Biden's first veto

[GutterBoy 1,196]

Quote

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden issued the first veto of his presidency Monday in an early sign of shifting White House relations with the new Congress since Republicans took control of the House in January — a move that serves as a prelude to bigger battles with GOP lawmakers on government spending and the nation’s debt limit.

Biden sought to kill a Republican-authored measure that would ban the government from considering environmental impacts or potential lawsuits when making investment decisions for people’s retirement plans.

The Biden administration rule unwound a regulation issued by the Trump administration, which effectively barred employers from selecting ESG funds for their company 401(k) plans, experts said.

“The simplest way to describe [the Biden rule]: It took a Trump-era rule that said ‘You shall not have ESG’ and said ‘You may have ESG,’” said Will Hansen, chief government affairs officer at the American Retirement Association and executive director of the Plan Sponsor Council of America, a trade group for employers.

 

GOP trying to limit what we can or can't invest in.

Biden sucks but he got this right.

[Strike 3,210]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

GOP trying to limit what we can or can't invest in.

Biden sucks but he got this right.

You spelled bipartisan wrong.  But that's ok.  You do you.

[RogerDodger 248]

Oh thank god!  Gutterpedo can still invest in the Ellevate Global Womens Leadership Fund. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 2,986]

what is ESG?

Adopting ESG principles means that corporate strategy focuses on the three pillars of the environment, social, and governance. This means taking measures to lower pollution, CO2 output, and reduce waste. It also means having a diverse and inclusive workforce, at the entry-level and all the way up to the board of directors. ESG may be costly and time-consuming to undertake, but can also be rewarding into the future for those that carry it through.

I am for the first part being ok, 100%, but am 100000% against diversity and inclusion nonsense

 

[posty 2,018]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

what is ESG?

Elvish Spirit Guide

[supermike80 1,073]

Yeah this seems like a silly thing to bicker over.  

[thegeneral 211]

26 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Oh thank god!  Gutterpedo can still invest in the Ellevate Global Womens Leadership Fund. 

Probably outperforming the market by 10% right now!

[GutterBoy 1,196]

24 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

am 100000% against diversity and inclusion nonsense

 

WHITE POWER!

[Hardcore troubadour 10,189]

SVB was big on ESG. Disney too. Lol. 

[Tree of Knowledge 219]

So Biden is not really interested in bipartisanship.  

[Alias Detective 993]

22 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Probably outperforming the market by 10% right now!

No, you are wrong.  ESG is a terrible way to invest.

[Dizkneelande 421]

Biden sides with Larry Fink over workers. Board leftists celebrate the decimation of the working class because they are vile people.

[OldMaid 1,575]

30 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

WHITE POWER!

I don’t think that was what he was saying. John McWhorter had an interesting take on equity vs equality, which is what this inclusion and diversity stuff is built around where he defined equality=equal and equity=forced equality. Not saying that sometimes it isn’t necessary for progress but it’s not always a good thing. 

[Strike 3,210]

Just now, OldMaid said:

I don’t think that was what he was saying. John McWhorter had an interesting take on equity vs equality, which is what this inclusion and diversity stuff is built around where he defined equality=equal and equity=forced equality. Not saying that sometimes it isn’t necessary for progress but it’s not always a good thing. 

It's not about forced equality. 

Equality = equality of opportunity

Equity = equality of outcome

[OldMaid 1,575]

10 minutes ago, Strike said:

It's not about forced equality. 

Equality = equality of opportunity

Equity = equality of outcome

John McWhorter is a linguist so Imma go with his definitions here. Also, I’m pretty sure you’d agree with his stance.

Quote

 

Author and linguist John McWhorter blasted equity as a "wormy" term, which he described as "having equality by forcing the issue" like "bringing people into positions they're not qualified for yet so everything looks ‘like America.’"

[thegeneral 211]

26 minutes ago, Alias Detective said:

No, you are wrong.  ESG is a terrible way to invest.

I’d like you to meet my friend AMZN

[Strike 3,210]

1 minute ago, OldMaid said:

John McWhorter is a linguist so Imma go with his definitions here. Also, I’m pretty sure you’d agree with his stance.

No, I'll go with mine.  And they're not actually mine.  They've been mentioned repeatedly both here and in other venues.  I don't even know what he means by "forced equality."  My definitions are clear and easy to understand.  And once understood, they clearly highlight the problems with the equity position.

[posty 2,018]

Does Biden even know how to spell veto?

