One of Trump's stooges at HHS made the baffling decision to overrule the CDC and fly 14 people infected with Coronavirus back to the US in the SAME PLANE as nearly 400 healthy Americans.

Recipe for disaster...just imagine the lawsuits this idiotic move will generate:

https://gizmodo.com/trump-regime-overru ... ssion=true

It really is hard for me to wrap my head around these daily scandals, none of which are moving the needle one iota.

Are we living in a simulation?

06hawkalum wrote:It really is hard for me to wrap my head around these daily scandals, none of which are moving the needle one iota.

Are we living in a simulation?

I won't ever argue that the Republicans aren't at least 5 times worse than the Democrats with regard to this....but its been basically 30 years of both sides hysterically pointing at the other side through their sympathetic media outlets. People are de-sensitized and can't recognize an actual existential threat from politics as usual. All that matters to the Trump supporters is that he's on their team and hates the other team. Its tragic but true.

Regardless, this is why I groan when I see people try to claim that Bloomberg is just as bad as Trump.

Do you have evidence that Bloomberg is a traitor and an existential threat to this nation? No? Ok then...if it ends up being Bloomberg vs. Trump you have a lot of explaining to do if you choose to sit out the election.

06hawkalum wrote:One of Trump's stooges at HHS made the baffling decision to overrule the CDC and fly 14 people infected with Coronavirus back to the US in the SAME PLANE as nearly 400 healthy Americans.

Recipe for disaster...just imagine the lawsuits this idiotic move will generate:

https://gizmodo.com/trump-regime-overru ... ssion=true

The cost of an outbreak here is so high... human and monetary costs. Such poor judgment.

06hawkalum wrote:Regardless, this is why I groan when I see people try to claim that Bloomberg is just as bad as Trump.

Do you have evidence that Bloomberg is a traitor and an existential threat to this nation? No? Ok then...if it ends up being Bloomberg vs. Trump you have a lot of explaining to do if you choose to sit out the election.

Even Warren said she would endorse Bloomberg against Trump and she did this:

Elizabeth Warren on Thursday urged her fellow Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg to sign a contract the senator wrote herself that would release people who have made allegations of sexist and misogynistic behavior against Bloomberg from nondisclosure agreements. "I used to teach contract law," the Massachusetts Democrat said at a CNN town hall in Nevada. "And I thought I would make this easy. I wrote up a release and covenant not to sue, and all that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it -- I'll text it -- sign it, and then the women, or men, will be free to speak and tell their own stories."

She is REALLLLLLLLY trying to milk her debate moment for all that its worth.

Werthless wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:One of Trump's stooges at HHS made the baffling decision to overrule the CDC and fly 14 people infected with Coronavirus back to the US in the SAME PLANE as nearly 400 healthy Americans.

Recipe for disaster...just imagine the lawsuits this idiotic move will generate:

https://gizmodo.com/trump-regime-overru ... ssion=true

The cost of an outbreak here is so high... human and monetary costs. Such poor judgment.

I mean what was Dr. Dumbfuck's rationale?

"They're already on the plane so fuck it"?

This is going to make the Bush Administration's handling of Katrina look like child's play.

How can some REALLLLLLLLY milk something that happened two days ago, is a valid point, and a big vulnerability for a potential nominee.

traderdave wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:Regardless, this is why I groan when I see people try to claim that Bloomberg is just as bad as Trump.

Do you have evidence that Bloomberg is a traitor and an existential threat to this nation? No? Ok then...if it ends up being Bloomberg vs. Trump you have a lot of explaining to do if you choose to sit out the election.

Even Warren said she would endorse Bloomberg against Trump and she did this:

Elizabeth Warren on Thursday urged her fellow Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg to sign a contract the senator wrote herself that would release people who have made allegations of sexist and misogynistic behavior against Bloomberg from nondisclosure agreements. "I used to teach contract law," the Massachusetts Democrat said at a CNN town hall in Nevada. "And I thought I would make this easy. I wrote up a release and covenant not to sue, and all that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it -- I'll text it -- sign it, and then the women, or men, will be free to speak and tell their own stories."

