Fnord

I believe you, and that hiring manager should be focking fired immediately. For being stupid, if nothing else. I work for a very diverse, large company. There has NEVER to my knowledge been any sort of quota or mandate about diversity hiring. I have hired plenty of minorities because they were the most deserving applicants. I've hired plenty of white people over minorities for the same reason. If I said something that stupid I'd deservedly be fired tomorrow.

I have experienced white privilege as well, and it had nothing to do with money, it was all about my skin being white. It's been subtle mostly, but it's there. I know for an absolute fact I've gotten at least one promotion that would never have been granted if I wasn't white. Yes, my boss was a racist POS, but there are still plenty of those folks out there. You and I have had this conversation before, when you admitted that being a white man in China granted you privileges that would have never been afforded a black person. And yes, I understand the US isn't China, but let's not pretend some of the same sentiments aren't there.

This Paul Krugman piece is excellent at explaining what many of us fear (expect) from Trump part deux. I'll quote it for everyone to read and await rebuttals, if anyone can offer something better than "derp derp it hasn't happened yet!" Curious to hear from those that will claim Trump won't engage in what Krugman lays out here. The bolded pieces are especially telling. It’s late 2025, and Donald Trump has done what he said he would do: impose high tariffs — taxes on imports — on goods coming from abroad, with extremely high tariffs on imports from China. These tariffs have had exactly the effect many economists predicted, although Trump insisted otherwise: higher prices for American buyers. Let’s say you have a business that relies on imported parts — maybe from China, maybe from Mexico, maybe from somewhere else. What do you do? Well, U.S. trade law gives the executive branch broad discretion in tariff-setting, including the ability to grant exemptions in special cases. So you apply for one of those exemptions. Will your request be granted? In principle, the answer should depend on whether having to pay those tariffs imposes real hardship and threatens American jobs. In practice, you can safely guess that other criteria will play a role. How much money have you contributed to Republicans? When you hold business retreats, are they at Trump golf courses and resorts? I’m not engaging in idle speculation here. Trump imposed significant tariffs during his first term, and many businesses applied for exemptions. Who got them? A recently published statistical analysis found that companies with Republican ties, as measured by their 2016 campaign contributions, were significantly more likely (and those with Democratic ties less likely) to have their applications approved. But that was only a small-scale rehearsal for what could be coming. While we don’t have specifics yet, the tariff proposals Trump floated during the campaign were far wider in scope and, in the case of China, far higher than anything we saw the first time around; the potential for political favoritism will be an order of magnitude greater. As I understand it, the term “crony capitalism” was invented to describe how things worked in the Philippines under the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, who ruled from 1965 to 1986. It describes an economy in which business success depends less on good management than on having the right connections — often purchased by doing political or financial favors for those in power. In Viktor Orban’s Hungary, for example, Transparency International estimates that more than a quarter of the economy is controlled by businesses with close ties to the ruling party. Now it’s very likely that crony capitalism is coming to America. There have been many analyses of the probable macroeconomic impact of Trump’s tariffs, which will, if they are anywhere near as big as he has suggested, be seriously inflationary. Arguably, however, their corrupting influence will, in the long run, be an even bigger story. Why do tariffs create more potential for cronyism than other taxes? Because the way they operate under our laws offers so much room for discretionary enforcement. The Treasury secretary can’t simply exempt his friends from income taxes (although Andrew Mellon handed out highly questionable rebates in the 1920s). The president can, however, exempt allies from tariffs. And does anyone really believe that the Trump administration will be too ethical to do so? Trump himself has bragged about his ability to game the system; he has bragged that not paying his fair share of taxes makes him “smart.” Will tariffs be the only major potential engine of crony capitalism under the incoming administration? It’s doubtful. If you think about it, Trump’s deportation plans will also offer many opportunities for favoritism. Some of Trump’s advisers, notably Stephen Miller, seem to imagine that they can quickly purge America of undocumented immigrants, rounding up millions of people and putting them in “vast holding facilities.” Even if you set aside legal issues, however, this is probably logistically impossible. What we’re much more likely to see are years of scattershot enforcement attempts, with raids on various businesses suspected of employing undocumented immigrants. But what criteria will decide which businesses become priority targets for such raids and which will be left alone, effectively exempted, for years? What do you think? And there’s more, of course. For example, Trump has suggested a willingness to take away the licenses of TV networks that provide, in his view, unfavorable coverage. If crony capitalism is coming, what will it do to America? Obviously it will be bad for democracy, both by helping to lock in a large Republican financial advantage and by guaranteeing vocal business support for Trump, no matter how much damage his policies do. It will also enrich Trump and those around him. Beyond that, a system that rewards businesses based on their political connections will surely exert a drag on economic growth. Many attempts to explain Italy’s dismal economic record over the past generation attribute poor performance in part to pervasive cronyism. One recent study found that populist regimes, whether of the left or the right — regimes that are generally crony capitalist as well — tend to suffer a long-run growth penalty of about one percentage point each year. Time will tell. The evidence suggests that the rules for how to succeed in American business are about to change, and not in a good way.

