• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair

Status
Not open for further replies.

Suikoguy

I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Doing a bit of looking around I've seen it described as a hit piece, but that said I'm not sure any amount of context will help those quotes not stink like shit.

Like those who write shit like this?
http://observer.com/author/michael-sainato/
Unless the words are fake, it's not a hit piece, Sainato.

I can't think of a context where that level of entitlement, and disrespect is ok.
How inept can you be that you think this will not only help your cause, but get someone to give into your demands?

Maybe the DNC did not put "The Honorable" in front of her name on the guest list?

Edit:
She reminds me of Trump more than should be possible of a "liberal".
Achieved nothing on her own, makes crazy demands, thinks she is a huge deal.
 
This seems like a strawman and you don't even seem to bother responding to my points. Did I say he's entitled to a free pass? If you're going to bring up a bunch of supporting arguments about where capital comes from and who really is responsible for it, in order to support your theory that yes, this employee evaluation really bad then don't be surprised when I respond to them.

YOU are the one brought up Musk's capital to claim he would be able to pass his test based on retroactivity. YOU are the one who claimed the secretary had a reasonable chance of retaining her job under this test instead of just admitting it was impossible to pass. YOU are the one who claims to believe the test is "not sensible" on one hand and then uses the other hand to call the 'idea' of the the test being bad an unproven theory. YOU are the one complaining about the way Musk is being treated online instead of complaining about the pattern of behavior Musk has with the people and employees in his life on a personal and professional level. YOU are the one complaining about people believing the women who were victims of Musk's behavior despite the fact that Musk has never even bothered to come out and deny the allegations.

[Edit: It appears Musk has tweeted a statement referring to a story about the anecdote as deeply troubling and utter nonsense, along with a tweet disparaging the reputability of Time and their story. So for accuracy's sake he appears to be contesting the account, although I expect many will take this as 'proof' the claim/story is fabricated. Personally I see the established history of Musk's behavior and treatment of others, particularly his ex-wife (who also appears to have provided a similar account of this particular anecdote) and company workers, as weighing the scale of plausibility more in one direction than the other in this dispute.]


I'm not surprised with your behavior, I'm just questioning why I bothered engaging with you in the first place knowing your predilections. That's fair though, it's on me.
 

East Lake

Member
YOU are the one brought up Musk's capital to claim he would be able to pass his test based on retroactivity.
Uh, no I didn't? Are you actually reading my posts? You took the claim and extrapolated on it with a few other arguments that were poorly defined. I responded, don't be dense.

YOU are the one who claimed the secretary had a reasonable chance of retaining her job under this test instead of just admitting it was impossible to pass.
I claimed she had a chance of retaining a job, not her job. Step back for a moment and actually read what I'm saying.

YOU are the one who claims to believe the test is "not sensible" on one hand and then uses the other hand to call the 'idea' of the the test being bad an unproven theory.
What?

YOU are the one complaining about the way Musk is being treated online instead of complaining about the pattern of behavior Musk has with the people and employees in his life on a personal and professional level. YOU are the one complaining about people believing the women who were victims of Musk's behavior despite the fact that Musk has never even bothered to come out and deny the allegations.
Allegations being the key word, seems guilty until proven innocent is alive and well. We all have the perfect window into the private lives of billionaires.

If you think this alleged story is bad I can't wait until you find out what happens in the factories that make your t-shirts.

I'm not surprised with your behavior, I'm just questioning why I bothered engaging with you in the first place knowing your predilections. That's fair though, it's on me.
This I agree with.
 
tenor.gif
 

Pixieking

Banned
If you think this alleged story is bad I can't wait until you find out what happens in the factories that make your t-shirts.

Disregarding all else you say, this is a ridiculous, evasive argument. The existence of a worse thing does not make what Musk did "not bad", which is the implication of the sentence.

But, whatevs... You're going on my ignorelist, so *shrugs*.
 