She is REALLLLLLLLY trying to milk her debate moment for all that its worth.

who cares?

also bloomberg is fucked so we can stop having this purity test conversation.

Also, to betray my ignorance, I am listening to The Daily which is playing a clip from a Sanders event in Vegas. I never realized that he was selling the employer’s healthcare savings as a boon to employees in Medicare-for-All. That seems like the same wishful thinking of trickle down tax cuts. At least with M4A there’s a tangible benefit to all.

EDIT: I’m not anti-M4A because I think that’s the right goal, I just am wary of making promises on behalf of employers. We know what they’ll do with their savings. At least Bernie will tax them more.

That video clip is crazy--uninfected passengers wearing regular clothes, government officials with masks and blue suits.

TenuredVulture wrote:That video clip is crazy--uninfected passengers wearing regular clothes, government officials with masks and blue suits.

The optics alone are horrific.

JUburton wrote:

traderdave wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:Regardless, this is why I groan when I see people try to claim that Bloomberg is just as bad as Trump.

Do you have evidence that Bloomberg is a traitor and an existential threat to this nation? No? Ok then...if it ends up being Bloomberg vs. Trump you have a lot of explaining to do if you choose to sit out the election.

Even Warren said she would endorse Bloomberg against Trump and she did this:

Elizabeth Warren on Thursday urged her fellow Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg to sign a contract the senator wrote herself that would release people who have made allegations of sexist and misogynistic behavior against Bloomberg from nondisclosure agreements. "I used to teach contract law," the Massachusetts Democrat said at a CNN town hall in Nevada. "And I thought I would make this easy. I wrote up a release and covenant not to sue, and all that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it -- I'll text it -- sign it, and then the women, or men, will be free to speak and tell their own stories."

She is REALLLLLLLLY trying to milk her debate moment for all that its worth.

who cares?

also bloomberg is #$!&@ so we can stop having this purity test conversation.

Purity test? What does that even mean? I simply brought up a moment I saw from Warren's town hall last night (which, FWIW, I thought was a little over the top). My apologies. I will wait for your cue on what topics I am allowed to discuss/mention.

What Warren is missing (intentionally or not) is that there are undoubtedly other people besides Bloomberg who are beneficiaries of those confidentiality clauses and whose rights and privacy would be adversely affected if Bloomberg were unilaterally try to release anyone from their commitments.

JFLNYC wrote:What Warren is missing (intentionally or not) is that there are undoubtedly other people besides Bloomberg who are beneficiaries of those confidentiality clauses and whose rights and privacy would be adversely affected if Bloomberg were unilaterally try to release anyone from their commitments.

It is more about the atmosphere he allowed to foster (intentionally or not) at his company and not solely the bad actions of Bloomberg himself. If the victims/targets wanted to remain silent they could.

traderdave wrote:

JUburton wrote:

traderdave wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:Regardless, this is why I groan when I see people try to claim that Bloomberg is just as bad as Trump.

Do you have evidence that Bloomberg is a traitor and an existential threat to this nation? No? Ok then...if it ends up being Bloomberg vs. Trump you have a lot of explaining to do if you choose to sit out the election.

Even Warren said she would endorse Bloomberg against Trump and she did this:

Elizabeth Warren on Thursday urged her fellow Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg to sign a contract the senator wrote herself that would release people who have made allegations of sexist and misogynistic behavior against Bloomberg from nondisclosure agreements. "I used to teach contract law," the Massachusetts Democrat said at a CNN town hall in Nevada. "And I thought I would make this easy. I wrote up a release and covenant not to sue, and all that Mayor Bloomberg has to do is download it -- I'll text it -- sign it, and then the women, or men, will be free to speak and tell their own stories."

She is REALLLLLLLLY trying to milk her debate moment for all that its worth.

who cares?

also bloomberg is #$!&@ so we can stop having this purity test conversation.

Purity test? What does that even mean? I simply brought up a moment I saw from Warren's town hall last night (which, FWIW, I thought was a little over the top). My apologies. I will wait for your cue on what topics I am allowed to discuss/mention.

'who cares' was in reference to her 'milking' the debate moment. She's right to keep shoving this to light on Bloomberg.

