I work in this sector (technical consulting for nonprofits/NGOs and higher Ed) and a ton of this is the MBA-ization of all orgs. They emulate a top-down corporate structure and then end up with top-down problems: management bloat, mission drift, jockeying for position, and the overall hierarchical structure enabling abuse, coverups and stalling accountability. So selec mentions using holocratic or other non-hierarchical structures which sounds useful on the top level but doesn't really give a real answer to "What do you do when hierarchical structures dominate the non-profit landscape and people depend on many of the services they provide?". This seems a bit hand wavey given that context. I don't think all of the main problems outlined in the article will be solved by, as you summarized, "...use different org structures", mainly because it leaves a lot of questions unaddressed. What happens to those people while a transition is taking place or a new org is formed? How do these type of organizations accomplish goals?(All I found was some presentations on what appeared to be a consultancy which I didn't find informative) By what metric do I measure if the org is moving closer or further away? How do these orgs handle disputes since that seems to be the cost of being a leftist non-profit? How would this org get financed? (One piece of the article that I thought was interesting was that these non-profits seemed to rely on a small pool of wealthy donors instead of seeking out smaller donations from many which seemed sort of backwards) I focused on you because you seemed to have a clear idea of what to do but perhaps didn't realize that I was asking a specific question. So I attempted to seek to understand, which is what I generally associate with someone acting in good faith, but you seemed only interested in being dismissive. I now believe that you are just in the habit of pushing back on anyone who asks a question to which the answer seems obvious to you. Which tells me that I won't find the answers I wanted from you any ways. I'll agree you didn't tell me to "shut up". I was using a colloquialism for your being dismissive which I think this explanation corrects that misunderstanding. I know this is technically me getting back into the conversation when I said I wouldn't but since you felt the need to expand I thought the courteous thing to do would be to explain as well. I don't think my answers are in these here forums and I don't expect to engage further. Take care.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 20:25 |
|
Re Failed Imagineer's post: After I graduated from college, my parents suggested I stay with them for a year (rent free) so I could save up a solid emergency fund. That savings proceeded to get me out of all kinds of situations. It got me through periods of unemployment, playing chicken with employers trying to gently caress me, unexpected expenses, and insurance fuckups by buying me time to pursue the most cost effective approach to problems instead of the one that kept me from losing my home or whatever. I never even bled so much I couldn't save back up because having money literally saved me money. I have to imagine a year of free housing is a huge loving deal even for someone who doesn't have a degree. Blue Footed Booby fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Jun 14, 2022 |
# ? Jun 14, 2022 20:27 |
|
syntaxrigger posted:So selec mentions using holocratic or other non-hierarchical structures which sounds useful on the top level but doesn't really give a real answer to "What do you do when hierarchical structures dominate the non-profit landscape and people depend on many of the services they provide?". This seems a bit hand wavey given that context. I don't think all of the main problems outlined in the article will be solved by, as you summarized, "...use different org structures", mainly because it leaves a lot of questions unaddressed. If you wanted detailed ideas of how to fix the myriad different non-profits including disputes, financing, and org structure: 1) that was not clear from your question 2) it is probably beyond the scope of this thread 3) it is not a simple answer and I don't believe I have the expertise to field it. What I saw was you asking me to solve for a problem that was drawn from the article, which both myself and several other posters have indicated was innaccurate. Now, with clarification, it seems you area asking for a detailed education on how to avoid structural issues in advocacy work, while admitting since this isn't something you do or are at all involved in. So this is strictly an academic exercise for you, and one for which you are ill-prepared. If someone else wants to respond in more detail, cool.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 20:41 |
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:There are no congressional staffers who would have access to a draft opinion. Could've been custodial worker. They have access to the offices.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 20:50 |
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:Re Failed Imagineer's post: I think you're talking about someone else, I wasn't posting about housing and I've never made a post worth responding to
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 21:06 |
|
Failed Imagineer posted:I think you're talking about someone else, I wasn't posting about housing and I've never made a post worth responding to Sorry it was Leon.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 21:11 |
|
Republicans care about trans people in high school sports because it sounds better to the decorum class than their actual view of "I find trans people physically repulsive and wish I never had to see or think about them." Because of general ignorance, the competitive advantage in sports talking point has enough of a foothold in our society that people can say it out loud to signal their views, but the end game isn't sports, it's more Texas-like laws all the way to genocide. Sports are just a way to squeeze some more votes from people who *might* not vote for an explicit genocide candidate and give some public cover to those who would.
|
# ? Jun 14, 2022 23:55 |
|
Sports are always a useful culture war flashpoint because they're simultaneously frivolous enough for people to say "I just want to enjoy [x] without politics being shoved down my throat" and, for whatever reason, important enough at a local community level that it theoretically affects everybody.
|
# ? Jun 15, 2022 00:02 |
|
Sir Lemming posted:Sports are always a useful culture war flashpoint because they're simultaneously frivolous enough for people to say "I just want to enjoy [x] without politics being shoved down my throat" and, for whatever reason, important enough at a local community level that it theoretically affects everybody. Also, due to the absolutely bonkers cost of university in the US, and the bizarre emphasis on athletic scholarships, there's a tortured argument to be made that it actually could make a meaningful difference. Of course, to believe that the presence of trans athletes is a problem you would have to simultaneously believe that a cis person is inherently entitled to such a scholarship based on the circumstances of their birth and life, and also that a trans person must be disallowed access to such based on the same, so it doesn't hold up under even the lightest scrutiny, but it appeals to people who hate thinking about things.
