US Politics XXXII: Cancel my subscription to the insurrection

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Cause what most 25 year old women are looking for when they start a job in the political world is mentoring from a man in his 60s about sex with older men.

Thanks for commenting. By many accounts he's an arrogant person who likes to intimidate and bully people. Speaking that way to a woman in the workplace is clearly sexual harassment. So if he did, the jig is up.

She reported it to that same woman who wrote about the nursing home situation. I believe she was then transferred.

My gut tells me that many people have covered up his behavior for a long time, including women working for him. I wanted to believe in the guy last year, mostly because Trump was so hopeless regarding covid.
 
Thanks for commenting. By many accounts he's an arrogant person who likes to intimidate and bully people. Speaking that way to a woman in the workplace is clearly sexual harassment. So if he did, the jig is up.

She reported it to that same woman who wrote about the nursing home situation. I believe she was then transferred.

My gut tells me that many people have covered up his behavior for a long time, including women working for him. I wanted to believe in the guy last year, mostly because Trump was so hopeless regarding covid.

Yeah I wanted to give him benefit of the doubt when the first allegation surfaced, always possible a one off is a disgruntled former employee or something, but when the second allegation surfaces, hard to believe there's no fire when there's that much smoke.
He's in the age range (I've seen it) where a certain percentage of folks just think that it is OK to talk to people in the way his accusers described and say he never intended for it to be uncomfortable for the women or whatever the excuse is. Workplace behavior has largely (thankfully) undergone a big (and quite needed) dynamic shift in recent years, but old school guys like a Cuomo probably don't see any need to adjust their behavior until they get in trouble.
 
Cuomo's statement is offensive-to call it flirtation and use the words misinterpreted and joking. He knows damn well what sexual harassment is.

If he wants to pursue women who don't have any work association with him and are his daughters' age, that's his business. This second woman even told him that she had played school sports against his daughters.

So gross. What if some guy his age did that to his daughters in their places of work?
 
He's in the age range (I've seen it) where a certain percentage of folks just think that it is OK to talk to people in the way his accusers described and say he never intended for it to be uncomfortable for the women or whatever the excuse is. Workplace behavior has largely (thankfully) undergone a big (and quite needed) dynamic shift in recent years, but old school guys like a Cuomo probably don't see any need to adjust their behavior until they get in trouble.

Yes, this is a real struggle in many workplaces.

We basically have a generation of troglodytes on their way out, but unfortunately they are mostly in positions of power due to age and seniority. While it's not fair to call them all out, a very high percentage still says things that are shocking in this day and age. I experienced it today, and I'm a 41-year-old member of senior management, so you can only imagine. I'd say the generation of men under 45 is by and large of a different vintage.
 
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1366838690320941063?s=21

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1366838878536167429?s=21

I’ve always been more of a moderate, changes take time (and still think this way overall) BUT if the Dems don’t go big with passing solutions to what the GQP are doing, then there probably won’t be a next time. Or the damage done by the next time will be so great we’ll just continue this cycle until there really isn’t anything left.

This isn’t the time for some 3-6 dimensional chess match, figure out a way to pass popular legislation and stop the suppression
 
https://twitter.com/axios/status/1366838690320941063?s=21

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1366838878536167429?s=21

I’ve always been more of a moderate, changes take time (and still think this way overall) BUT if the Dems don’t go big with passing solutions to what the GQP are doing, then there probably won’t be a next time. Or the damage done by the next time will be so great we’ll just continue this cycle until there really isn’t anything left.

This isn’t the time for some 3-6 dimensional chess match, figure out a way to pass popular legislation and stop the suppression
Indeed. It has been very frustrating seeing the Biden administration put its focus on things like the Neera Tanden fight (though thankfully they gave that up yesterday), yet stay silent on things like this, the Amazon union fight, and folding like a tent on the filibuster and minimum wage.

I'm well aware of the fact that the courts are the courts, but there are a lot of fronts on which to fight these battles. Too often, this administration is choosing not to fight, or to defer to the vague appearance of a stance and to point to that as "fighting." I don't envy his press secretary, though her lashing out (albeit in more polite terms than the former administration) the other day at a legitimate question was also frustrating.
 
As if on cue, they have decided to narrow the stimulus payments. The entire premise of the "it's $1400, not $2000" thing was that it was in addition to the $600 that Trump sent out. And now they're based on totally separate criteria, revealing that the whole thing was bullshit all along.
 
I don't think people making that kind of money need a stimulus check. 80 for individuals and 160 for joint seems reasonable to me. I understand that people live with varying costs of living.
 
I don't think people making that kind of money need a stimulus check. 80 for individuals and 160 for joint seems reasonable to me. I understand that people live with varying costs of living.

Yeah I think those are reasonable levels.
However there is one potential problem. which is that they determine someone's eligibility from their prior tax return filing, so there's no accounting for someone who has since either lost their job or possibly taken a large pay cut. So some folks who could really use the stimulus money may get overlooked. That was an issue with the prior income cut offs as well, so what happened today isn't a big factor in that though there could be some folks who would have received a check (say they made 85K previously) who now won't. It's not going to be a huge number of people but it will surely affect some.

Its not a perfect system, but in general a person making $80,001 to $100,000 or a couple making $160,000 to $200,000 if they are still currently earning the same salary should be OK without a stimulus check. Certainly not amongst the truly financially desperate members of society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom