PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[calgaryblood]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Your willfully spreading lies again, but you don't need me to tell you that.

Why don't you remind us what those war crimes were? Since you are being balanced, let us know how many terrorist attacks there were by year since 2000.

And while you are at it, why don't you tell us how many people in total have died in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict? Why don't you explain how so few have died if Israel was so evil? With that said, I don't find any of the violence to be good, but a country has a right to defend itself from terrorism.

Please let me know what the countries that border Israel are doing for Palestinians.

And since you are doing the research, please let us know the death totals in the other countries in the region. How is Libya doing? Or Syria? Or Hamas on it's own people?

1/5th of Israeli citizens are Arab, with the same rights as anyone else, so yah, apartheid doesn't stick either. Are there problems though, you bet there are. But nothing compared to Israel's neighbors.

Regardless of anything you look up, you are going to move ahead blaming Israel for anything you can, which actually makes the matter worse for Palestinians. As long as groups like Hamas are making life worse for everyone, there will be a heavy Israeli army presence. If they only dropped their guns and offered peace? Instead, fools around the world are empowering the terrorists.

Lol how do you think I knew you didn't like Jimmy Carter because his stance on Israel?

Honestly, your obsessive love for a country you don't even live in is a little weird and concerning.

It's like your whole life revolves around Israel. They can do no wrong in your eyes and that's why I will not take your invitation to a debate. Your obsession is honestly scary and a little creepy and I mean that in the nicest way possible. I could never love a country besides Canada and defend it as much as you defend Israel.

[kirant]

Nvm

[Thor]

I think that is my biggest fear with Trump, he's vindictive (see twitter), he's impulsive, and he's unwilling to ever consider he's wrong.

I could easily see him starting trade wars, hurting our relations with China and causing much more instability with North Korea and that south China sea dispute. All the while buddying up with Putin who will probably see that as weakness by the US and become more aggressive in the Ukraine and possibly other former USSR states with his shadow war tactics.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Yeah in the scrutinizing eyes of the people who are still bitter that their candidate lost. Tell me, what inspires confidence in Hillary? She hasn't done one positive thing since being involved in government and seems certifiably compromised or incompetent, neither is acceptable or instill much confidence.

Have you figured out what the difference between a wage and earnings is yet? It should be called the gender earnings gap, that's more accurate. If I'm spending more hours working then my colleague, shouldn't my earnings be larger if we're both being paid the same wage? Sounds fair to me.

I should have mentioned earlier your link to the joint economic committee democratic staff report is pretty biased too. You crap on me for a forbes article then post links to a woman's advocacy group and a democratic committees report. Yeah I know that the dems, feminists and left leaners believe this myth, the last two presidential democrat nominees both sloganeered off this same persisting myth.

Don't leave me here doing the two step shuffle by myself, I need a partner to tango with. You can admit defeat on this issue and we can move on to policy, character and experience of the two presidential nominees. I'll even let you have the experience issue because it will be hard to argue. Is no experience better then bad experience, tough to say either way. I'm still confident that I'll take you out back behind the woodshed in the other two.

You have already been provided with links to numerous studies that show that a wage gap persists even after "number of hours worked" is accounted for.

There are also other, more complex issues such as the way society values traditionally female work.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Free markets with minimal government intervention will do sod all to compete with the third world, where labour will always be to low for the US to compete with, the German model is better, specialization in high profit highly technical products but that requires massive state intervention, healthcare, education (mandated apprenticeships) etc

The German model is also based on medium-sized, privately held family companies with deep roots in their communities. Which is pretty difficult for anyone else to copy.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by Makarov

There are also other, more complex issues such as the way society values traditionally female work.

I'm not sure how this part can/will ever be addressed.

For the rest, I keep thinking the natural evolution of education and the workplace will eventually equalize things... then the reality of my naivety kicks in. I injure myself jumping back and forth on this fence.

