Trump forever wrote:
Just look at how many political hit jobs President Trump is facing.
Yes. Like this by the clown named Steven Mnuchin.
US government is running out of money faster than expected
"Based on updated projections, there is a scenario in which we run of out cash in early September, before Congress reconvenes."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/12/politics/mnuchin-congress-letter-debt-crisis/index.htmlRigged for Hillary wrote:
Promising illegal aliens free healthcare will not gain the Dems the White House next year.
The 6000 closing businesses, and the blowing up the deficient at rocket-fuel rates, as Trump has done this year --Trump knows bankrupcies-- will not get Trump reelected. Trump will not even win his party's nomination--enough, is enough.
The Dems in Congress are turning against each other. Too funny.
KAG2020
Will Knot wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Promising illegal aliens free healthcare will not gain the Dems the White House next year.
The 6000 closing businesses, and the blowing up the deficient at rocket-fuel rates, as Trump has done this year --Trump knows bankrupcies-- will not get Trump reelected. Trump will not even win his party's nomination--enough, is enough.
Sucks to be a Trumpanzee*.
Trumpanzee: an irrational and irritable ass-clownish beast that is completely immunized {hannitized magatized} to logic-or-reason, any-and-all negative facts-or-evidence concerning Trump, and remains a devout and mindless supporter of the buffoon.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trumpanzeeWill Knot wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Promising illegal aliens free healthcare will not gain the Dems the White House next year.
The 6000 closing businesses, and the blowing up the deficient at rocket-fuel rates, as Trump has done this year --Trump knows bankrupcies-- will not get Trump reelected. Trump will not even win his party's nomination--enough, is enough.
Then take the Runningart pledge, if you are so sure of a Trump loss. Other than Alan, not one of you libs or Never Trumpers have stepped up to the plate. You're all talk, no action.
P wrote:
Racket wrote:
You can run this argument the other way to suggest that it's not women that need a chaperone, but the man. And inferring that a man needs a chaperone to meet professionally with a woman suggests he has no or little agency over his body and/or thoughts. Honestly there's just so many arguments you can build from the premise that it's tough to preempt them all.
You seem to have missed the part where it is the men on this thread who are saying that they would not meet with a woman one on one in a business setting - i.e., it is the men who are setting the rules AND who hold the positions of power (in general) rendering this a matter of men setting the rules that ultimately keep women out of positions of power.
Sorry, dude - I give you credit for an honest attempt. But it really is pretty simply stuff. When one group (men) hold an enormous power advantage over another group (women) and then set up artificial rules of engagement that further disadvantage the group out of power then there is a problem.
Do you also believe it is wrong for women to refuse to meet men alone in a closed door meeting?
I would feel VERY uncomfortable if a man asked me to meet with him and the door was closed. This isn't the 1980s when women had to endure this type of behavior to move up the corporate ladder.
Thankfully, I work for a progressive company with policies in place against such behavior and mandatory employee trainings to educate people on this and other workplace gender issues.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
qs wrote:
Using stock indexes as proof of the success of Trump's economic policies will come back to haunt you.
Promising illegal aliens free healthcare will not gain the Dems the White House next year.
And promising to take away healthcare from Americans will?
Hit Job wrote:
Trump forever wrote:
Just look at how many political hit jobs President Trump is facing.
Yes. Like this by the clown named Steven Mnuchin.
US government is running out of money faster than expected
"Based on updated projections, there is a scenario in which we run of out cash in early September, before Congress reconvenes."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/12/politics/mnuchin-congress-letter-debt-crisis/index.html
Wait, wasn’t trump going to erase our trillions of debt within 4 years? So how can the gov be running out of money, this must be a mistake.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The Dems in Congress are turning against each other. Too funny.
KAG2020
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/452799-the-hills-campaign-report-democratic-infighting-threatens-2020-unity%3famp
Well what do you expect to see when you only read The Hill?
an actual woman wrote:
P wrote:
You seem to have missed the part where it is the men on this thread who are saying that they would not meet with a woman one on one in a business setting - i.e., it is the men who are setting the rules AND who hold the positions of power (in general) rendering this a matter of men setting the rules that ultimately keep women out of positions of power.
Sorry, dude - I give you credit for an honest attempt. But it really is pretty simply stuff. When one group (men) hold an enormous power advantage over another group (women) and then set up artificial rules of engagement that further disadvantage the group out of power then there is a problem.
Do you also believe it is wrong for women to refuse to meet men alone in a closed door meeting?
I would feel VERY uncomfortable if a man asked me to meet with him and the door was closed. This isn't the 1980s when women had to endure this type of behavior to move up the corporate ladder.