Dear god I hope Bernie stays out of 2020. (This goes for Biden, and any other septuagenarian+, for that matter, but Bernie is likely the one with the best chance of taking the nomination in a crowded field). Call it ageism all you want, but it's a fucking stressful job, and we don't have a great history of electing old-ass presidents. We all know Reagan's deal, and Trump is also quite possibly suffering from some age-related decline. I suppose on the one hand, running against a similarly elderly opponent is your best shot since your age won't be able to be weaponized against you as effectlively, but ugh. I want someone youthful, vibrant, with a lot of stamina, someone who we're not gonna have serious doubts whether they'll even be around to serve a second term.

Please guys, step back, and use your fanbase & celebrity to campaign for the nominee. Don't try to capture the nomination yourself.
 

East Lake

Member
Disregarding all else you say, this is a ridiculous, evasive argument. The existence of a worse thing does not make what Musk did "not bad", which is the implication of the sentence.

But, whatevs... You're going on my ignorelist, so *shrugs*.
I don't think it is. To rephrase it in another way even if you believe everything in the story is true, this woman was still in a position to have a job at the company. That fact alone is enough contradict this hyper libertarian interpretation of his actions. Yet there's a ton of outrage here about it, and virtually none about other labor abuses that make this look like a pleasant afternoon. I'm simply noting the difference. You think they get good pay at the companies you buy products from?
 

JP_

Banned
Pod save America and The Weeds have good takes on the left vs left crap and you all need to get with the program so the left can stop losing thanks
 

barber

Member
Goalposts have gone and flown away into outer space I see. Musk wasn't talking about retroactive conditions of existence, he was evaluating worth in the present day based on employee absences. Aint nobody saying that the other paypal cofounders are essential to SpaceXs operation because without them Musk wouldn't have been able to have any paypal money in the first place because that is a stupid train of thought. And Musk certainly didn't evaluate whether his secretary was an essential element of his success over 12 years.

Hell, even if we were to accept your thought experiment as both valid and true, all it would show is that Musk's capital (not Musk himself) used to be essential to the company's operation. But anybody could have provided that capital, it's not like there's something unique about Musk's money that makes it more meaningful than someone else's. And his will/estate likely would have continued funding the company after his death so it still doesn't resolve his proposed test.

But more importantly, we can put aside all those factors because now his capital isn't necessary anymore so he would still fail his own test. So you would still be forced to admit that Musk brings no value at this time based on his logical reasoning / experiment. And even worse for your position, even if I did agree with you that Musk is essential to the company's continued operation because of his capital, you could still apply his test to literally every other employee in the company and come up with the result that everyone but Musk is essential, which is a system of evaluation that is almost by definition, implicit hero worship.

"Hey, I'm going to evaluate my employees based on this cool test I made up that somehow always results in me being the only employee who works here with any worth or value. Huh, crazy how that worked out, weird. Oh well, that's just science and rationality, can't dispute it.".

And you complain about the veracity of the article as if we're reciting the narcissist's prayer, "Stop it guys, there's no proof Elon said this jeez, buuuuut...... if he did say it then he didn't say anything wrong. And if it was wrong, it wasn't that wrong to say. And if it was wrong to say, it's way better than other things he could have said. And even if its not better, that's just the reality of the world we live in so deal with it". Okay, so then why complain about whether he actually said it or not if there's nothing wrong with it. The only reason you're complaining about whether he said it is because the statement/story is so damaging.

Plus, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that he would treat his employees with less respect than his wife, and he certainly didn't refrain from treating his wife the same way.
Yeah, the wife part was pretty eye-opening. If you believe that marriage should work like that, your perception of relationships is mainly "what benefits me the most". Not like I worshipped him after all his anty-syndicate talks, but that behaviour... yikes
It is also important to say that even full automation of a factory wouldn't mean being able to turn off the lights or anything like that, as you would still need people around making sure everything is going ok physically from time to time.
 
Ongoing Sanders litigation fork threads make me want to stab my eyes out with sporks. There's plenty of productive stuff to nail the DNC on without staging a PR stunt for yourself. Like, uh, calling and asking for a meeting with -not- 60 people at once? Also lolGabbard. She's an instant killer of any credibility from Our Revolution, unless they have other Assad genocide apologists among their higher ranks (in which case I'll shit on them, too).

On an entirely different note, I'm not sure why the stock market picked now to throw up the volatility index. Trump has said endless crazy shit since election night that could cause untold world chaos if ever seen through, but, no, this now finally crosses the line the past few days and is making rich people scared? Come on. Months overdue removing heads from the sand.
 
Wait. I feel like I've entered the twilight zone. Why are there people defending Elon Musk's (possibly false) crazy experiments.
I thought you were all bleeding heart socialists.
 

dramatis

Member
Wait. I feel like I've entered the twilight zone. Why are there people defending Elon Musk's (possibly false) crazy experiments.
I thought you were all bleeding heart socialists.
It is a bit strange to see some people more than eager to attack Hillary Clinton turn around and defend a billionaire that clearly doesn't care about his employees.
 

CCS

Banned
Really good interview in the FT with Sally Yates. It's behind a paywall so I've copied the whole thing below.

In a corner of a small, farm-to-table restaurant in Atlanta’s old meatpacking district, Sally Yates, the former acting US attorney-general, who was fired for her audacity in defying Donald Trump, is piling vegetables on to my side plate with a dollop of Southern charm.

“Let’s get you a . . . get a fork in. Let’s just put some on a plate. Let’s do a mini veggie plate for you, is that OK?”

She has already picked up my fork and is scooping portions of corn succotash, fried okra and green spring vegetables from her plate on to mine. “You came to my hometown and I need to make sure you have a good meal,” she says, over my protestations that she save some food for herself.


Yates, who was Barack Obama’s deputy attorney general, took over as acting head of the Department of Justice on January 20, the day of Trump’s inauguration. She served for just 10 days before she lost her job for refusing to defend his controversial travel ban — an executive order temporarily halting entrance to the US from seven mainly Muslim countries. The White House described her actions as a betrayal.

Yates was flying to Atlanta for a charity benefit on Friday January 27 when she learnt about the travel order, which had been issued without any warning to her or national security officials. Over the weekend, she agonised over what to do. On Monday, she told DoJ employees not to defend the order because she was not convinced it was “lawful”.

At about 9pm, Yates was still in her office when she heard a knock at the door — and a telling pause. “If it were just [my assistant] he would have knocked and opened at the same time but there was a knock without opening. That’s different. So I had a feeling.” She was handed a letter from the president notifying her that she had been fired.

Overnight, Yates was catapulted into the limelight. Liberals see her as a heroine. Letters flooded into her home from young women, immigrants and others expressing their gratitude. Now, comfortably more than 600 miles from Washington, she has returned to her home in Atlanta, the place where she began her 27-year career at the DoJ.

Yates breezes into Miller Union at 12:29 and seems disappointed I am already seated at a corner table. Although she is one minute early, she says she doesn’t like to be late because it sends the message her time is more important than someone else’s. Dressed in a sleeveless mustard blouse and black trousers, her face is relaxed and slightly pink from an earlier run.

I notice eyes from a nearby table following her movements. “It has been strange that after I’m no longer in the position more people seem to recognise me than they did when I was in the job,” she says in a gentle Southern drawl.

“I’ll be in the gym sometimes. I haven’t washed my hair in a few days, no make-up or anything like that and somebody will come up and want to do a selfie and I’m just vain enough to think, ‘God, I hate for this to be out there.’ But I also refuse to start wearing make-up to the gym,” she laughs.

There have also been more poignant moments — a few weeks earlier, an immigrant family approached Yates at a restaurant to tell her what her actions had meant to them. “When people really look you in the eye and talk to you and thank you . . . that can’t help but move you,” she says. “I recognise not everybody feels that way but, happily, the other people generally tend not to walk up and say anything to me.”

We turn to the whirlwind of those intense days in late January. The day before the ban was announced, Yates had called a meeting with the White House counsel, Don McGahn, to alert him that Trump’s national security adviser Michael Flynn might be subject to blackmail by Russia based on a December telephone conversation he had with the Soviet ambassador. Flynn was forced to resign soon afterwards.

“It was such a blur. That whole 10 days was such a blur,” she says. “We didn’t even eat lunch during this time because we were dealing with all the Mike Flynn stuff. I had been sitting in Don McGahn’s office that Friday afternoon. I was somewhat surprised nobody had told me about the travel ban while I was sitting there in the White House counsel’s office,” she says.

Yates knew her open defiance of the order was risky. “I wasn’t stupid. I recognised there was a good chance” of being fired, she says. Still, “understanding that intellectually and processing that emotionally are two very different things . . . It’s still sort of a punch in the stomach.” Her eyes glisten as she recalls the moment. “I’m still comfortable with the decision I made, but I didn’t want to be fired. That’s not how I wanted to end 27 years of service . . . ”

Trump’s order was issued under the auspices of national security, but many times during his campaign he had talked about the idea of a “Muslim ban” and Yates found she could not divorce the two sentiments. “I came to the conclusion that it just wasn’t true to say that it has nothing to do with religion,” she said. “Our constitution doesn’t allow us to offer up a pretextual reason for something and then to actually have an unconstitutional reason to discriminate based on race or religion. It’s core founding principle stuff,” she explains.

Rather than resign, Yates felt she had to publicly fight the order. “If I had just resigned, I would have protected my personal integrity. But it felt like an easy way out because it would not have protected the integrity of the Department of Justice. I felt like I wouldn’t have been doing my job . . . that felt like the coward’s way to approach this.”

The waiter is lingering at our table for a second time. We haven’t even glanced at the menu. Yates orders an unsweetened iced tea, that trademark of the South. I follow her lead. My eyes light up at the fried catfish sandwich.

“Really?” Yates asks. “That’s bolder than I am. Even I won’t eat catfish.”

She chooses the plate of seasonal vegetables, a delicious mix of classic Southern cuisine. “You ought to try something that’s quintessentially Southern,” she says. So we add the corn and scallion hush puppies, a savoury fried dough dumpling with smoked chilli and lime aioli dipping sauce. “If you’re going catfish you can go hush puppy.”

With the ordering out of the way, I ask how she came to her decision knowing the outrage it would prompt. “One of the things that informed me is the difference between the DoJ and a law firm,” she says. “I know it sounds trite and self righteous but [at the DoJ] you’re representing the people of the United States and the citizens of our country who are entrusting us to administer justice. Your job is not to win, it’s to do justice.”

Yates was born into a family of lawyers. Her grandfather and father were judges. Her grandmother was one of the first women in Georgia to pass the bar exam, but because it was not acceptable at the time for women to practise law she instead ran the family legal practice. “She was smart as a whip, just incredible. I wish she had lived to be able to experience some of this.”

When she describes her family background as “boring” lawyers, I note that her sister, a conservative radio host, doesn’t seem to fit the mould. “So you found that?” she laughs. “Obviously we have different points of view.” The two decided long ago not to discuss politics.

The hush puppies arrive and we break the warm dough apart, releasing a fragrance of onion and corn.

Yates grew up in Georgia and attended the state university. After graduating with a degree in journalism, she eventually joined the venerable Atlanta law firm King & Spalding. Her most formative case was her first trial in the 1980s in rural Barrow County, Georgia, in the same courthouse where her father and grandfather had tried cases. She was representing a 93-year-old, African-American woman in a land dispute with a neighbouring developer. Her client was so distrustful of the law that she carried the deed to her land in her dress as she worked the fields. The judge, jury and opposing counsel involved in the trial were all white.

“I will never forget the look on my clients’ faces when they saw this all-white jury. [But] they came back and said, ‘This property is yours’,” Yates recalls. “It worked like it was supposed to in a town and a place where you might not have expected it to. I reckon that’s the most important case I’ll ever have.”