My anecdotal example:
My wife has an advanced degree and works in a demanding, lucrative field where there is absolutely pay equity based on position. However, the dozen females (with PhD's - the base educational requirement) report directly to the lone male in this part of the chain, whose education stopped at a Masters degree. I don't know when/how/if that kind of thing ever changes.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Illuminaughty

Your "empirical evidence" is misleading and neglects many other factors.

No it isn't, and no it doesn't. Did you bother to read either report? they took into consideration many factors that can possibly contribute to a gap in earning potential. Both reports explain the factors in depth. To help eliminate the noise in data they do an industry by industry comparison and still find that women are under-paid by 20+ percent. Yes, there are reasons for that gap in some instances, but in others (40% of cases) those numbers are accurate and establish a wage gap that goes beyond explanation.

You don't seem to understand how this 77 cents woman earn to the dollar men earn stat is arrived at. Yes that number is accurate when you just look at earnings on the whole of every man compared to every woman in the workforce, but it doesn't take into account that men earn more because they work more, not because of sexual discrimination.

I understand them quite well. It isn't hard when you read the reports and review the methods and where the data came from. Again, the studies show a consistent gap across all industries. You're making an anecdotal claim of "work more" that isn't supported by data presented in industry surveys.

Women make other choices, think about bearing and raising children. They tend to work not as long of hours and take more vacations.

And those particular choices are taken into consideration. It is mentioned in the reports. Your supposed smoking gun, the interview with Ms. Goldin, mentions this and she uses it as an example as to why the gap exists in some instances, but she does not dismiss the reality that the gap is there. Again, you're thinking that because you have certain instances of a data type, a data type gathered and filtered, that it directly impacts the rest of the data that indicates the existence of the problem. That isn't how the numbers were arrived at. Ms. Goldin admits there is a wage gap, but attempts to explain the factor is not as bad as some might present it. She's telling you that the disease you have isn't terminal after all, its just going to be debilitating for you for the rest of your life.

Anecdotally, do you know more stay at home mom's or dad's?

What does this matter? Neither of these groups are part of the question nor enter into the equation of pay inequity. Anecdotally, do you know any wide receivers who have lead the NHL in save percentage?

You still haven't offered an answer as to why this flagrant discrimination in WAGES isn't being litigated? Or abused by the corporations for that matter, if they could pay woman less why would they hire a man, they are all about that bottom line after all.

Are you f'n kidding me? The Equal Pay Act of 1963 establishes the rules. There is no clear mechanism for getting those rules enforced. If you sue your employer you are very likely looking for a new employer. This is why the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was established, to act as an option to challenge this problem and still allow people to maintain their jobs. Do you understand what the EEOC does? Do you know how overwhelmed they are with complaints?

Now on to the supposed non-existent law suits that you claim that don't exist. There are currently multiple class action law suits against employers for this exact problem. These are just the cases from ONE firm and the companies they have suits against or have won settlements.

KPMG LLP (on going)
Merick & Co. (on going)
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp ($253M verdict, $175M settlement)
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. ($24M settlement)
Qualcomm ($19.5M settlement)
Daiichi Sankyo ($8.2M settlement)
Fairfield Resorts ($5M settlement)
San Diego State University ($3.35M settlement)
Chadbourne & Parke, LLP (on going)
Columbia University (on going)
Novartis/Alcon (on going)
Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Forest Laboratories, Inc. (on going)
Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corp. (on-going)
Garda (on going)
Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. (on going)

I could make you go blind by providing links to judgments that have gone in favor of women who have proven their employer guilty of leveraging the pay gap, let alone the number of suits out there against employers who have institutionalized the practice.

Name on recent example where an equally qualified woman makes a lower wage then a male counterpart in the same position?

How about an entire industry? Is that sufficient? The financial services industry is known for over-paying men and under-paying women, and a comprehensive study proved that women are paid 60 cents on the dollar compared to their male counterparts.

I asked where you got your news from, and you proceed to tell me about anecdotal and empirical evidence. What are these credible sites you keep alluding to?