Thankfully, I work for a progressive company with policies in place against such behavior and mandatory employee trainings to educate people on this and other workplace gender issues.
Even if you’re an actual woman you seem quite ignorant. I meet with my female supervisees with doors closed often, whether it’s to talk about their performance, confidential transactions, or for them to discuss a personal issue that might be affecting work. Are you implying we cant be trusted as professionals and need chaperones, open doors or cameras?
True Sweester wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Actually, that was a pretty good and correct post by that person, but that person is NOT me if that's what you are insinuating.
WEJO, DO AN IP CHECK, AND IF I LIE, BAN ME FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sounds like you are BETTING me that it was not you.
Low class.
INCORRECT! I fail to understand how you people do not understand the meaning of words. A BET is for something that is a future event, the outcome of which is not known (now, technically, someone could put in a fix so that the outcome IS known, but that is an exception that does not apply here). What you referred to there is a past event that IS known by me...I was not that person.
Conundrum wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Try again.
This is one of the reasons glass offices are popular these days.
In my career I must have had at least 10,000 individual meetings with females and this was never an issue. No one even suggested that I needed to be careful.
Now maybe I was lucky, maybe I was just naive, but that was a world of trust that I'm glad was my experience.
The difference is that you were not famous, wealthy, and/or powerful. There is a higher risk for politicians.
Trollminator wrote:
an actual woman wrote:
Do you also believe it is wrong for women to refuse to meet men alone in a closed door meeting?
I would feel VERY uncomfortable if a man asked me to meet with him and the door was closed. This isn't the 1980s when women had to endure this type of behavior to move up the corporate ladder.
Thankfully, I work for a progressive company with policies in place against such behavior and mandatory employee trainings to educate people on this and other workplace gender issues.
Even if you’re an actual woman you seem quite ignorant. I meet with my female supervisees with doors closed often, whether it’s to talk about their performance, confidential transactions, or for them to discuss a personal issue that might be affecting work. Are you implying we cant be trusted as professionals and need chaperones, open doors or cameras?
+1. Same here. And I report to a female boss and we always meet behind closed doors. And I work for a very political non-private multi-national org- everyone does it and no issue. Sorry for anyone who feels so uncomfortable and lacking trust that they can’t meet with people of the opposite sex in private.
Cool story brah wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
The Dems in Congress are turning against each other. Too funny.
KAG2020
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/campaign/452799-the-hills-campaign-report-democratic-infighting-threatens-2020-unity%3fampWell what do you expect to see when you only read The Hill?
When a story gets gets picked up the wire services, it goes out to many outlets. Doh!
https://www.apnews.com/328aa2fc6ccd41a3b04e69677b2bbbeehttps://news.yahoo.com/house-democrats-infighting-escalates-night-053145367.htmlhttps://www.businessinsider.com/house-democrats-infighting-escalates-with-late-night-tweet-2019-7http://www.startribune.com/dem-infighting-on-race-spills-into-2020-presidential-contest/512651542/Rigged for Hillary wrote:
qs wrote:
Using stock indexes as proof of the success of Trump's economic policies will come back to haunt you.
Promising illegal aliens free healthcare will not gain the Dems the White House next year.
Americans are good people. Most would rather heal them than torture them.
Fat hurts wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Promising illegal aliens free healthcare will not gain the Dems the White House next year.
Americans are good people. Most would rather heal them than torture them.
And in case you didn't get the implication, I'll make it plain. Those who support Trump condone torture and kidnapping.
Republicans are racists pieces of toxic trash
Glad to see liberals’ heads still exploding ? because we have a real red blooded non apologetic American ? ?? Paving the way for greatness. Must be awful to feel like losers every single day of your lives because America is winning. That makes ya’ll aliens, maybe it’s time for you to pack your belongings and go to some communist state like Russia or Canada where you can help continue destroying them.
Barney Rubble wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
This still is something that strikes me (honestly not trying to offend) as being silly. I am talking a just an office meeting not a business trip or anything.
What? Are you a caveman? Why do you think men and women can't go on business trips together?
Read the post again. I was just talking about office visits.
And sorry about the other post where I .............well you know. Let it go.
Flagpole wrote:
Conundrum wrote:
In my career I must have had at least 10,000 individual meetings with females and this was never an issue. No one even suggested that I needed to be careful.
Now maybe I was lucky, maybe I was just naive, but that was a world of trust that I'm glad was my experience.
The difference is that you were not famous, wealthy, and/or powerful.
Are you sure?