The US Senate is constitutionally mandated to confirm specific judicial and executive presidential nominees. What Trump is doing is in a very gray area legally, since, true to character, he is attempting to bypass Senate approval completely, which no other president has ever had the temerity to attempt. There will be legal challenges. By your argument, you should never have had a problem with the 'novel' interpretation of the law that got Trump convicted of 34 felonies. It was perfectly sound, no such things as loopholes, right? It's either law or it's not. No such thing as spirit of the law, only the letter of it. I get it. When one lacks integrity, these things are difficult to grasp.

LOFL. "Those aren't real things." File this under "MAGA cool with it unless a Democratic POTUS tried it. Then and right wing media melts." And they'd be right.

Uneven, poor quality, with reckless disregard for propriety? Thanks!

Don't forget WHERE he played being a factor. I'm guessing the only reason Phil Simms isn't in the HOF is because he was injured and Jeff Hostetler was QB'ing the 1990 team when they won the SB.

I've seen some stories that question the constitutional legality, as well. Either way, good job on supporting King Trump. All hail MAGA! I know you DGAF, since you're just a partisan hack with low or zero integrity, but voters with a semblance of a conscience may not be okay with Don doing an end-around of the constitutional duty of the Senate.

Oooh, he had one really good, not great, statistical season. In 2011 he was 4th in the league in yardage, 7th in QB rating, 6th in TD passes and threw the 7th most interceptions in the league along with luminaries like Josh Freeman, Fitzmagic, Rex Grossman and Mark Sanchez. You're making my point for me, homer.

Eli's a shoe in? I guess he won 2 Super Bowls for a NY team. Winning one was good enough to get Namath in, which in hindsight is absurd. Eli's career stats are good enough for the HOF, but he was a compiler who stayed healthy and played a million games. There was never a point in his career that he was a top 5 QB in the league, he never led the NFL in rating, TDs, or yardage over a full season, his career int. rate and rating are atrocious compared to other HOFers. He won 2 Super Bowls, both against the Pats in their dynastic heyday, because the Giants had a dominant defensive line and great coaching. I always liked Eli and don't have anything against the Giants, but he is not HOF worthy. HOF voters put waaaay too much emphasis on winning Super Bowls, especially for QBs. So I guess he'll probably get in.

Wow, not even confirmed and she's taught me several things already! What a spectacular choice by our new emperor-in-chief! MAAAGAAAAA!!!!

Last summer before our draft, I asked one of my league mates, who also happened to have won the most recent title, a question we ask each other annually: what color panties are you wearing and what do they smell like? He said "they're blue with pink polka dots and they smell like victory. I just sharted." I'd bet these two "victory" scents are quite similar.

And Trump has a new cologne. Coincidence?

I wonder. His nomination seemed like Trump daring Republican Senators to cross him. Or to make his other appointments seem less ludicrous or extreme in comparison. Then when details of the investigation start getting released, after spending the last several days with JD Vance trying to scrounge approval votes, he suddenly withdraws? I don't believe he removed himself from consideration without being given something else in return. Let's see what that is.

She's smarter than Hannity, too.

I understand it's legal. Let's play a game: After the country survives the next four years, Dems win a landslide election to repair the vast damage the Trump regime unleashed upon the nation. President AOC appoints Ilhan Omar to DNI, Buttigieg as Secdef, Rashida Tlaib as AG, the leader of Greenpeace as EPA director, and a transsexual as Health Secretary. All are done via recess appointments. You don't get to say a word.

What's your excuse then?

And? I didn't vote for Clinton, and don't support recess appointments no matter who does it. Maybe if they're installed during recess and then immediately voted on afterwards, but that's not what's happening.

You're doing yeoman's work here Mooney, but you're not going to convince the guys that don't care about things like decades of research, testing, and scientific discovery. It's sad and shameful, but this is Trump's 'murica now. Facts are sooooo 20th century.

Next cabinet nominee!

It will still taste like you drank donkey piss, peed that out, and drank it again.

"Patriots" now all good with POTUS completely bypassing Senate confirmation for cabinet positions, even when the GOP controls the Senate. Tell us again how much you love the Constitution.

I have no comment on the Topol subject, doesn't really matter now. I will say that I don't believe Topol's actions credibly had anything to do with Trump losing in 2020. The way he handled Covid throughout 2020 leading up to the election was inept, to put it nicely. That was why he lost, along with a host of other reasons.

Reaffirm to us how ignorant you are without actually saying it:

I've already provided these links. Your inability to remember or comprehend them ain't my problem.