Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Or alternatively people could stop taking offense to every damn thing that's said. They don't have to listen to people like Trump, you can just change the effing channel. By complaining and drawing attention to it, it won't solve anything, the man's an attention whore, he lives for it, and people are giving him what he wants. Seriously I just wish people would ignore him and quit taking offense or getting outraged everytime someone else says something they don't want to hear. Freedom of Speech exsists for a reason.
Plus Lifes Too Short, so just Let It Go.
edited 30th Jul '15 12:21:54 AM by Skycobra51
Look upon my privilege ye mighty and despair.God, please let this be (more or less) true.
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.True.
Yes.
edited 30th Jul '15 6:58:29 AM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Yet another GOP member has thrown their hat into the ring. This time it is entrepreneur Esteban olivierez you can find his announcement video on You Tube
Presenting!If the Southerners did not want to be Yankees they should not have lost the war then. SUCKS TO BE THEM. This is what we call a "neener neener" moment.
As opposed to Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales, which remained independent but united instead of subjugated states. Would have been subjugated states long time ago but right now I am fairly certain we can say the comparison is quite unfair.
About that Oliverez guy.
Who the fuck is he?
About Trump: He is seriously as off topic in the political climate as the demonym "yankee". His presidential theme should be something by ICP and he should wear pagliacci makeup.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesBreast feeding/pumping is of those areas in which the U.S. is grossly behind the rest of the developed world. There is nothing more wholesome and natural than a mother feeding her baby, except of course, "OMGZ a nipple11!!1one think of the KIDS!"
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"The breast thing is considered disrespectful because...I actually dont understand why but it is considered "unprofessional" because for some reason, professionals should be able to predict everything and handle eeverything cooly with no interjection from anything or anyone else, so being unable to predict how and where a baby will be hungry is a lack of knowledge in the area that reveals severe deficiencies
That is to say, the baby should not be the only one with something shoved down their gullet to make them shut the fuck up. At least the baby has a good excuse.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesLoaded questions are fun, aren't they?
I'm not overly familiar with the daily routines of lawyers, but I would think it common sense that you would try to get such things done without actually having to interrupt your work schedule to do so. Mothers and parents in general are (or at least, should be) entitled to many benefits, but one of those benefits should not be a 'pause life' button.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.
If we give people cigarette breaks, then breast pumping breaks are kind of a no-brainer. Anyway, these are natural biological processes; it should be considered no more unusual than going to the bathroom.
Actually, it should totally be. It's called "being family-friendly".
Sweden FTW.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.I will say that bringing your child into your work environment is definitely a no-no, but that's why we should expand access to family leave and child care for working parents. My office has an on-site day care facility and I know for a fact that mothers whose infants are there are allowed to take breaks to breast feed.
edited 30th Jul '15 7:53:28 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If you know of a way to predict how and when an infant is going to be hungry, please, post it in the Parenting Thread, contact the World Health Organization, and retrieve your Nobel Prize at the exit.
I am sorry if it comes off as needlessly sarcastic but I just need to point out that the mere notion that infants are predictable machines is ridiculous.
This is why there needs to be laws and communication based on this. What if, for example, the working mother is essential to the workplace? Maybe she is the only expert that the company has, or more likely, the only one they can afford to keep. So what are they going to do? Punish her for having a baby? Make her choose "The company or your child"?
They allowed her there for whatever reason and thus, not expecting the fact that a nursing infant would need attention is completely illogical. As said before, it is unpredictable. Maternity leave is a much simpler solution, cutting the Gordian knot, but it also leaves the company one man down in the task they are trying to accomplish.
Imagine a mission where you needed a sniper, but the only guy who knows how to shoot a gun is wounded and has to limp. Yeah. You would slow down for him because you need them, right? Same thing for pregnant women. You KNOW she is going to have to feed the child, so either plan for it with either maternity leave or breastfeeding breaks, but don't expect her to quiet the child with a wave of a magic wand.
edited 30th Jul '15 8:06:00 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesIf your job already allows you the time for those breaks, then there's no disruption to the work schedule, now is there? What you actually use the break for is your business.
And yes, Aszur, babies are not nicely timed, programmed machines. But society shouldn't run on a rule of 'If you have a child with you, you can go off schedule whenever you want.' That's not terribly fair to employers, and just plain disorganized, regardless of all else. If we as a society decide that taking infants to work is a good idea, then we can design our work schedules and employee rotations around that as a baseline. But it has to be a baseline, not a special dispensation. Workers should be treated equally regardless of their personal life decisions.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Nah. Workers should be treated with equality.