Yates made a name for herself in Atlanta prosecuting a corrupt former city mayor and bringing charges against Eric Rudolph for bombing Atlanta’s Centennial Park during the 1996 Olympic Games. After that, her rise was swift. In 2009, Obama nominated her to be US attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. Six years later, she was called to Washington to serve as the deputy US attorney-general.

Our entrées arrive. The fried catfish is tucked into a bun with tartare sauce next to a handful of french fries. It’s crispy and not at all oily. The vegetable plate is colourful and distinctive. I feel slightly envious, but not for long as Yates begins filling my side plate. “OK, you’ve got to have these. These tomatoes are fantastic,” she says, heaping brown heirloom tomatoes on to my plate. “Are you allowed to eat off somebody else’s plate during this?”

We’re meeting on the day that Donald Trump Jr released emails confirming a meeting he attended alongside Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, with a Russian lawyer who purported to have incriminating information about Hillary Clinton. I note a parallel between the delayed revelation of this meeting and Flynn’s obfuscation about his meeting with the Russian ambassador.

Yates was called before Congress in May to shed light on Flynn and the travel ban. At the time she told the room that “it wouldn’t hurt to prosecute a few folks” in connection with Russia’s meddling in the election. Comedian Stephen Colbert tweeted: “Wonder Woman is in theaters June 2. But if you want a sneak preview, watch Sally Yates’ performance in front of the Senate.”

“I honestly don’t know any more than what was in the news,” Yates says. “But to me that’s why having Bob Mueller [special counsel for the Russia investigation] on board to do a really thorough investigation is so important. But people do need to recognise though that all Bob is looking at is whether there’s evidence of a crime that was committed for impeachment purposes or prosecution. He doesn’t look more broadly, because that isn’t really the charge of the DoJ. I have great confidence in Bob. He’s obviously got his hands full.”

Yates has kept a low profile since her dismissal. She’s been repairing her garden, which her two young rescue dogs, Scout and Nelly, who she calls “her other children” and “the most destructive dogs of all time” turned into a battlefield while she navigated DC. “They have eaten everything . . . like rugs, a whole sofa, furniture. We finally had to get metal furniture [on the outside porch] because it was the only thing that they wouldn’t eat,” she says. “I adore them.”

I ask her whether she is thinking about a run for elected office. “No, no,” she says. “That’s just not anything that I’ve ever been drawn to. I think there are other ways to be able to hopefully have an impact.” For example, Yates is passionate about reforming the prison system by investing in educational programming for inmates so they have options when they are released.

When she was deputy attorney-general, the US began a pilot programme to allow inmates to take courses using specially formatted iPads, but she is doubtful it will continue under current attorney general Jeff Sessions, who has taken steps to reverse Obama-era policies by directing prosecutors to be tougher on crime and to seek the strongest charges for drug offenders.

The waiter clears our plates and tempts us with dessert — the house specialty is homemade ice cream sandwiches in three flavours, chocolate malt, sweetcorn, and caramel. Yates suggests we split one. I choose the caramel flavour. When it arrives, Yates cuts it in half. While the sandwich looks like a traditional childhood treat, it has a rich and sophisticated flavour. I devour it as Yates takes a few small bites.

Yates recently signed up for a Twitter account, but she does not expect to turn it into a megaphone. “I’m not going to think out loud on Twitter,” she says. Nevertheless, the letters from immigrants, families and young women stirred an awakening, she says. She keeps by her bed a letter from a family in Oregon with a photo of their two-year-old son at the airport holding a sign, “Immigrants and refugees welcome.”

“I feel a real responsibility now that I never really anticipated,” she says.

How did she respond to letters from young women? “It feels weird to talk about this,” she says. “There was always this delicate balance of wanting to be assertive but not be abrasive because you weren’t really accepted if you were a woman and you were considered too aggressive. I don’t get the sense that younger women today have to worry about that as much as we did when I was coming up. That’s a really good thing.”

The thought takes her back to the Women’s March protesting the new president in January. She was shopping at a Whole Foods in DC when the store became overwhelmed with protesters.