Purity test may not be the exactly correct phrase but the implication seemed to be that even Warren would vote for Bloomberg, so why wouldn't anyone? There's a conception that some on here have stated that abstention from that vote is basically dereliction of party and country. I'm only saying that we can all be happy that Bloomberg drowned during the last debate so no one will have to make that decision.

slugsrbad wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:What Warren is missing (intentionally or not) is that there are undoubtedly other people besides Bloomberg who are beneficiaries of those confidentiality clauses and whose rights and privacy would be adversely affected if Bloomberg were unilaterally try to release anyone from their commitments.

It is more about the atmosphere he allowed to foster (intentionally or not) at his company and not solely the bad actions of Bloomberg himself. If the victims/targets wanted to remain silent they could.

And if they had wanted not to sign an NDA they could have done so.

I’m not condoning whatever happened at Bloomberg and, having signed more than one myself, I hate NDA’s required to settle matters (along with restrictive covenants, non-competes, etc.) but: (a) they were agreements knowingly and willfully entered into; and (b) Bloomberg can’t just release these women from their obligations without the potential for huge collateral damage to others.

JFLNYC wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:What Warren is missing (intentionally or not) is that there are undoubtedly other people besides Bloomberg who are beneficiaries of those confidentiality clauses and whose rights and privacy would be adversely affected if Bloomberg were unilaterally try to release anyone from their commitments.

It is more about the atmosphere he allowed to foster (intentionally or not) at his company and not solely the bad actions of Bloomberg himself. If the victims/targets wanted to remain silent they could.

And if they had wanted not to sign an NDA they could have done so.

I’m not condoning whatever happened at Bloomberg and, having signed more than one myself, I hate NDA’s required to settle matters (along with restrictive covenants, non-competes, etc.) but: (a) they were agreements knowingly and willfully entered into; and (b) Bloomberg can’t just release these women from their obligations without the potential for huge collateral damage to others.

Can you expand on B? Again, no one would force them to talk, and I'm not sure what 'collateral' damage would be done to innocent people.

And while it is true that they signed the NDA 'willingly', when the alternative is 'woman on her own' vs 'the legal force of a multibillion dollar company', there is a power dynamic involved that makes true, unadulterated consent not really possible. Either I shut up and take some money or I fight a legal behemoth that might run me into the ground or bankruptcy even if I am right. Not much of a choice.

JUburton wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:What Warren is missing (intentionally or not) is that there are undoubtedly other people besides Bloomberg who are beneficiaries of those confidentiality clauses and whose rights and privacy would be adversely affected if Bloomberg were unilaterally try to release anyone from their commitments.

It is more about the atmosphere he allowed to foster (intentionally or not) at his company and not solely the bad actions of Bloomberg himself. If the victims/targets wanted to remain silent they could.

And if they had wanted not to sign an NDA they could have done so.

I’m not condoning whatever happened at Bloomberg and, having signed more than one myself, I hate NDA’s required to settle matters (along with restrictive covenants, non-competes, etc.) but: (a) they were agreements knowingly and willfully entered into; and (b) Bloomberg can’t just release these women from their obligations without the potential for huge collateral damage to others.

Can you expand on B? Again, no one would force them to talk, and I'm not sure what 'collateral' damage would be done to innocent people.

As I noted above, “there are undoubtedly other people besides Bloomberg who are beneficiaries of those confidentiality clauses and whose rights and privacy would be adversely affected if Bloomberg were unilaterally try to release anyone from their commitments.”

JUburton wrote: And while it is true that they signed the NDA 'willingly', when the alternative is 'woman on her own' vs 'the legal force of a multibillion dollar company', there is a power dynamic involved that makes true, unadulterated consent not really possible. Either I shut up and take some money or I fight a legal behemoth that might run me into the ground or bankruptcy even if I am right. Not much of a choice.

That power is disparity is something we all face multiple times a day in our interactions with the corporate world. And the choice is not limited to sign or sue. We can just walk away or, if the wrong in question rises to that level, file a criminal complaint. Once someone agrees to accept money for his or her silence, he or she is in no position to complain about being muzzled.

Man, you are very black and white