I am not saying that an employee has to inform the boss when they plan to have sex and when they plan to get pregnant, but if an employee gets pregnant then it is a mutual responsibility of them and the employers to define how are they going to work then.
A company has objectives (financial or otherwise in the case of NG Os), it is not an adult daycare. It is not the task of employers to make sure these adults are locked up a total amount of 8 hours a day, it is up to them to pay them for the task they were hired to do, and it is up to the employer to determine if the employee is filling up that task.
If neither employee nor employer decided upon themselves how to deal with it then they are both pretty irresponsible (I would choose the words stupid, but I am trying to be diplomatic), but doubly so for the company because it is the company that is going to more likely face legal repercussions for not offering a safe environment for an employee with a condition.
The condition is not "pregnancy" by the way, it is a condition that afflicts us all: the human condition. Seriously, expecting a child not to interfere with one's life would be like hearing "Boss. My father died." and answering "oh. Ok. Get back to work I expect the same quality job as always."
Treating everyone exactly the same is a very silly expectation that is only going to lead to dissapointment and really fucked up metrics.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesIndeed. Workplaces are not magically divorced from the realities of human life; they are not a soulless robotic environment where everybody is perfectly productive, then goes home at 5 PM to be biological, emotional entities.
Empirically, employers who accommodate the needs of families and parents realize benefits in the form of lower turnover, increased job satisfaction, and higher productivity.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"This is getting way too deep into the broad philosophical assertions rabbit hole for me. And, as a tangent, it was only barely on topic in the first place. I would actually be happy to continue this discussion in a more relevant venue (the Women's Issues thread, maybe?), but US Politics can probably go back to mocking derpy Republican candidates.
The original incident with Trump doesn't actually seem that significant, regardless, except as one more example in a pattern of behavior. But I'm rather more worried about the politicians who would legislate the way Trump legislates without being foolish enough to say the things Trump says.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

To get things back on topic, will Trump's comments tarnish the GOP tradition
of making critically stupid comments about rape? Somehow, I doubt it.
The comments from Trump and his aide add to a string of stumbles from Republican candidates who have made offensive comments about sexual coercion or have spoken inarticulately about women's reproductive issues. In the 2012 cycle, Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin sparked a firestorm after he claimed that "legitimate rape" rarely results in pregnancy. The same year, Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock drew fire when he alleged that pregnancies resulting from rape were "something that God intended to happen." Both races were seen as winnable for Republicans. Heading into 2016, many Republicans hope Trump's campaign will be seen as something of a political anomaly and that its comments surrounding rape won't tarnish the rest of the party.
Trump's campaign quickly distanced itself from Cohen's inflammatory remarks, but not before Democrats seized the opportunity to again paint the GOP with a broad brush on the sensitive issue of rape. "This is a new low. Rape is rape. Full stop. End of story. There is no difference or division between 'forcible,' 'legitimate,' 'marital' or any other label Republicans slap on before the word 'rape,'" Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said in a statement. "It's a pattern of outrageous comments that must stop, and Republicans should call it what it is — despicable." Wasserman-Schultz's statement alluded to controversial ways in which Republicans have discussed rape in the past, comments that the Democratic Party has capitalized on to cast the GOP as waging a "war on women."
In recent years, Republican leaders have made a concerted effort to repair the party's bruised image on this front, counseling candidates on artful ways to talk to and about women. GOP strategists point to 2014 as a cycle when the Democratic "war on women" strategy backfired. One of their prime examples is former Democratic Colorado Sen. Mark Udall's failed re-election bid. Udall, who made women's reproductive issues such a centerpiece of his campaign that he was dubbed by some in the local media as "Mark Uterus," lost to Cory Gardner. "Some of the most successful candidates (in 2014) were the ones who took on the war on women unapologetically, unabashedly," said GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway, who has coached candidates on gender issues. "In 2012, the war on women was highly effective for the Democratic Party and for President Obama's re-election. In 2014, it fell flat and you had a record number of pro-lifers being elected." Still, there is particular pressure on Republicans to speak articulately and sensitively about women and gender this presidential cycle, with Hillary Clinton leading the presidential race on the other side of the aisle. As a candidate, the former secretary of state has not shied away from discussing reproductive issues such as abortion, as well as sounding a feminist tone in her public speeches.