I use all media sources, so long as they use credible/reputable sources of data, use empirical studies and evidence to support their claims, and follow journalistic standards of reporting, like multi-sourcing and validation of information through cross referencing. If something doesn't have that cross reference I don't believe it. If I can't go out and find multiple sources of information to support the claim, I'm not going to believe it. Yes, that means more work, but being educated on an issue requires that work is put in. Your argument is only as good as the proof you can put forth to support it, or the depth to which you are willing to go to to explain the validity of your argument.

Hahaha the mainstream media doesn't have bias, did you watch the campaigns leading up to the election?

Yes, I did, and it was appalling how much garbage they allowed Trump to get away with.

Its ironic, but the mass media is now recognizing just how poorly they covered Trump and did not hold his feet to the fire nor dig into his background liken they should have. They also didn't do as good a job vetting Clinton, nor the attacks on her, especially the late breaking Comey letter. None of this was a result of bias, but was instead a result of changing goals within the corporate run newsroom. Depth has been replaced by superficiality, and ratings matter more than pursuit of the facts.

You are trying to say that all the mainstream media gives a completely neutral and unbiased perspective based on the facts all because of journalistic standards? That's funny because most of it is owned by the same handful of major corporations.

Therein lies the problem. The ability to control the voices of those in the mass media is why we have this perceived bias. When you lack the diversity of voices in the mediasphere you end up with only a few who polarize issues with presentation more so than data. What is missing is the investigative journalism that was once par of the regional newsroom. With a consolidated media it is much easier to influence presentation and shape the newshole. That doesn't mean that the journalists are not complying with their training and practices, just that management now has a mandate to make those newsrooms profit centers, and that can lead to less data and more sensationalism.

You can cherry pick stats and misinterpret data to fit your perspective and call it facts, most media does this, mainstream and alternative. Look no further then what you are attempting to do with this wage gap myth.

You mean by hitting you over the head with facts and empirical data? Yup, cherry picking those facts.

Wow, how could you even argue Hillary wasn't given special treatment. Did you watch the debates?

What special treatment was she given? Trump was crushed in the debates. He behaved like a spoiled child and refused to follow protocol. Yet he got away with it. He was able to manage the message the media was forwarding and got them to chase him around, focusing on his personality rather than his lack of policy. The media failed us in their approach to covering this election. If they had instead treated this like an election of a politician, rather than an popularity contest between two celebrities, we would have been better off.

You are so bitter about Trump winning that you are trying to convince yourself that the msm favoured him over Hillary, nothing could be further from the truth. They helped him unintentionally by being so over the top biased towards her, that the people saw they were trying to manipulate them into voting for that neo-con shill.

I'm actually not bitter about anything. I find it fascinating. Would I prefer an experienced politician in the highest office in the land? Yes, I would. But I'm not bitter about Clinton losing. I don't view politics through the lens you do. I don't look at candidates though the cult of personality. I care about what they can accomplish for the country, and I don't see Donald Trump as presenting anything of value for this country. He doesn't understand government nor diplomacy. He is not qualified for office.

Your response? She's a neo-con shill. So many facts and reasons behind your argument. So many. Yuuuuge argument.

" Try to understand what makes a site credible. What you call credible is embarrassing. "

What site have I called credible? I don't get my news from a single source, I try to look at all perspectives, motives and intent before I form my own opinion. The links I posted were sites I was hoping you would find credible, but you just stick to the establishments view, if it isn't CNN, MSNBC then it must not be legit news. What a joke.

Your references have been crap. You don't even understand the issue you're trying to discuss and are presenting references that do not support your case. The perfect example is the Forbes article. You posted it thinking it was the big nail you were going to use to seal the deal. Turns out that the writer took some liberties with the podcast and didn't report the complete context of what as said by Ms. Goldin. Nor did the writer follow up to see if Ms. Goldin's other research supported the claim she put in her story. Turns out you didn't either, and that crushed your argument. Turns out that your expert witness actually supported the existence of the pay gap, but was only trying to explain reasons for its existence. That does not dismiss the existence of the pay gap. In fact, it hammers home that there is a pay gap. It just makes an excuse for the gap to be there in some instances. What it does not explain away is the institutionalized pay gap that exists in so many industries and companies. And that's where you and your references fail, and fail so hard.

"Proof please"

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13...sly-known.html

Bills sexual escapades are pretty well documented, he has faced numerous public allegations. You seem like one of those people that require a citation for the obvious.

What do you make of Anthony Weiner? Seems like a good guy to have around.

How is any of this relevant??? Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton's fitness for office, nor the gender pay gap. What incredibly stupid tangent are you trying to take us down? Here, just use this link to post your next citation of defense for your argument, and then claim victory yet again. It is equally as random.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Makarov

You have already been provided with links to numerous studies that show that a wage gap persists even after "number of hours worked" is accounted for.

There are also other, more complex issues such as the way society values traditionally female work.

It's exceedingly complex. The "choice" factor is the best example of this. Women typically choose fields that pay less than the ones men choose - this is a pretty major factor in creating the pay gap (people really should stop referring to it as a wage gap). Women are underrepresented in STEM fields, particularly. At this point, though, there's no obvious, formal barrier to entry in those fields for women; quite the opposite - you're more likely to get hired as a woman than a man, precisely because of this gender imbalance and efforts by employers to reduce it.

So how much of this particular factor that contributes to the pay gap is attributable to blatant sexism - employers who think it's reasonable to pay women less because they're women? Very little, at this point. How much of it is attributable to structural factors in society, like the notion that engineering and chemistry are "men's fields?" How much is the perception that workplaces are "boys' clubs" where a woman applicant isn't going to fit in or be happy, discouraging them from going into these fields? How much is the actual fact that such boys' clubs exist, leading women to quit at a higher rate than men (anecdotally, I feel like this is a big factor in my profession). How much is the result of society steering girls in a particular direction starting at age five? How much is simply a matter of the general chemical differences in men's brains as opposed to women's? It's almost impossible to answer these questions, and they're going to vary from field to field and among age groups. Does this factor interrelate with the societal norm that suggests women should be the primary caregivers in a typical family? I'd say almost certainly. Is that societal norm necessarily a bad thing that should be fought against? I'm less sure. I am pretty sure, though, that the goal isn't a society where 50% of the people in every profession are women and 50% are men. That's neither achievable nor desirable.

The problem with the pay gap as a concept isn't that it doesn't exist or doesn't represent a problem, it's that it doesn't provide any useful information. It's a misleading oversimplification in an attempt to describe a problem that has multiple layers of complexity, many of which we can't quantify.

[CliffFletcher]

I created a new thread on the gender earnings gap.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Getting back on topic, here is a very powerful piece by one of the few great men left in mass media, Mr. Bill Moyers.

http://billmoyers.com/story/farewell-america/

"The virus that kills democracy is extremism because extremism disables those codes. Republicans have disrespected the process for decades. They have regarded any Democratic president as illegitimate. They have proudly boasted of preventing popularly elected Democrats from effecting policy and have asserted that only Republicans have the right to determine the nation’s course. They have worked tirelessly to make sure that the government cannot govern and to redefine the purpose of government as prevention rather than effectuation. In short, they haven’t believed in democracy for a long time, and the media never called them out on it."

[FlamesAddiction]

It's nice to see Nader still kicking around. He was anti-establishment before it was cool.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nader-t...ster-1.3859125

Needless to say, he is not a Trump fan (he feels Trump is building a warfare government) although he does say that ending the Clinton and Bush dynasties is a positive.

[photon]

He's got to just be doing this to troll everyone. Yesterday morning whines about the Hamilton cast giving their message to Pence saying they harassed them.

Then, after a full day of picking people to work in his administration, still hasn't let it go and tweets in the evening "Very rude and insulting of Hamilton cast member to treat our great future V.P. Mike Pence to a theater lecture. Couldn’t even memorize lines!".

Then he deletes that tweet.