[OldMaid 1,575]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

No, I'll go with mine.  And they're not actually mine.  They've been mentioned repeatedly both here and in other venues.  I don't even know what he means by "forced equality."  My definitions are clear and easy to understand.  And once understood, they clearly highlight the problems with the equity position.

An example was right there in the quote.

[Cloaca du jour 1,836]

The puppet in chief just made 777k sq.miles of the pacific ocean protected...

Hmmm..so what are we hiding or what did we find??  What are they not telling us?? 

[Strike 3,210]

5 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

An example was right there in the quote.

No.  He's wrong for a couple of reasons:

1)  By his own admission, he thinks "equity" is a "wormy" term.  I don't know exactly what he means by 'wormy" but I'll hazard a guess that he means it's ambiguous.  By his own admission his own terminology isn't clear.  Sorry, if there is a more clear definition I'll go with that one.

2)  His example isn't an example of forced equality.  When you put someone in a position they aren't qualified for OVER a person more qualified simply due to some attribute such as color, you aren't forcing equality.  You're putting a lesser qualified person AHEAD of the more qualified person.  That's not equality by any stretch.  That's preference.  And that's the problem with definitions like that. It sugarcoats what's happening.  It's 1619 project stuff where they say the remedy to previous discrimination is FUTURE discrimination in the other direction.

[thegeneral 211]

6 minutes ago, Cloaca du jour said:

The puppet in chief just made 777k sq.miles of the pacific ocean protected...

Hmmm..so what are we hiding or what did we find??  What are they not telling us?? 

That’s hopefully we were can float the MAGA boat out to and sink it. 

[OldMaid 1,575]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

No.  He's wrong for a couple of reasons:

1)  By his own admission, he thinks "equity" is a "wormy" term.  I don't know exactly what he means by 'wormy" but I'll hazard a guess that he means it's ambiguous.  By his own admission his own terminology isn't clear.  Sorry, if there is a more clear definition I'll go with that one.

2)  His example isn't an example of forced equality.  When you put someone in a position they aren't qualified for OVER a person more qualified simply due to some attribute such as color, you aren't forcing equality.  You're putting a lesser qualified person AHEAD of the more qualified person.  That's not equality by any stretch.  That's preference.  And that's the problem with definitions like that. It sugarcoats what's happening.  It's 1619 project stuff where they say the remedy to previous discrimination is FUTURE discrimination in the other direction.

Dude. You’re arguing the same thing. Stop getting hung up on semantics FFS. You are focusing on the person that wasn’t hired that was more qualified vs the actual workplace. Now there is someone who doesn’t belong there who is being treated as an equal when they are not.

[GutterBoy 1,196]

33 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

I don’t think that was what he was saying. John McWhorter had an interesting take on equity vs equality, which is what this inclusion and diversity stuff is built around where he defined equality=equal and equity=forced equality. Not saying that sometimes it isn’t necessary for progress but it’s not always a good thing. 

It's not, and in your example, you qualify as "non qualified" for.  But if both candidates are qualified, I have no problem with applying DEI.  For example, I recently hired a female, because we are a team of 6 males and 1 female, and I wanted to add another female to the team.  She was qualified, so I hired her.

[Mike Honcho 3,230]

My first Veto was Corleone. 

[OldMaid 1,575]

1 minute ago, GutterBoy said:

It's not, and in your example, you qualify as "non qualified" for.  But if both candidates are qualified, I have no problem with applying DEI.  For example, I recently hired a female, because we are a team of 6 males and 1 female, and I wanted to add another female to the team.  She was qualified, so I hired her.

I agree with you here.

[TheNewGirl 704]

18 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

It's not, and in your example, you qualify as "non qualified" for.  But if both candidates are qualified, I have no problem with applying DEI.  For example, I recently hired a female, because we are a team of 6 males and 1 female, and I wanted to add another female to the team.  She was qualified, so I hired her.

if she wasn't qualified though, doesn't forced equity/whatever say that you should hire her anyways?  Same outcome for all, basically regardless of qualifications, you're forced to take the person that isn't qualified, but meets some kind of minority/marginalized group? 

Or am I misunderstanding the "equity for all." 

[GutterBoy 1,196]

8 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

if she wasn't qualified though, doesn't forced equity/whatever say that you should hire her anyways?  Same outcome for all, basically regardless of qualifications, you're forced to take the person that isn't qualified, but meets some kind of minority/marginalized group? 

Or am I misunderstanding the "equity for all." 

