Political Thread Of Fail And AIDS (Geeto ahead!)

[l36tols1]

What's it going to take to get a decent candidate in this country? Seriously. Nobody can stop from lying. They're all corrupt as far as I'm concerned. He's no better than she would have been and she would have been no better than him either.

 

Term limits for Congress? No more lobbying? Campaign fund limits?

 

Smarter less hateful voters would be a good start. This thought process is one of the many reasons Trump is in the position he is now.

[BStowers023]

Smarter less hateful voters would be a good start. This thought process is one of the many reasons Trump is in the position he is now.

 

When you say less hateful voters, who are you referring to? I guess my question is, what hateful voters are you referring to?

[Geeto67]

A "skilled" politician. Yep, just what we need :lolguy:

 

how is that unskilled working out for you? oh wait I think I can answer that:

 

 

Unskilled isn't the same thing as career politician, although they are closely linked. There have been plenty of politicians who came from the business sector into high positions who are politically skilled and not a career politician. Robert McNamara comes to mind, he was a PWC accountant, ford Executive and then President of Ford, and jumped right into the secretary of defense. Mitt Romney, Michael Bloomberg, George W Bush, David Scott, William Keating all are skilled politicians and all came from non-political business backgrounds.

 

People always talk about how we need non-politican business people in politics like it's a new idea never tried but really we have a lot of non-career real business people in politics already on both sides of the aisle ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/photo-essays/2012-12-24/mbas-in-government ), and guess what? none of them are the embarrassing train wreck that is DJT.

 

You want trumps? because not seeing the value of a particular skill set and voting for an outsider just because he is an outsider is how you get trumps.

[zeitgeist57]

So....Foxconn has been looking at opening a North American manufacturing and distribution center in the U.S. Ohio was on that list...

 

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2017/07/22/ohio-mix-big-foxconn-display-panel-factory/502075001/

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2017/07/20/foxconn-officials-might-have-been-in-columbus-this.html

 

Guess what Trump was bragging about to the WSJ? How he got them to move to Wisconsin!

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-26/trump-to-announce-apple-supplier-foxconn-opening-wisconsin-plant

 

I remember a time when this level of jockeying was kept quiet behind closed doors.

[Geeto67]

speaking of jobs in the midwest....anybody read this article:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/business/economy/drug-test-labor-hiring.html

[BStowers023]

speaking of jobs in the midwest....anybody read this article:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/business/economy/drug-test-labor-hiring.html

 

This is right up my alley since I'm actually in charge of sending guys out for drug tests at my company. I send probably 150-200 guys a year out for drug tests.

 

My personal opinion, marijuana needs to be federally legalized and we need a better method of testing for marijuana in case of suspicion I.e. a more accurate version of a swab test of some sort. I absolutely hate firing a guy because he gets in an accident at a job-site that's not his fault and we conduct a post-accident drug test and he pisses positive for marijuana because he possibly smoked a bowl before bed a week ago. It really irritates me that if a guy is a great worker, shows up everyday and busts his ass, makes the company money then pisses positive for weed so he needs to be fired (not my call).

[Geeto67]

This is right up my alley since I'm actually in charge of sending guys out for drug tests at my company. I send probably 150-200 guys a year out for drug tests.

 

My personal opinion, marijuana needs to be federally legalized and we need a better method of testing for marijuana in case of suspicion I.e. a more accurate version of a swab test of some sort. I absolutely hate firing a guy because he gets in an accident at a job-site that's not his fault and we conduct a post-accident drug test and he pisses positive for marijuana because he possibly smoked a bowl before bed a week ago. It really irritates me that if a guy is a great worker, shows up everyday and busts his ass, makes the company money then pisses positive for weed so he needs to be fired (not my call).

 

 

I don't know that you need federal legalization so much as you need a better method to test for current intoxication. The thing about alcohol is that there is an established rule: as long as it is in your system above a certain BAC percentage you are considered affected, below you are not, and it leaves your system instantly. Not saying the system is accurate or inaccurate, but it plants a flag firmly as to what can be considered a factor in an accident for insurance purposes and what cannot. Give the insurance companies a bright line to work off of, and you start to address the problem.

 

as for the illegality of it, well your company doesn't fire it's employees for having too many parking tickets or speeding tickets (unless a driver), and maybe even a DUI, so what's overlooking testing positive when there is no criminal charge, as long as not testing positive for intoxication?

 

Also plenty of companies are now outlawing legal behavior (like smoking) because of economic incentive. You are always talking about market economics, here is a place where you can actually effect an economic solution without legislation. Find a way for employees to work while failing a drug test and not increasing your premises liability cost and you change the market.

[BStowers023]

I don't know that you need federal legalization so much as you need a better method to test for current intoxication. The thing about alcohol is that there is an established rule: as long as it is in your system above a certain BAC percentage you are considered affected, below you are not, and it leaves your system instantly. Not saying the system is accurate or inaccurate, but it plants a flag firmly as to what can be considered a factor in an accident for insurance purposes and what cannot. Give the insurance companies a bright line to work off of, and you start to address the problem.

 

as for the illegality of it, well your company doesn't fire it's employees for having too many parking tickets or speeding tickets (unless a driver), and maybe even a DUI, so what's overlooking testing positive when there is no criminal charge, as long as not testing positive for intoxication?

 

Also plenty of companies are now outlawing legal behavior (like smoking) because of economic incentive. You are always talking about market economics, here is a place where you can actually effect an economic solution without legislation. Find a way for employees to work while failing a drug test and not increasing your premises liability cost and you change the market.

 

 

Well specifically in regards to my company, we are in the drug free workplace program. To be honest though, marijuana at this point is a tool for companies and insurances to get out of paying for injuries and workers compensation. There's no true detection to tell if the use of marijuana was a factor but somehow you're allowed to piss positive for oxy-codone after an accident as long as you've been prescribed by a doctor. Makes no fucking sense to me, it's simply not logical and this taboo against marijuana needs to end. Should people be high on the job? Particularly a high risk job? Fuck no. Should someone who had a brick fall 30' on their shoulder causing permanent damage on a construction site be denied hospital payments and workers compensation for pissing positive for weed that he smoked 2 Friday nights ago? Fuck no.

[RedRocket1647545505]

And here is where you go off the rails. I don't think you can prove this assumption. Do you know her platform? It was fairly mainstream and leaning conservative.

 

LOL. What rails? This whole system is off the rails. So I can't exactly prove that she would be worse. Can you prove that she would be better? They're both raging pieces of shit.

 

But more importantly, she's a professional politician. She wouldn't be a constant media embarrassment. Just knowing how to navigate Washington and not look like a complete ass is a skill that escapes our current administration. I mean, he has the majority of congress in his favor and he still can't pull off anything meaningful - a skilled politician wouldn't have had this problem.

 

I'm not sure being a 'professional politician' is a good thing to be. I agree that she wouldn't be a constant media embarrassment, but that's because she's a 'professional politician'. Just because you have spent a lifetime learning to hide your corruption, doesn't make you less corrupt.

 

 

Smarter less hateful voters would be a good start. This thought process is one of the many reasons Trump is in the position he is now.

 

So because I think one's as dumb as the other, that's why he's President?

[greg1647545532]

LOL. What rails? This whole system is off the rails. So I can't exactly prove that she would be worse. Can you prove that she would be better? They're both raging pieces of shit.

 

I point you to this terrifying article that just dropped from Vanity Fair.

 

On the morning after the election, November 9, 2016, the people who ran the U.S. Department of Energy turned up in their offices and waited. They had cleared 30 desks and freed up 30 parking spaces. They didn’t know exactly how many people they’d host that day, but whoever won the election would surely be sending a small army into the Department of Energy, and every other federal agency. The morning after he was elected president, eight years earlier, Obama had sent between 30 and 40 people into the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy staff planned to deliver the same talks from the same five-inch-thick three-ring binders, with the Department of Energy seal on them, to the Trump people as they would have given to the Clinton people. “Nothing had to be changed,” said one former Department of Energy staffer. “They’d be done always with the intention that, either party wins, nothing changes.”

 

By afternoon the silence was deafening. “Day 1, we’re ready to go,” says a former senior White House official. “Day 2 it was ‘Maybe they’ll call us?’ ”

 

Deputy Secretary Elizabeth Sherwood- Randall has spent her 30-year career working on reducing the world’s supply of weapons of mass destruction—she led the U.S. mission to remove chemical weapons from Syria. But like everyone else who came to work at the D.O.E., she’d grown accustomed to no one knowing what the department actually did. When she’d called home, back in 2013, to tell them that President Obama had nominated her to be second-in-command of the place, her mother said, “Well, darling, I have no idea what the Department of Energy does, but you’ve always had a lot of energy, so I’m sure you’ll be perfect for the role.”