Then early this morning he's STILL obsessed about it "The cast and producers of Hamilton, which I hear is highly overrated, should immediately apologize to Mike Pence for their terrible behavior"

Complains about SNL some more to complete his morning routine. "I watched parts of @nbcsnl Saturday Night Live last night. It is a totally one-sided, biased show - nothing funny at all. Equal time for us?"

What does he mean equal time for us??

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Gotta give him credit, there's a lot less talk of the Trump U settlement. Maybe there's a method to his madness. Or he's just really thin-skinned. Or both.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Pho, I think the equal time comes from when he hosted SNL during the primaries, other candidates got some air time on NBC affiliates to make it 'equal'. But the election is over, so I'm not sure what he's going on about.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Gotta give him credit, there's a lot less talk of the Trump U settlement. Maybe there's a method to his madness. Or he's just really thin-skinned. Or both.

Nothing sticks to Trump. It's actually quite amazing and I don't quite get how he does it. I don't know if there has been a post-industrial revolution tycoon that has so successfully gamed the system.

If the fact that he owes debt lenders in China something like $650 million and then has an anti-China platform doesn't indicate a huge personal conflict of interest. Oh, but he is really anti-establishment.

[photon]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

Pho, I think the equal time comes from when he hosted SNL during the primaries, other candidates got some air time on NBC affiliates to make it 'equal'. But the election is over, so I'm not sure what he's going on about.

He doesn't see it as comedy, he just sees it as criticism, calling it one-sided and biased. So maybe he wants some sketches targeting what he sees as the other side, Obama, Clinton... but like you said the election is over.

Lol even Alec Baldwin thinks he's confused, he replied:

"Equal time? Election is over. There is no more equal time. Now u try 2 b Pres + ppl respond. That's pretty much it."

https://twitter.com/ABFalecbaldwin/s...37003426484224

[direwolf]

Originally Posted by photon

He's got to just be doing this to troll everyone. Yesterday morning whines about the Hamilton cast giving their message to Pence saying they harassed them.

Then, after a full day of picking people to work in his administration, still hasn't let it go and tweets in the evening "Very rude and insulting of Hamilton cast member to treat our great future V.P. Mike Pence to a theater lecture. Couldn’t even memorize lines!".

Then he deletes that tweet.

Then early this morning he's STILL obsessed about it "The cast and producers of Hamilton, which I hear is highly overrated, should immediately apologize to Mike Pence for their terrible behavior"

Complains about SNL some more to complete his morning routine. "I watched parts of @nbcsnl Saturday Night Live last night. It is a totally one-sided, biased show - nothing funny at all. Equal time for us?"

What does he mean equal time for us??

Jesus, what a jackass. As usual he's behaving like a petulant child, and he can't let anything go. It's just so easy to get under his skin. If he weren't just elected to the highest office in the world, it would be hilarious. But it's not really that funny anymore when this childish buffoon has the nuclear codes.

[Drak]

[nik-]

Can we stop this canard that the media let Trump get away with the crap he said? If people are still clinging to this, they're just being purposely blind to it.

It not having an effect is not the same as it not being reported. His crap was constantly in the media. Photon was basically chain posting news articles about terrible things he did/had done constantly for weeks.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by nik-

Can we stop this canard that the media let Trump get away with the crap he said? If people are still clinging to this, they're just being purposely blind to it.

It not having an effect is not the same as it not being reported. His crap was constantly in the media. Photon was basically chain posting news articles about terrible things he did/had done constantly for weeks.

Absolutely. No presidential candidate in modern history has been as excoriated by the media. The reason they kept reporting on his gaffes and scandals and outrageous comments is because their readers - liberal Clinton supporters by wide margin - ate it up. Couldn't stop talking about it. Ridiculing and expressing outrage over Trump was a ratings bonanza. Still is.

Pretty much every major mainstream newspaper in the U.S. came out in support of Clinton. However, it turned out a great many Americans no longer care about endorsements by the mainstream media, and in fact many find an endorsement to be a sign that they should distrust a candidate. That distrust and even outright hatred of the mainstream media is a pretty troubling state of affairs. But I don't see how it's going to change now that the media live in essentially a foreign culture from half of Americans.