Using my team example...

Let's say I want to hire 10 people.

Equality states that everyone has an equal chance at a job, and I hire who I want.

Equity states that we should end up with a minimum of 4 people that satisfy DEI (woman, color, etc)

So everything being equal, I could end up with 10 white males.  I could also end up with 10 dark females.

Trying to create equity, I could set a goal to end up with 4 white males, 2 brown males, 2 white females and 2 brown females, one of which is gay.

Assuming they are all qualified, then there is no problem.  But if I need to skip on a qualified white male in order to hire a brown female, then that's not good.

But I would argue that assuming all people are qualified for the job, that the more diverse team is probably the better team, because diversity is better.

[TBayXXXVII 1,816]

18 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

Using my team example...

Let's say I want to hire 10 people.

Equality states that everyone has an equal chance at a job, and I hire who I want.

Equity states that we should end up with a minimum of 4 people that satisfy DEI (woman, color, etc)

So everything being equal, I could end up with 10 white males.  I could also end up with 10 dark females.

Trying to create equity, I could set a goal to end up with 4 white males, 2 brown males, 2 white females and 2 brown females, one of which is gay.

Assuming they are all qualified, then there is no problem.  But if I need to skip on a qualified white male in order to hire a brown female, then that's not good.

But I would argue that assuming all people are qualified for the job, that the more diverse team is probably the better team, because diversity is better.

So you favor racism and genderism?  Yeah, we knew that already.

[GutterBoy 1,196]

3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

So you favor racism and genderism?  Yeah, we knew that already.

You favor being retarded and being told that you're engaged 

[TBayXXXVII 1,816]

Just now, GutterBoy said:

You favor being retarded and being told that you're engaged 

I'm not the one who said they hired a woman, just because she was a woman.  Also, the engagement was happening anyway, that was only a timing issue.  But don't let that stop you from still being racist or genderist though.  Good for you for wearing your bigotry with honor. 

[Strike 3,210]

36 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

But I would argue that assuming all people are qualified for the job, that the more diverse team is probably the better team, because diversity is better.

Sure it is:

https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/

[OldMaid 1,575]

36 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

 

But I would argue that assuming all people are qualified for the job, that the more diverse team is probably the better team, because diversity is better.

And also because hiring 10 straight white men would make for pairing off coworkers for erotic encounters a little awkward.

[paulinstl 234]

6 minutes ago, OldMaid said:

And also because hiring 10 straight white men would make for pairing off coworkers for erotic encounters a little awkward.

Says the person who likes a cunning linguist.

[OldMaid 1,575]

1 minute ago, paulinstl said:

Says the person who likes a cunning linguist.

What girl doesn’t?

[GutterBoy 1,196]

23 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I'm not the one who said they hired a woman, just because she was a woman.  Also, the engagement was happening anyway, that was only a timing issue.  But don't let that stop you from still being racist or genderist though.  Good for you for wearing your bigotry with honor. 

I didn't say that either, retard.

Only on the geek club is someone racist for promoting equity:

[EternalShinyAndChrome 1,753]

3 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

GOP trying to limit what we can or can't invest in.

Biden sucks but he got this right.

Hey, why do you care so much? What is posting this on a message board going to do?  

You're f'n loser.

[WhiskeyCash 64]

He pissed off both sides because this was ACTUALLY going to help regular Americans. But Biden couldn’t have that. His cronies need THEIR money 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 1,753]

2 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

Using my team example...

Let's say I want to hire 10 people.

Equality states that everyone has an equal chance at a job, and I hire who I want.

Equity states that we should end up with a minimum of 4 people that satisfy DEI (woman, color, etc)

So everything being equal, I could end up with 10 white males.  I could also end up with 10 dark females.

Trying to create equity, I could set a goal to end up with 4 white males, 2 brown males, 2 white females and 2 brown females, one of which is gay.

Assuming they are all qualified, then there is no problem.  But if I need to skip on a qualified white male in order to hire a brown female, then that's not good.

But I would argue that assuming all people are qualified for the job, that the more diverse team is probably the better team, because diversity is better.

Where do you get this blanket statement from?  You're going to need show some homework here instead of regurgitating cult taking points.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 1,753]

1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I'm not the one who said they hired a woman, just because she was a woman.  Also, the engagement was happening anyway, that was only a timing issue.  But don't let that stop you from still being racist or genderist though.  Good for you for wearing your bigotry with honor. 

You mean "sexist", right?