 

The Trump administration had no clearer idea what she did with her day than her mother. And yet, according to Sherwood-Randall, they were certain they didn’t need to hear anything she had to say before they took over her job.

 

It's a long article, but it should be mandatory reading. It's about what happens when you elect someone who's arrogantly ignorant of the workings of the federal government, and specifically the dramatic effects it had on the federal agency tasked with building, maintaining, and safeguarding our nuclear arsenal. Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, wouldn't be fucking things up this badly. And, I would argue, everyone knows it.

 

But hey, Solyndra, or something, and anything to make the libtards angry.

[Mallard]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[BStowers023]

Okay, Kerry. I need you to weed these articles out. Vanity fair and politico? I guess I'll start posting articles from Brietbart and The Blaze

[greg1647545532]

It's a liberal article in a liberal magazine written by a liberal journalist who interviewed a bunch of liberal scientists and Obama political appointees. Read it anyway.

[TTQ B4U]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/26/trump-transgender-military-ban-behind-the-scenes-240990

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

 

 

I agree that the individuals should be the ones paying for their meds and "transition" No reason the federal gov't should be using public money to pay for it.

[greg1647545532]

I agree that the individuals should be the ones paying for their meds and "transition" No reason the federal gov't should be using public money to pay for it.

 

What other medical treatments should the military stop paying for?

[BStowers023]

What other medical treatments should the military stop paying for?

 

Breast implants and any other cosmetic surgery that isn't from a combat or military related accident just to name a couple

[RedRocket1647545505]

I'm honestly curious, but does the military pay for other elective surgeries?

[Mallard]

Breast implants and any other cosmetic surgery that isn't from a combat or military related accident just to name a couple

Viagra?

 

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Geeto67]

Okay, Kerry. I need you to weed these articles out. Vanity fair and politico? I guess I'll start posting articles from Brietbart and The Blaze

 

Weed what out? You don't trust any journalism that isn't coming from Facebook.

 

You may not like vanity fair but it's a Condé Nast publication which means it follows the journalism ethics guidelines pretty closely. It also caters to a specific audience being a journal of credible opinion, and does not hide anything. Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean it doesn't have merit.

[greg1647545532]

Breast implants and any other cosmetic surgery that isn't from a combat or military related accident just to name a couple

 

I'm honestly curious, but does the military pay for other elective surgeries?

 

The military will only pay for someone's gender reassignment if a military doctor deems it medically necessary. This is not considered an elective or a cosmetic treatment.

[Geeto67]

Breast implants and any other cosmetic surgery that isn't from a combat or military related accident just to name a couple

 

 

I'm honestly curious, but does the military pay for other elective surgeries?

 

Generally speaking? No.

 

https://health.mil/Policies/2005/10/25/Policy-for-Cosmetic-Surgery-Procedures-in-the-Military-Health-System

 

However, if you read through it there is a program that does allow limited cosmetic surgery as it is necessary for military trained physicians to secure their board certification and also practice their reconstructive surgery techniques. It is space limited, so as to keep its purpose limited to physician training. The patient still pays a lot of the fees and the cost of any implants and anesthesia.

[RedRocket1647545505]

The military will only pay for someone's gender reassignment if a military doctor deems it medically necessary. This is not considered an elective or a cosmetic treatment.

 

Another serious question. At what point does turning your penis inside-out become a medical necessity?

[greg1647545532]

Another serious question. At what point does turning your penis inside-out become a medical necessity?

 

I'm not a doctor and they didn't cover that in our transgender policy briefing.

[Geeto67]

Another serious question. At what point does turning your penis inside-out become a medical necessity?

 

When you catch a grenade with your crotch. Or you need to train a doctor to rebuild one just in case private Pyle does stop one with his crotch and you need someone to practice on.

[BStowers023]

Weed what out? You don't trust any journalism that isn't coming from Facebook.

 

You may not like vanity fair but it's a Condé Nast publication which means it follows the journalism ethics guidelines pretty closely. It also caters to a specific audience being a journal of credible opinion, and does not hide anything. Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean it doesn't have merit.

 

Wow! Can't wait to post an article and quote you on this.