|
# ? Jun 15, 2022 00:11 |
|
I enjoy sports myself and I know that in the south and deep red districts, HS athletics can be a big deal. But I also know that, by and large, most of the Bubbas and Daryls don't give a rats rear end about women's athletics unless their daughter or grand child is playing. None of the southern good ole boy types I know watch women's tennis, the LPGA, the WNBA, figure skating, gymnastics, softball, track or pretty much anything involving women competing athletically except maybe UFC or WWE. The idea that they're suddenly so concerned about the sanctity of women's sports is a non starter for me. These were the same assholes that were railing against title IX only a decade ago and openly stating that "no one cares about or wants to watch woman playing sports so why should we fund that poo poo when the men bring in all the money?" And is it really some huge widespread problem? I have to think that the occasional trans athlete running track or playing soccer is a fairly rare occurrence. But I keep hearing that men are now going to get sex changes solely to dominate collegiate tennis or what have you. Or perverts are going to do the same thing to creep up on kids in bathrooms. God drat, I've used the women's room on occasion when I gotta go gotta go and yet somehow the world kept spinning and it didn't make headlines. I've played pick up basketball games with women playing and it went off without a hitch. Sir Lemming posted:Sports are always a useful culture war flashpoint because they're simultaneously frivolous enough for people to say "I just want to enjoy [x] without politics being shoved down my throat" and, for whatever reason, important enough at a local community level that it theoretically affects everybody. Plus let's also play the star spangled banner and have a military jet fly over with a message from George W Bush on the jumbotron and then have a prayer to honor our fallen troops. Oh, and here's a recruitment ad for the Air Force. But I just wanna enjoy a game without all that political poo poo. Is that so much to ask, liberals? BiggerBoat fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jun 15, 2022 |
# ? Jun 15, 2022 00:17 |
|
Blind Pineapple posted:Republicans care about trans people in high school sports because it sounds better to the decorum class than their actual view of "I find trans people physically repulsive and wish I never had to see or think about them." Because of general ignorance, the competitive advantage in sports talking point has enough of a foothold in our society that people can say it out loud to signal their views, but the end game isn't sports, it's more Texas-like laws all the way to genocide. Sports are just a way to squeeze some more votes from people who *might* not vote for an explicit genocide candidate and give some public cover to those who would. Bigotry, outside of explicit Klan/Nazi contexts, is nearly always framed as protecting people from a thing. Bussing laws were opposed by people who were suddenly Very Concerned about traffic safety. Very few people think they're racist, or say they're racist. This is what bigotry looks like.
|
# ? Jun 15, 2022 00:20 |
|
FLIPADELPHIA posted:Chair of the 1/6 Committee says there will be no criminal referrals. People are getting probation for this? Jesus loving Christ this site has gone to absolute poo poo.
|
# ? Jun 15, 2022 01:03 |
|
So did Lauren Boebert really take cock for a living? AND have TWO abortions during that time? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Jun 15, 2022 01:18 |
|
Nobody would have cared if she wasn’t such a total hypocrite about both.
|
# ? Jun 15, 2022 01:20 |
|
MLSM posted:So did Lauren Boebert really take cock for a living? AND have TWO abortions during that time? What the gently caress is wrong with you
|
# ? Jun 15, 2022 01:22 |
|
Signs point to “yes”. https://mobile.twitter.com/MysterySolvent/status/1536828450526449665
|
# ? Jun 15, 2022 01:24 |
|
A big flaming stink posted:What the gently caress is wrong with you I’m laughing at a hypocrite?
|
# ? Jun 15, 2022 01:24 |
|
MLSM posted:I’m laughing at a hypocrite? What on earth is wrong with your brain that makes you think the phrase "take cock for a living" is ever remotely acceptable to say?
|
# ? Jun 15, 2022 01:25 |
|
A big flaming stink posted:What on earth is wrong with your brain that makes you think the phrase "take cock for a living" is ever remotely acceptable to say? What do you think escorts do? There’s nothing wrong with sex work.
|
# ? Jun 15, 2022 01:26 |
|
who cares at all if she did E: oh there might be something going on here, hmm lol
|
# ? Jun 15, 2022 01:28 |
|
A bad post indeed, possibly in the wrong bookmarked thread. Who can say, in this universe of mystery, in any case please let's move on. I personally couldn't care less if she used to be an escort and it's so far down on the list of things about her I find problematic that I wonder what exactly this group thought it would do. She's not gonna lose any support among the loonies or anything
|
# ? Jun 15, 2022 01:41 |
|
|
# ? May 27, 2024 22:14 |
|
I mean the photos that are supposedly from that escort service are from ExploreTalent and otherwise they're just relying on unsourced text messages, so probably not. I am curious why the group that went after Maddison Cawthorne are going after Boebert though. TGLT fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Jun 15, 2022 |
# ? Jun 15, 2022 01:47 |