“I just stood back against the frozen food and just watched these young women carrying signs. They were so comfortable in their own skin, they were so comfortable that they had a view and they were expressing it and they weren’t the least bit sheepish. And I thought, this is great, this is how it’s supposed to be. So maybe we’re in a time when women are finding their voice.”
 
It would be nice if Mueller's investigation expanded into congress and even on the democratic side because many of Tulsi's comments and actions to me go beyond apologist and into the sort of territory of Trump thanking Putin for kicking US diplomats out of Russia level "this person has to be compromised in some way or there is no chance they would be saying/doing something like this".

Like what kind of US House rep goes to Syria in the middle of a brutal regime's sectarian genocidal war and solidify leader behind the largest human displacement crisis since World War II and goes on twitter acting like everything is fine and what great discussions she had. Also who paid for the trip.

Like that shit was as ridiculous as Ted Cruz going to North Korea and taking Selfies doing some karaoke with Un and Dennis Rodman right now
 
I don't get the hate of Nina Turner. She was just tryouts by to deliver a petition and was blocked from doing so. The DNC instead gave her donuts as consolation. Was she supposed to be happy bout that? Was she supposed to just give up and walk away silently?
 
I don't get the hate of Nina Turner. She was just tryouts by to deliver a petition and was blocked from doing so. The DNC instead gave her donuts as consolation. Was she supposed to be happy bout that? Was she supposed to just give up and walk away silently?

She ummm brought 60 people with her unannounced?
 

Tarydax

Banned
I don't get the hate of Nina Turner. She was just tryouts by to deliver a petition and was blocked from doing so.

... by security, because 60 people counts as a large demonstration. The DNC had nothing to do with it.

The DNC instead gave her donuts as consolation.

That's called being polite. They could have given her nothing, because there's literally nothing the DNC could have done - including inviting her large group in - that would have satisfied her. She wasn't there to have a dialogue with the DNC.

Was she supposed to be happy bout that? Was she supposed to just give up and walk away silently?

No. She was supposed to show up with less than 60 people and she was supposed to have an appointment. She didn't because she wasn't actually interested in talking.

Are politicians afraid of people?

No. The security people they hire, on the other hand, are there to protect those politicians. The politicians don't make the security rules, the security team does.

I mean, what was the DNC supposed to do, find a room in their smallish looking building to stuff Turner's 60 people plus all the DNC guys? Were they supposed to ignore the advice of their security crew?
 

Pyrokai

Member
Also, what exactly has Congress done to limit the president's powers so far? In summary? And should we be worried about those limitations for a future Democratic president? I'm asking because I don't know and I just thought about this....
 
By now the Pentagon has told Trump that it would take months to actually prep for a war... right? And that'd just be moving material and not the aspect of moving people around. One reason everyone knew W's claims of Iraq being able to prevent a war in the final weeks was always bullshit is because there was no literal way to further hold assets in the region without entering Iraq to use them up. The shipping logistics are massive and are more like a tsunami than things moved piece by piece. The decision to take territory had to be made well in advance for the supply chain to work correctly.

Guess you have your answer now

 
Also, what exactly has Congress done to limit the president's powers so far? In summary? And should we be worried about those limitations for a future Democratic president? I'm asking because I don't know and I just thought about this....

basically nothing.

Other than limit Trump from being able to recess appoint anyone. But they were doing that to Obama already
 

Pixieking

Banned
I mean, what was the DNC supposed to do, find a room in their smallish looking building to stuff Turner's 60 people plus all the DNC guys? Were they supposed to ignore the advice of their security crew?

Even ignoring security, I'm sure it would be a breach of multiple health and safety and fire regulations to have that many people stuffed in only one or two rooms.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Like that shit was as ridiculous as Ted Cruz going to North Korea and taking Selfies doing some karaoke with Un and Dennis Rodman right now
Woah now, think this through. If Ted went to NK you'd have 99 senators on board loudly with a preemptive strike on NK.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Malcolm Nance on Twitter just showed how ridiculous Trump's tweet was. I really believe Trump has zero idea how long it takes to be ready for a war.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom