Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To answer your question, executive orders I like: - Temporary ban on new regulations passed by bureaucratic organisations - Freeze on federal hiring - Military to seal the borders - Halting DEI programmes in federal government One I don't like: - Pardoning the ones who stormed Capitol - Withdrawal from Paris climate Accord. Though I understand why he did it, I think it's not a good long term prospect for the world. Rest of the orders, I don't care much either way. The executive order against birthright citizenship is going to be stuck in legal challenges." Agree with all that  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The New President has issued a large range of new EO's. What are your thoughts on these new laws ? Will they be overturned in the Courts ? What is your favourite new EO ? " Most of the are just for “show” and don’t mean anything … for example changing the name of places… gulf of America, mt McKinley instead of Denali Anything close to affecting law is going to be challenged, but half the point is to create the fasade they tried … and to see if SCOTUS will actually allow them to… re birthright citizenship For the stuff he can actually control, I want to how Mexico and Canada retaliate to the tariffs coming in as of February 1st… just because Canada actually supplies most of the US electricity in the north east and the midwest Anything | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no favourites as such but I'm really interested to see how the dismantling of DEI initiatives in federal government and the national emergency on the southern border play out. Big hitters, with upstream and downstream implications. " It looks like anyone in a DEI position will be put on paid leave by the end of the day to start the process of them being sacked People just think of DEI as a race thing.. but it also deals with people with disability | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no favourites as such but I'm really interested to see how the dismantling of DEI initiatives in federal government and the national emergency on the southern border play out. Big hitters, with upstream and downstream implications. It looks like anyone in a DEI position will be put on paid leave by the end of the day to start the process of them being sacked People just think of DEI as a race thing.. but it also deals with people with disability " Companies have been treating disabled people pretty much similarly even before DEI became a thing. You don't need bureaucrats getting a salary if hundreds of thousands to tell the company how to make the workplace supportive of disabled people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no favourites as such but I'm really interested to see how the dismantling of DEI initiatives in federal government and the national emergency on the southern border play out. Big hitters, with upstream and downstream implications. It looks like anyone in a DEI position will be put on paid leave by the end of the day to start the process of them being sacked People just think of DEI as a race thing.. but it also deals with people with disability Companies have been treating disabled people pretty much similarly even before DEI became a thing. You don't need bureaucrats getting a salary if hundreds of thousands to tell the company how to make the workplace supportive of disabled people." Someone trusts businesses a bit too much, methinks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The pardoning of every jan 6th person was a bad move, I think even there republicans thought he would separate those found guilty of violent offences, and those who actually pleaded guilty You can’t say you “back the blue “ if you release all those who attack them! Paris climate agreement is one of those I will never understand as the US sets its own target.. and there is no penalty for not reaching it! Withdrawing from the WHO is an interesting one, because as much as republicans hated the advice coming from it, if most of the world is collaborating on something and you are on the outside looking in, money doesn’t just buy you out! …." Yes the pardons are a disgrace. I think the DEI stuff will have traction in UK. Many people unaware how much public money is spent on this ideology. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no favourites as such but I'm really interested to see how the dismantling of DEI initiatives in federal government and the national emergency on the southern border play out. Big hitters, with upstream and downstream implications. It looks like anyone in a DEI position will be put on paid leave by the end of the day to start the process of them being sacked People just think of DEI as a race thing.. but it also deals with people with disability " The breadth of DEI has been its undoing in my opinion. I think the expansion of DEI became more and more obscure as people working in that space rarely had a framework to follow and it led to more exclusions than inclusions. Race, disability and employment laws exist without the need necessarily for DEI polices to be implemented within organisations. As I mentioned, I'm interested to see how it unfolds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no favourites as such but I'm really interested to see how the dismantling of DEI initiatives in federal government and the national emergency on the southern border play out. Big hitters, with upstream and downstream implications. It looks like anyone in a DEI position will be put on paid leave by the end of the day to start the process of them being sacked People just think of DEI as a race thing.. but it also deals with people with disability The breadth of DEI has been its undoing in my opinion. I think the expansion of DEI became more and more obscure as people working in that space rarely had a framework to follow and it led to more exclusions than inclusions. Race, disability and employment laws exist without the need necessarily for DEI polices to be implemented within organisations. As I mentioned, I'm interested to see how it unfolds." Also it's become dominated by far left activists. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have no favourites as such but I'm really interested to see how the dismantling of DEI initiatives in federal government and the national emergency on the southern border play out. Big hitters, with upstream and downstream implications. It looks like anyone in a DEI position will be put on paid leave by the end of the day to start the process of them being sacked People just think of DEI as a race thing.. but it also deals with people with disability Companies have been treating disabled people pretty much similarly even before DEI became a thing. You don't need bureaucrats getting a salary if hundreds of thousands to tell the company how to make the workplace supportive of disabled people. Someone trusts businesses a bit too much, methinks. " There are many countries where DEI policies were never a thing. Businesses have been doing reasonably well with supporting disabled people. All you need are laws to ensure there is no discrimination. You don't need DEI bureaucrats wasting the company's time and money on hiring targets and lame diversity trainings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All… the cancellation of federal WFH should be an interesting one…" That one smacks of Musk  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All… the cancellation of federal WFH should be an interesting one…" On both sides of the Atlantic many workplaces missed the chance to really bring a positive out of COVID. A modern, flexible, hybrid approach to work. Why? Because landlords and micromanaging bosses/CEO’s. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All… the cancellation of federal WFH should be an interesting one… That one smacks of Musk "Another positive contribution from Elon then. WFH is awful for productivity but of course it is very popular in the public sector. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All… the cancellation of federal WFH should be an interesting one… That one smacks of Musk
Another positive contribution from Elon then. WFH is awful for productivity but of course it is very popular in the public sector."Awful? Except for all the research that says it generally improves productivity, of course. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All… the cancellation of federal WFH should be an interesting one… That one smacks of Musk
Another positive contribution from Elon then. WFH is awful for productivity but of course it is very popular in the public sector."None of the people I know who work from home work in the public sector. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So far love it all! However, I do wish the ban on tik tok was upheld. " Why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Banning trans rights, I'm a rebel. He doesn't bother me. No pro bill for Native American Indian rights. But then he plans to drill on Indian land I expect. I wonder will he end up living on Mars with Elon and Bezo an Zuckerberg. He could have his own planet. " Mars is to be renamed.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Banning trans rights, I'm a rebel. He doesn't bother me. No pro bill for Native American Indian rights. But then he plans to drill on Indian land I expect. I wonder will he end up living on Mars with Elon and Bezo an Zuckerberg. He could have his own planet. Mars is to be renamed.." Trumpton ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Banning trans rights, I'm a rebel. He doesn't bother me. No pro bill for Native American Indian rights. But then he plans to drill on Indian land I expect. I wonder will he end up living on Mars with Elon and Bezo an Zuckerberg. He could have his own planet. Mars is to be renamed.. Trumpton ?"
That's better than the one I was thinking of.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Banning trans rights, I'm a rebel. He doesn't bother me. No pro bill for Native American Indian rights. But then he plans to drill on Indian land I expect. I wonder will he end up living on Mars with Elon and Bezo an Zuckerberg. He could have his own planet. Mars is to be renamed.. Trumpton ?
That's better than the one I was thinking of.."The Orange Planet ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Banning trans rights, I'm a rebel. He doesn't bother me. No pro bill for Native American Indian rights. But then he plans to drill on Indian land I expect. I wonder will he end up living on Mars with Elon and Bezo an Zuckerberg. He could have his own planet. Mars is to be renamed.. Trumpton ?
That's better than the one I was thinking of..
The Orange Planet ? "I was more along the lines of 'Egotistia'.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? " My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone entering the US illegally is to be returned without being able to request asylum. The UK should do the same " There is (a very few exceptions aside) no way to claim asylum in the U.K without entering ‘illegally’ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think." Fair point ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think." team trump shat on farage the other day on their social media .... 'nough said about what team trump actually thinks about this country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think." I'm witnessing irrational outbursts driven through emotional responses to social media posts that are fuelled by left wing influencers. The frenzy and semantic gymnastics to drive a personal opinion that was provided by misinformation is off the scale, it has the footprint of covid, 5G and Bill gates conspiracies. It’s the classic social media cycle! A cocktail of misinformation, emotional overdrive, and faux outrage. People don’t even pause to verify they take the baton and run. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. I'm witnessing irrational outbursts driven through emotional responses to social media posts that are fuelled by left wing influencers. The frenzy and semantic gymnastics to drive a personal opinion that was provided by misinformation is off the scale, it has the footprint of covid, 5G and Bill gates conspiracies. It’s the classic social media cycle! A cocktail of misinformation, emotional overdrive, and faux outrage. People don’t even pause to verify they take the baton and run. " But selective outrage is not unique to the left, and it’s fuelled by influencers (including the media, including millionaires and billionaires). It’s the same mouthful of mouthwash, swished from one cheek to the other. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. I'm witnessing irrational outbursts driven through emotional responses to social media posts that are fuelled by left wing influencers. The frenzy and semantic gymnastics to drive a personal opinion that was provided by misinformation is off the scale, it has the footprint of covid, 5G and Bill gates conspiracies. It’s the classic social media cycle! A cocktail of misinformation, emotional overdrive, and faux outrage. People don’t even pause to verify they take the baton and run. But selective outrage is not unique to the left, and it’s fuelled by influencers (including the media, including millionaires and billionaires). It’s the same mouthful of mouthwash, swished from one cheek to the other." The left wing "influencer" echo chamber is resonating with nonsense, and as you say its not unique to one side. However I do feel those who are being influenced by the populist left feel they have a moral advantage, whenn nothing could be further from the truth. As per your analogy of cheeks. Critical thinking has left the building | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pardoning the Jan 6 Rioters is handing them tacit approval that their actions in storming the Capital building "in the pursuit of their aims" are quite ok. That their conflict with law enforcement was ok. That their wanton damage and destructions was ok. It's supportive of these semi-para-military groups. It hands them power. It makes them feel justified and protected. Emboldens. . My fear is that they will find "other targets". People not like them. And that covers a very broad spectrum. . Light paper. Stand back. Watch the fireworks fly. Because the POTUS has "got your back". . Facilitating a minority group, a group with easily-obtainable access to weapons, and an ideological axe to grind, seems like a classic element of provoking internal conflict in a grand scale to me. . If you watched "Civil War" by Alex Garland, then you'll recognise the "paramilitary" group at one point in the film (loading bodies in to pits). Because that is how these things "unfold". " I was surprised at the pardons, but not overly emotional. Can we apply your thinking to all protests going forward and their supporters and backers? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pardoning the Jan 6 Rioters is handing them tacit approval that their actions in storming the Capital building "in the pursuit of their aims" are quite ok. That their conflict with law enforcement was ok. That their wanton damage and destructions was ok. It's supportive of these semi-para-military groups. It hands them power. It makes them feel justified and protected. Emboldens. . My fear is that they will find "other targets". People not like them. And that covers a very broad spectrum. . Light paper. Stand back. Watch the fireworks fly. Because the POTUS has "got your back". . Facilitating a minority group, a group with easily-obtainable access to weapons, and an ideological axe to grind, seems like a classic element of provoking internal conflict in a grand scale to me. . If you watched "Civil War" by Alex Garland, then you'll recognise the "paramilitary" group at one point in the film (loading bodies in to pits). Because that is how these things "unfold". I was surprised at the pardons, but not overly emotional. Can we apply your thinking to all protests going forward and their supporters and backers?" Huh ? I don't follow your last comment, it makes no sense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pardoning the Jan 6 Rioters is handing them tacit approval that their actions in storming the Capital building "in the pursuit of their aims" are quite ok. That their conflict with law enforcement was ok. That their wanton damage and destructions was ok. It's supportive of these semi-para-military groups. It hands them power. It makes them feel justified and protected. Emboldens. . My fear is that they will find "other targets". People not like them. And that covers a very broad spectrum. . Light paper. Stand back. Watch the fireworks fly. Because the POTUS has "got your back". . Facilitating a minority group, a group with easily-obtainable access to weapons, and an ideological axe to grind, seems like a classic element of provoking internal conflict in a grand scale to me. . If you watched "Civil War" by Alex Garland, then you'll recognise the "paramilitary" group at one point in the film (loading bodies in to pits). Because that is how these things "unfold". I was surprised at the pardons, but not overly emotional. Can we apply your thinking to all protests going forward and their supporters and backers?" If you mean in the future when there's a democrat in the white house, then no I doubt very much that the privilege of being above the law by trump to his mob rightly convicted after 6 Jan isn't going to happen.. They (as the democrats and republicans before trump) carried out the duties and traditions of the losing party with dignity and that's something as we've seen is not within the psyche of trump.. The poster above is very on the money in relation to the pardons and commuting this far, what trump hasn't done is fully pardoned those at the top of the various militias which would be a step too far for many republican representatives.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think." Probably because of the inevitable tariff demand and/or demand in any UK/US trade deal for a start …. I hate it when people use the excuse about not to be interested | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. Probably because of the inevitable tariff demand and/or demand in any UK/US trade deal for a start …. I hate it when people use the excuse about not to be interested " You misunderstand my point. I am aware of what he is doing and so I make sure I set myself up so that I reduce the impact on me - just like I watch the weather forecast to see if I need a coat or not. The weather is the weather. How I deal with it is on me. I don’t get stressed or spend much time thinking about the weather and likewise with US pols. If people spent more time thinking about how to reduce the impact and less time freaking out then maybe their lives would be better. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. Probably because of the inevitable tariff demand and/or demand in any UK/US trade deal for a start …. I hate it when people use the excuse about not to be interested " Exactly, short sighted views failing to understand that the USA affects almost every country in the world when they change major policies regarding trade. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. Probably because of the inevitable tariff demand and/or demand in any UK/US trade deal for a start …. I hate it when people use the excuse about not to be interested Exactly, short sighted views failing to understand that the USA affects almost every country in the world when they change major policies regarding trade." Yeah and I don't see why we should discuss only the topics which impact us. This is politics section. If we find some country's political situation, we can discuss about it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. Probably because of the inevitable tariff demand and/or demand in any UK/US trade deal for a start …. I hate it when people use the excuse about not to be interested " the OP's opener was ... 'The New President has issued a large range of new EO's. What are your thoughts on these new laws ? Will they be overturned in the Courts ? What is your favourite new EO ?' .... the executive order didn't include tariffs, so why should we be concerned about Grumps fruity-loop order to rename the gulf of mexico or reclassifying fed workers etc.? you may be concerned seeing as how you're a doodle-dandy but the rest of us won't be affected by his nonsense so far to be fair. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. Probably because of the inevitable tariff demand and/or demand in any UK/US trade deal for a start …. I hate it when people use the excuse about not to be interested the OP's opener was ... 'The New President has issued a large range of new EO's. What are your thoughts on these new laws ? Will they be overturned in the Courts ? What is your favourite new EO ?' .... the executive order didn't include tariffs, so why should we be concerned about Grumps fruity-loop order to rename the gulf of mexico or reclassifying fed workers etc.? you may be concerned seeing as how you're a doodle-dandy but the rest of us won't be affected by his nonsense so far to be fair. " If you are not affected or interested, you know... you can just stay out of this thread. People who are interested can still discuss. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. Probably because of the inevitable tariff demand and/or demand in any UK/US trade deal for a start …. I hate it when people use the excuse about not to be interested the OP's opener was ... 'The New President has issued a large range of new EO's. What are your thoughts on these new laws ? Will they be overturned in the Courts ? What is your favourite new EO ?' .... the executive order didn't include tariffs, so why should we be concerned about Grumps fruity-loop order to rename the gulf of mexico or reclassifying fed workers etc.? you may be concerned seeing as how you're a doodle-dandy but the rest of us won't be affected by his nonsense so far to be fair. If you are not affected or interested, you know... you can just stay out of this thread. People who are interested can still discuss. " stop being triggered .... absolutely nobody is stopping you squabbling with others | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. Probably because of the inevitable tariff demand and/or demand in any UK/US trade deal for a start …. I hate it when people use the excuse about not to be interested the OP's opener was ... 'The New President has issued a large range of new EO's. What are your thoughts on these new laws ? Will they be overturned in the Courts ? What is your favourite new EO ?' .... the executive order didn't include tariffs, so why should we be concerned about Grumps fruity-loop order to rename the gulf of mexico or reclassifying fed workers etc.? you may be concerned seeing as how you're a doodle-dandy but the rest of us won't be affected by his nonsense so far to be fair. If you are not affected or interested, you know... you can just stay out of this thread. People who are interested can still discuss. stop being triggered .... absolutely nobody is stopping you squabbling with others "Then what's the point of these comments asking us not to discuss this topic? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. Probably because of the inevitable tariff demand and/or demand in any UK/US trade deal for a start …. I hate it when people use the excuse about not to be interested the OP's opener was ... 'The New President has issued a large range of new EO's. What are your thoughts on these new laws ? Will they be overturned in the Courts ? What is your favourite new EO ?' .... the executive order didn't include tariffs, so why should we be concerned about Grumps fruity-loop order to rename the gulf of mexico or reclassifying fed workers etc.? you may be concerned seeing as how you're a doodle-dandy but the rest of us won't be affected by his nonsense so far to be fair. If you are not affected or interested, you know... you can just stay out of this thread. People who are interested can still discuss. stop being triggered .... absolutely nobody is stopping you squabbling with others
Then what's the point of these comments asking us not to discuss this topic?"who's asked you not to discuss the topic of the executive orders that grump signed?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. Probably because of the inevitable tariff demand and/or demand in any UK/US trade deal for a start …. I hate it when people use the excuse about not to be interested the OP's opener was ... 'The New President has issued a large range of new EO's. What are your thoughts on these new laws ? Will they be overturned in the Courts ? What is your favourite new EO ?' .... the executive order didn't include tariffs, so why should we be concerned about Grumps fruity-loop order to rename the gulf of mexico or reclassifying fed workers etc.? you may be concerned seeing as how you're a doodle-dandy but the rest of us won't be affected by his nonsense so far to be fair. If you are not affected or interested, you know... you can just stay out of this thread. People who are interested can still discuss. stop being triggered .... absolutely nobody is stopping you squabbling with others
Then what's the point of these comments asking us not to discuss this topic?
who's asked you not to discuss the topic of the executive orders that grump signed? "So what exactly is the point of the comments you made here? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. Probably because of the inevitable tariff demand and/or demand in any UK/US trade deal for a start …. I hate it when people use the excuse about not to be interested the OP's opener was ... 'The New President has issued a large range of new EO's. What are your thoughts on these new laws ? Will they be overturned in the Courts ? What is your favourite new EO ?' .... the executive order didn't include tariffs, so why should we be concerned about Grumps fruity-loop order to rename the gulf of mexico or reclassifying fed workers etc.? you may be concerned seeing as how you're a doodle-dandy but the rest of us won't be affected by his nonsense so far to be fair. If you are not affected or interested, you know... you can just stay out of this thread. People who are interested can still discuss. stop being triggered .... absolutely nobody is stopping you squabbling with others
Then what's the point of these comments asking us not to discuss this topic?
who's asked you not to discuss the topic of the executive orders that grump signed?
So what exactly is the point of the comments you made here?"calm down and read the posts. so far, grumps bonkers executive orders don't affect non-americans, so some people are posting that they can't see why people in this country are getting wound up ... it's quite a simple point of view and a massive leap from there to your claims of people trying to cancel you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pardoning the Jan 6 Rioters is handing them tacit approval that their actions in storming the Capital building "in the pursuit of their aims" are quite ok. That their conflict with law enforcement was ok. That their wanton damage and destructions was ok. It's supportive of these semi-para-military groups. It hands them power. It makes them feel justified and protected. Emboldens. . My fear is that they will find "other targets". People not like them. And that covers a very broad spectrum. . Light paper. Stand back. Watch the fireworks fly. Because the POTUS has "got your back". . Facilitating a minority group, a group with easily-obtainable access to weapons, and an ideological axe to grind, seems like a classic element of provoking internal conflict in a grand scale to me. . If you watched "Civil War" by Alex Garland, then you'll recognise the "paramilitary" group at one point in the film (loading bodies in to pits). Because that is how these things "unfold". I was surprised at the pardons, but not overly emotional. Can we apply your thinking to all protests going forward and their supporters and backers? If you mean in the future when there's a democrat in the white house, then no I doubt very much that the privilege of being above the law by trump to his mob rightly convicted after 6 Jan isn't going to happen.. They (as the democrats and republicans before trump) carried out the duties and traditions of the losing party with dignity and that's something as we've seen is not within the psyche of trump.. The poster above is very on the money in relation to the pardons and commuting this far, what trump hasn't done is fully pardoned those at the top of the various militias which would be a step too far for many republican representatives.. " I was also surprised by the pardons but didn't get emotional over it, I think it’s more constructive to focus on principles of fairness and proportionality, rather than leaning into hypothetical, extreme outcomes. Hence my question, should we apply this approach of extreme outcomes to every group going forward, rather than for the act they carried out personally? Some of those convicted might have been sentenced overly harshly, others should have not received a pardon, my point being they were not all proud boys. This approach is why in my opinion we have so much hysteria flying around right now. As for the Dems not giving out pardons and being above the law, (if that is what you mean) Take a look at Biden's pardon's, but to those in a frenzy it is a fine to protect them from Trump and brush away the pardons as needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pardoning the Jan 6 Rioters is handing them tacit approval that their actions in storming the Capital building "in the pursuit of their aims" are quite ok. That their conflict with law enforcement was ok. That their wanton damage and destructions was ok. It's supportive of these semi-para-military groups. It hands them power. It makes them feel justified and protected. Emboldens. . My fear is that they will find "other targets". People not like them. And that covers a very broad spectrum. . Light paper. Stand back. Watch the fireworks fly. Because the POTUS has "got your back". . Facilitating a minority group, a group with easily-obtainable access to weapons, and an ideological axe to grind, seems like a classic element of provoking internal conflict in a grand scale to me. . If you watched "Civil War" by Alex Garland, then you'll recognise the "paramilitary" group at one point in the film (loading bodies in to pits). Because that is how these things "unfold". I was surprised at the pardons, but not overly emotional. Can we apply your thinking to all protests going forward and their supporters and backers? If you mean in the future when there's a democrat in the white house, then no I doubt very much that the privilege of being above the law by trump to his mob rightly convicted after 6 Jan isn't going to happen.. They (as the democrats and republicans before trump) carried out the duties and traditions of the losing party with dignity and that's something as we've seen is not within the psyche of trump.. The poster above is very on the money in relation to the pardons and commuting this far, what trump hasn't done is fully pardoned those at the top of the various militias which would be a step too far for many republican representatives.. I was also surprised by the pardons but didn't get emotional over it, I think it’s more constructive to focus on principles of fairness and proportionality, rather than leaning into hypothetical, extreme outcomes. Hence my question, should we apply this approach of extreme outcomes to every group going forward, rather than for the act they carried out personally? Some of those convicted might have been sentenced overly harshly, others should have not received a pardon, my point being they were not all proud boys. This approach is why in my opinion we have so much hysteria flying around right now. As for the Dems not giving out pardons and being above the law, (if that is what you mean) Take a look at Biden's pardon's, but to those in a frenzy it is a fine to protect them from Trump and brush away the pardons as needed. " No offence… but that is all excuse If you are suppose to look at a pardon in its own singular case, you are telling me that they decide on the same solution in every single circumstance… Including the hundreds that pleaded guilty, and all of those found guilty by a jury of their peers, and those who violently attacked police people…. Every… single…case Let’s be real.. he let them out because they fought for him!!! His people!! It’s a sorry attempt to whitewash history, but we all saw the same thing with our own eyes, whether that was on ABC, NBC,CBS,CNN or FOX | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What are your thoughts on these new laws ? My thoughts are: why does anyone in the UK giving a flying hoot about what Trump (or any other us politician) does? We can’t influence it in any way so it’s like complaining about the weather - it’s going to happen irrespective of what we think. Probably because of the inevitable tariff demand and/or demand in any UK/US trade deal for a start …. I hate it when people use the excuse about not to be interested the OP's opener was ... 'The New President has issued a large range of new EO's. What are your thoughts on these new laws ? Will they be overturned in the Courts ? What is your favourite new EO ?' .... the executive order didn't include tariffs, so why should we be concerned about Grumps fruity-loop order to rename the gulf of mexico or reclassifying fed workers etc.? you may be concerned seeing as how you're a doodle-dandy but the rest of us won't be affected by his nonsense so far to be fair. If you are not affected or interested, you know... you can just stay out of this thread. People who are interested can still discuss. stop being triggered .... absolutely nobody is stopping you squabbling with others
Then what's the point of these comments asking us not to discuss this topic?
who's asked you not to discuss the topic of the executive orders that grump signed?
So what exactly is the point of the comments you made here?
calm down and read the posts. so far, grumps bonkers executive orders don't affect non-americans, so some people are posting that they can't see why people in this country are getting wound up ... it's quite a simple point of view and a massive leap from there to your claims of people trying to cancel you. "Should people only be "wound up" over things that directly affect them? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pardoning the Jan 6 Rioters is handing them tacit approval that their actions in storming the Capital building "in the pursuit of their aims" are quite ok. That their conflict with law enforcement was ok. That their wanton damage and destructions was ok. It's supportive of these semi-para-military groups. It hands them power. It makes them feel justified and protected. Emboldens. . My fear is that they will find "other targets". People not like them. And that covers a very broad spectrum. . Light paper. Stand back. Watch the fireworks fly. Because the POTUS has "got your back". . Facilitating a minority group, a group with easily-obtainable access to weapons, and an ideological axe to grind, seems like a classic element of provoking internal conflict in a grand scale to me. . If you watched "Civil War" by Alex Garland, then you'll recognise the "paramilitary" group at one point in the film (loading bodies in to pits). Because that is how these things "unfold". I was surprised at the pardons, but not overly emotional. Can we apply your thinking to all protests going forward and their supporters and backers? If you mean in the future when there's a democrat in the white house, then no I doubt very much that the privilege of being above the law by trump to his mob rightly convicted after 6 Jan isn't going to happen.. They (as the democrats and republicans before trump) carried out the duties and traditions of the losing party with dignity and that's something as we've seen is not within the psyche of trump.. The poster above is very on the money in relation to the pardons and commuting this far, what trump hasn't done is fully pardoned those at the top of the various militias which would be a step too far for many republican representatives.. I was also surprised by the pardons but didn't get emotional over it, I think it’s more constructive to focus on principles of fairness and proportionality, rather than leaning into hypothetical, extreme outcomes. Hence my question, should we apply this approach of extreme outcomes to every group going forward, rather than for the act they carried out personally? Some of those convicted might have been sentenced overly harshly, others should have not received a pardon, my point being they were not all proud boys. This approach is why in my opinion we have so much hysteria flying around right now. As for the Dems not giving out pardons and being above the law, (if that is what you mean) Take a look at Biden's pardon's, but to those in a frenzy it is a fine to protect them from Trump and brush away the pardons as needed. No offence… but that is all excuse If you are suppose to look at a pardon in its own singular case, you are telling me that they decide on the same solution in every single circumstance… Including the hundreds that pleaded guilty, and all of those found guilty by a jury of their peers, and those who violently attacked police people…. Every… single…case Let’s be real.. he let them out because they fought for him!!! His people!! It’s a sorry attempt to whitewash history, but we all saw the same thing with our own eyes, whether that was on ABC, NBC,CBS,CNN or FOX " I didn't say the blanket pardons were the right thing to do did I? I'm advocating for them to be looked at an individual level, and I sad " Some of those convicted might have been sentenced overly harshly, others should have not received a pardon, my point being they were not all proud boys". So what is it I said that is an excuse? Biden doing pretty much the same thing, those that fought for him albeit in courts and government organisations, who will now never be put under the spotlight for any wrong doing, and pardoning is son who was convicted because according to Biden he was part of his family.... Take out the emotion and they have both done the same thing in the cold light of day, abused the system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pardoning the Jan 6 Rioters is handing them tacit approval that their actions in storming the Capital building "in the pursuit of their aims" are quite ok. That their conflict with law enforcement was ok. That their wanton damage and destructions was ok. It's supportive of these semi-para-military groups. It hands them power. It makes them feel justified and protected. Emboldens. . My fear is that they will find "other targets". People not like them. And that covers a very broad spectrum. . Light paper. Stand back. Watch the fireworks fly. Because the POTUS has "got your back". . Facilitating a minority group, a group with easily-obtainable access to weapons, and an ideological axe to grind, seems like a classic element of provoking internal conflict in a grand scale to me. . If you watched "Civil War" by Alex Garland, then you'll recognise the "paramilitary" group at one point in the film (loading bodies in to pits). Because that is how these things "unfold". I was surprised at the pardons, but not overly emotional. Can we apply your thinking to all protests going forward and their supporters and backers? If you mean in the future when there's a democrat in the white house, then no I doubt very much that the privilege of being above the law by trump to his mob rightly convicted after 6 Jan isn't going to happen.. They (as the democrats and republicans before trump) carried out the duties and traditions of the losing party with dignity and that's something as we've seen is not within the psyche of trump.. The poster above is very on the money in relation to the pardons and commuting this far, what trump hasn't done is fully pardoned those at the top of the various militias which would be a step too far for many republican representatives.. I was also surprised by the pardons but didn't get emotional over it, I think it’s more constructive to focus on principles of fairness and proportionality, rather than leaning into hypothetical, extreme outcomes. Hence my question, should we apply this approach of extreme outcomes to every group going forward, rather than for the act they carried out personally? Some of those convicted might have been sentenced overly harshly, others should have not received a pardon, my point being they were not all proud boys. This approach is why in my opinion we have so much hysteria flying around right now. As for the Dems not giving out pardons and being above the law, (if that is what you mean) Take a look at Biden's pardon's, but to those in a frenzy it is a fine to protect them from Trump and brush away the pardons as needed. " Some might get emotional but tbh it doesn't often alter the valid points they might raise, as with many issues or subjects.. I'm a bit traditional in that if the same actions were carried out here for whatever reason (not suggesting there would be) on what is the seat of government by people who attack the police who we have expectations of to protect such places then that can't be pardoned .. Unlike other regimes which are totalitarian and deserve overthrowing as their treatment of the general population by any accepted norms is barbaric.. I'm not talking about general pardons which yes has become a bad but inevitable habit.. No one else but trump would have verbally said 'proud boys, stand by'.. And his actions as the attack on the capitol were clear to see fell woefully short, the consequences for many elected representatives and not only democrats without the brave police, secret service and others literally stopped an escalation and a situation out of control.. To call people hostages and then let them all free who were convicted by the laws in the constitution sets a dangerous precedent .. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pardoning the Jan 6 Rioters is handing them tacit approval that their actions in storming the Capital building "in the pursuit of their aims" are quite ok. That their conflict with law enforcement was ok. That their wanton damage and destructions was ok. It's supportive of these semi-para-military groups. It hands them power. It makes them feel justified and protected. Emboldens. . My fear is that they will find "other targets". People not like them. And that covers a very broad spectrum. . Light paper. Stand back. Watch the fireworks fly. Because the POTUS has "got your back". . Facilitating a minority group, a group with easily-obtainable access to weapons, and an ideological axe to grind, seems like a classic element of provoking internal conflict in a grand scale to me. . If you watched "Civil War" by Alex Garland, then you'll recognise the "paramilitary" group at one point in the film (loading bodies in to pits). Because that is how these things "unfold". I was surprised at the pardons, but not overly emotional. Can we apply your thinking to all protests going forward and their supporters and backers? If you mean in the future when there's a democrat in the white house, then no I doubt very much that the privilege of being above the law by trump to his mob rightly convicted after 6 Jan isn't going to happen.. They (as the democrats and republicans before trump) carried out the duties and traditions of the losing party with dignity and that's something as we've seen is not within the psyche of trump.. The poster above is very on the money in relation to the pardons and commuting this far, what trump hasn't done is fully pardoned those at the top of the various militias which would be a step too far for many republican representatives.. I was also surprised by the pardons but didn't get emotional over it, I think it’s more constructive to focus on principles of fairness and proportionality, rather than leaning into hypothetical, extreme outcomes. Hence my question, should we apply this approach of extreme outcomes to every group going forward, rather than for the act they carried out personally? Some of those convicted might have been sentenced overly harshly, others should have not received a pardon, my point being they were not all proud boys. This approach is why in my opinion we have so much hysteria flying around right now. As for the Dems not giving out pardons and being above the law, (if that is what you mean) Take a look at Biden's pardon's, but to those in a frenzy it is a fine to protect them from Trump and brush away the pardons as needed. Some might get emotional but tbh it doesn't often alter the valid points they might raise, as with many issues or subjects.. I'm a bit traditional in that if the same actions were carried out here for whatever reason (not suggesting there would be) on what is the seat of government by people who attack the police who we have expectations of to protect such places then that can't be pardoned .. Unlike other regimes which are totalitarian and deserve overthrowing as their treatment of the general population by any accepted norms is barbaric.. I'm not talking about general pardons which yes has become a bad but inevitable habit.. No one else but trump would have verbally said 'proud boys, stand by'.. And his actions as the attack on the capitol were clear to see fell woefully short, the consequences for many elected representatives and not only democrats without the brave police, secret service and others literally stopped an escalation and a situation out of control.. To call people hostages and then let them all free who were convicted by the laws in the constitution sets a dangerous precedent .." I get what you are saying but that is simply Trump being Trump, he has abused the system openly and shouted about it. As I said the blanket pardons were not good, but it doesn't mean to say nobody should have received a pardon. I'm repeating my post above, but Biden in my opinion has done exactly the same thing, abused the system, with the only difference being the 2 men and who supports who. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pardoning the Jan 6 Rioters is handing them tacit approval that their actions in storming the Capital building "in the pursuit of their aims" are quite ok. That their conflict with law enforcement was ok. That their wanton damage and destructions was ok. It's supportive of these semi-para-military groups. It hands them power. It makes them feel justified and protected. Emboldens. . My fear is that they will find "other targets". People not like them. And that covers a very broad spectrum. . Light paper. Stand back. Watch the fireworks fly. Because the POTUS has "got your back". . Facilitating a minority group, a group with easily-obtainable access to weapons, and an ideological axe to grind, seems like a classic element of provoking internal conflict in a grand scale to me. . If you watched "Civil War" by Alex Garland, then you'll recognise the "paramilitary" group at one point in the film (loading bodies in to pits). Because that is how these things "unfold". I was surprised at the pardons, but not overly emotional. Can we apply your thinking to all protests going forward and their supporters and backers? If you mean in the future when there's a democrat in the white house, then no I doubt very much that the privilege of being above the law by trump to his mob rightly convicted after 6 Jan isn't going to happen.. They (as the democrats and republicans before trump) carried out the duties and traditions of the losing party with dignity and that's something as we've seen is not within the psyche of trump.. The poster above is very on the money in relation to the pardons and commuting this far, what trump hasn't done is fully pardoned those at the top of the various militias which would be a step too far for many republican representatives.. I was also surprised by the pardons but didn't get emotional over it, I think it’s more constructive to focus on principles of fairness and proportionality, rather than leaning into hypothetical, extreme outcomes. Hence my question, should we apply this approach of extreme outcomes to every group going forward, rather than for the act they carried out personally? Some of those convicted might have been sentenced overly harshly, others should have not received a pardon, my point being they were not all proud boys. This approach is why in my opinion we have so much hysteria flying around right now. As for the Dems not giving out pardons and being above the law, (if that is what you mean) Take a look at Biden's pardon's, but to those in a frenzy it is a fine to protect them from Trump and brush away the pardons as needed. Some might get emotional but tbh it doesn't often alter the valid points they might raise, as with many issues or subjects.. I'm a bit traditional in that if the same actions were carried out here for whatever reason (not suggesting there would be) on what is the seat of government by people who attack the police who we have expectations of to protect such places then that can't be pardoned .. Unlike other regimes which are totalitarian and deserve overthrowing as their treatment of the general population by any accepted norms is barbaric.. I'm not talking about general pardons which yes has become a bad but inevitable habit.. No one else but trump would have verbally said 'proud boys, stand by'.. And his actions as the attack on the capitol were clear to see fell woefully short, the consequences for many elected representatives and not only democrats without the brave police, secret service and others literally stopped an escalation and a situation out of control.. To call people hostages and then let them all free who were convicted by the laws in the constitution sets a dangerous precedent .. I get what you are saying but that is simply Trump being Trump, he has abused the system openly and shouted about it. As I said the blanket pardons were not good, but it doesn't mean to say nobody should have received a pardon. I'm repeating my post above, but Biden in my opinion has done exactly the same thing, abused the system, with the only difference being the 2 men and who supports who." Biden would not have used the same tactics to almost encourage armed militia to attend the capitol on the day.. Now would any other leader of either party after they lost an election.. Diluting the actions on the 6th Jan into a yeah but they all do it is not how history will judge it.. We need to agree to disagree on this.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pardoning the Jan 6 Rioters is handing them tacit approval that their actions in storming the Capital building "in the pursuit of their aims" are quite ok. That their conflict with law enforcement was ok. That their wanton damage and destructions was ok. It's supportive of these semi-para-military groups. It hands them power. It makes them feel justified and protected. Emboldens. . My fear is that they will find "other targets". People not like them. And that covers a very broad spectrum. . Light paper. Stand back. Watch the fireworks fly. Because the POTUS has "got your back". . Facilitating a minority group, a group with easily-obtainable access to weapons, and an ideological axe to grind, seems like a classic element of provoking internal conflict in a grand scale to me. . If you watched "Civil War" by Alex Garland, then you'll recognise the "paramilitary" group at one point in the film (loading bodies in to pits). Because that is how these things "unfold". I was surprised at the pardons, but not overly emotional. Can we apply your thinking to all protests going forward and their supporters and backers? If you mean in the future when there's a democrat in the white house, then no I doubt very much that the privilege of being above the law by trump to his mob rightly convicted after 6 Jan isn't going to happen.. They (as the democrats and republicans before trump) carried out the duties and traditions of the losing party with dignity and that's something as we've seen is not within the psyche of trump.. The poster above is very on the money in relation to the pardons and commuting this far, what trump hasn't done is fully pardoned those at the top of the various militias which would be a step too far for many republican representatives.. I was also surprised by the pardons but didn't get emotional over it, I think it’s more constructive to focus on principles of fairness and proportionality, rather than leaning into hypothetical, extreme outcomes. Hence my question, should we apply this approach of extreme outcomes to every group going forward, rather than for the act they carried out personally? Some of those convicted might have been sentenced overly harshly, others should have not received a pardon, my point being they were not all proud boys. This approach is why in my opinion we have so much hysteria flying around right now. As for the Dems not giving out pardons and being above the law, (if that is what you mean) Take a look at Biden's pardon's, but to those in a frenzy it is a fine to protect them from Trump and brush away the pardons as needed. Some might get emotional but tbh it doesn't often alter the valid points they might raise, as with many issues or subjects.. I'm a bit traditional in that if the same actions were carried out here for whatever reason (not suggesting there would be) on what is the seat of government by people who attack the police who we have expectations of to protect such places then that can't be pardoned .. Unlike other regimes which are totalitarian and deserve overthrowing as their treatment of the general population by any accepted norms is barbaric.. I'm not talking about general pardons which yes has become a bad but inevitable habit.. No one else but trump would have verbally said 'proud boys, stand by'.. And his actions as the attack on the capitol were clear to see fell woefully short, the consequences for many elected representatives and not only democrats without the brave police, secret service and others literally stopped an escalation and a situation out of control.. To call people hostages and then let them all free who were convicted by the laws in the constitution sets a dangerous precedent .. I get what you are saying but that is simply Trump being Trump, he has abused the system openly and shouted about it. As I said the blanket pardons were not good, but it doesn't mean to say nobody should have received a pardon. I'm repeating my post above, but Biden in my opinion has done exactly the same thing, abused the system, with the only difference being the 2 men and who supports who." It’s a vaguely ludicrous notion that a president does these public pardons in the first place. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pardoning the Jan 6 Rioters is handing them tacit approval that their actions in storming the Capital building "in the pursuit of their aims" are quite ok. That their conflict with law enforcement was ok. That their wanton damage and destructions was ok. It's supportive of these semi-para-military groups. It hands them power. It makes them feel justified and protected. Emboldens. . My fear is that they will find "other targets". People not like them. And that covers a very broad spectrum. . Light paper. Stand back. Watch the fireworks fly. Because the POTUS has "got your back". . Facilitating a minority group, a group with easily-obtainable access to weapons, and an ideological axe to grind, seems like a classic element of provoking internal conflict in a grand scale to me. . If you watched "Civil War" by Alex Garland, then you'll recognise the "paramilitary" group at one point in the film (loading bodies in to pits). Because that is how these things "unfold". I was surprised at the pardons, but not overly emotional. Can we apply your thinking to all protests going forward and their supporters and backers? If you mean in the future when there's a democrat in the white house, then no I doubt very much that the privilege of being above the law by trump to his mob rightly convicted after 6 Jan isn't going to happen.. They (as the democrats and republicans before trump) carried out the duties and traditions of the losing party with dignity and that's something as we've seen is not within the psyche of trump.. The poster above is very on the money in relation to the pardons and commuting this far, what trump hasn't done is fully pardoned those at the top of the various militias which would be a step too far for many republican representatives.. I was also surprised by the pardons but didn't get emotional over it, I think it’s more constructive to focus on principles of fairness and proportionality, rather than leaning into hypothetical, extreme outcomes. Hence my question, should we apply this approach of extreme outcomes to every group going forward, rather than for the act they carried out personally? Some of those convicted might have been sentenced overly harshly, others should have not received a pardon, my point being they were not all proud boys. This approach is why in my opinion we have so much hysteria flying around right now. As for the Dems not giving out pardons and being above the law, (if that is what you mean) Take a look at Biden's pardon's, but to those in a frenzy it is a fine to protect them from Trump and brush away the pardons as needed. Some might get emotional but tbh it doesn't often alter the valid points they might raise, as with many issues or subjects.. I'm a bit traditional in that if the same actions were carried out here for whatever reason (not suggesting there would be) on what is the seat of government by people who attack the police who we have expectations of to protect such places then that can't be pardoned .. Unlike other regimes which are totalitarian and deserve overthrowing as their treatment of the general population by any accepted norms is barbaric.. I'm not talking about general pardons which yes has become a bad but inevitable habit.. No one else but trump would have verbally said 'proud boys, stand by'.. And his actions as the attack on the capitol were clear to see fell woefully short, the consequences for many elected representatives and not only democrats without the brave police, secret service and others literally stopped an escalation and a situation out of control.. To call people hostages and then let them all free who were convicted by the laws in the constitution sets a dangerous precedent .. I get what you are saying but that is simply Trump being Trump, he has abused the system openly and shouted about it. As I said the blanket pardons were not good, but it doesn't mean to say nobody should have received a pardon. I'm repeating my post above, but Biden in my opinion has done exactly the same thing, abused the system, with the only difference being the 2 men and who supports who. Biden would not have used the same tactics to almost encourage armed militia to attend the capitol on the day.. Now would any other leader of either party after they lost an election.. Diluting the actions on the 6th Jan into a yeah but they all do it is not how history will judge it.. We need to agree to disagree on this.." That is not my point, they have both misused their powers to get what they want and both above the law. If people are going to shout from the rooftops about Trump's use of pardons, they should in my opinion be prepared to shout about Biden's. I will repeat, letting everyone out of jail for their involvement in Jan 6th was not something I agree with, nor is Biden's blanket pardons to his family and others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pardoning the Jan 6 Rioters is handing them tacit approval that their actions in storming the Capital building "in the pursuit of their aims" are quite ok. That their conflict with law enforcement was ok. That their wanton damage and destructions was ok. It's supportive of these semi-para-military groups. It hands them power. It makes them feel justified and protected. Emboldens. . My fear is that they will find "other targets". People not like them. And that covers a very broad spectrum. . Light paper. Stand back. Watch the fireworks fly. Because the POTUS has "got your back". . Facilitating a minority group, a group with easily-obtainable access to weapons, and an ideological axe to grind, seems like a classic element of provoking internal conflict in a grand scale to me. . If you watched "Civil War" by Alex Garland, then you'll recognise the "paramilitary" group at one point in the film (loading bodies in to pits). Because that is how these things "unfold". I was surprised at the pardons, but not overly emotional. Can we apply your thinking to all protests going forward and their supporters and backers? If you mean in the future when there's a democrat in the white house, then no I doubt very much that the privilege of being above the law by trump to his mob rightly convicted after 6 Jan isn't going to happen.. They (as the democrats and republicans before trump) carried out the duties and traditions of the losing party with dignity and that's something as we've seen is not within the psyche of trump.. The poster above is very on the money in relation to the pardons and commuting this far, what trump hasn't done is fully pardoned those at the top of the various militias which would be a step too far for many republican representatives.. I was also surprised by the pardons but didn't get emotional over it, I think it’s more constructive to focus on principles of fairness and proportionality, rather than leaning into hypothetical, extreme outcomes. Hence my question, should we apply this approach of extreme outcomes to every group going forward, rather than for the act they carried out personally? Some of those convicted might have been sentenced overly harshly, others should have not received a pardon, my point being they were not all proud boys. This approach is why in my opinion we have so much hysteria flying around right now. As for the Dems not giving out pardons and being above the law, (if that is what you mean) Take a look at Biden's pardon's, but to those in a frenzy it is a fine to protect them from Trump and brush away the pardons as needed. Some might get emotional but tbh it doesn't often alter the valid points they might raise, as with many issues or subjects.. I'm a bit traditional in that if the same actions were carried out here for whatever reason (not suggesting there would be) on what is the seat of government by people who attack the police who we have expectations of to protect such places then that can't be pardoned .. Unlike other regimes which are totalitarian and deserve overthrowing as their treatment of the general population by any accepted norms is barbaric.. I'm not talking about general pardons which yes has become a bad but inevitable habit.. No one else but trump would have verbally said 'proud boys, stand by'.. And his actions as the attack on the capitol were clear to see fell woefully short, the consequences for many elected representatives and not only democrats without the brave police, secret service and others literally stopped an escalation and a situation out of control.. To call people hostages and then let them all free who were convicted by the laws in the constitution sets a dangerous precedent .. I get what you are saying but that is simply Trump being Trump, he has abused the system openly and shouted about it. As I said the blanket pardons were not good, but it doesn't mean to say nobody should have received a pardon. I'm repeating my post above, but Biden in my opinion has done exactly the same thing, abused the system, with the only difference being the 2 men and who supports who. Biden would not have used the same tactics to almost encourage armed militia to attend the capitol on the day.. Now would any other leader of either party after they lost an election.. Diluting the actions on the 6th Jan into a yeah but they all do it is not how history will judge it.. We need to agree to disagree on this.. That is not my point, they have both misused their powers to get what they want and both above the law. If people are going to shout from the rooftops about Trump's use of pardons, they should in my opinion be prepared to shout about Biden's. I will repeat, letting everyone out of jail for their involvement in Jan 6th was not something I agree with, nor is Biden's blanket pardons to his family and others." I said above that the trend of both sides doing the general pardoning is bad.. So I'm not sure why you feet the need to add what you did about rooftops.. I've clearly set aside those and made my point as I stated on the Jan 6 convictions.. And I'm not saying you haven't said that.. And with that on this with you I'm out.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone entering the US illegally is to be returned without being able to request asylum. The UK should do the same There is (a very few exceptions aside) no way to claim asylum in the U.K without entering ‘illegally’ " So let's legalise illegality? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone entering the US illegally is to be returned without being able to request asylum. The UK should do the same There is (a very few exceptions aside) no way to claim asylum in the U.K without entering ‘illegally’ So let's legalise illegality? " Let’s create legal routes, and process arrivals and deportations properly, and prevent the bast majority of small boat crossings in the first place - which has the double whammy effect of crippling the trade of the bastards who smuggle people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone entering the US illegally is to be returned without being able to request asylum. The UK should do the same There is (a very few exceptions aside) no way to claim asylum in the U.K without entering ‘illegally’ So let's legalise illegality? Let’s create legal routes, and process arrivals and deportations properly, and prevent the bast majority of small boat crossings in the first place - which has the double whammy effect of crippling the trade of the bastards who smuggle people. " All fine with me...but until then, it's illegal and that's that | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And here come the start of the blocks to the executive orders Federal judge in Seattle puts in a block there where birthright citizenship is being challenged by 4 states (Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington) Stay is in place for 14 day until the order can become permanent… Trump is going to call the judge a radical leftist.. what you actually need to know is the judge in question was confirmed under Ronald Reagan and has been on the federal bench for the best part of 40 years! In the ruling the judge called the EO “blatantly unconstitutional “ " What are the positives and negatives of birthright citizenship? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And here come the start of the blocks to the executive orders Federal judge in Seattle puts in a block there where birthright citizenship is being challenged by 4 states (Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington) Stay is in place for 14 day until the order can become permanent… Trump is going to call the judge a radical leftist.. what you actually need to know is the judge in question was confirmed under Ronald Reagan and has been on the federal bench for the best part of 40 years! In the ruling the judge called the EO “blatantly unconstitutional “ What are the positives and negatives of birthright citizenship? " If you see the script of the entire hearing it’s almost laughable that the judge didn’t just throw out the DOJ lawyers and call it “frivolous” (if he had the EO would be dead) The hearing went something like this… Judge: so why should the EO be allowed to stand ? DOJ lawyers: because the way it stands at the moment, a pregnant lady coming in and having a baby would not be subject to any us laws Judge: really.. exempt from everything? DOJ lawyers: yes Judge: so if the same pregnant lady brought in a suitcase of illegal drugs, would she not be subject to us laws? DOJ lawyers: yes…. And that’s when the judge called it unconstitutional as you cannot change or remove an amendment via a EO | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Makes me howl, he's sent troops to the mexican border to prevent illegals. But he's saying nothing about the thousand or so mexican fire fighters fighting the fires to save his billionaires properties. " Are the Mexican fire fighters illegal immigrants too? What’s the connection? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Typical Trump tokenism. He has sent a reported 1500 troops to the border. Given the length of the US/Mexican border that would leave a gap of just over a mile between each soldier. Even Stevie Wonder could sneak past them." I thought they were there to reinforce entry points and start building the wall, after Biden's EO stopping construction and then later slowly building the wall, rather than patrol the whole border? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Typical Trump tokenism. He has sent a reported 1500 troops to the border. Given the length of the US/Mexican border that would leave a gap of just over a mile between each soldier. Even Stevie Wonder could sneak past them. I thought they were there to reinforce entry points and start building the wall, after Biden's EO stopping construction and then later slowly building the wall, rather than patrol the whole border? " Maybe they’re going to complete the bits that they built before except this time actually make them effective. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Typical Trump tokenism. He has sent a reported 1500 troops to the border. Given the length of the US/Mexican border that would leave a gap of just over a mile between each soldier. Even Stevie Wonder could sneak past them." I'm not fan of the orange man child but like any elected leader he has the right to protect the countries borders.. We might look at other ideas he has and ponder just how they will be implemented but on the border is an issue as other countries with less conservative leaders are addressing.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"See the latest bunch of orders. A few million staff up for voluntary redundancy. An order stopping gender changing for under 19's" isn't the order similar in nature to the banning of puberty blockers made here, however the EO adds hormones. The banning of gender reassignment surgery was also added in the EO, this has always been banned for children in the UK. My feeling was here in the UK we generally accepted it was the correct thing to do. I'm guessing TDS will create a backlash in the US and world. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And the EO on the federal aid freeze has been paused by another judge…. I don’t think this one won’t stand because resources are not part of the executive branch authority, but that allocation is done by the senate so the president can’t stop money that’s already been allocated! Also, there may be some 1st amendment protections because certain organisations affected have been critical in the past. And this could be seen as retaliation " And now the EO has been rescinded… basically it was so vague it was catching everything intended or not.. and republicans were getting blasted all over the country for this | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The pardoning of every jan 6th person was a bad move, I think even there republicans thought he would separate those found guilty of violent offences, and those who actually pleaded guilty You can’t say you “back the blue “ if you release all those who attack them! Paris climate agreement is one of those I will never understand as the US sets its own target.. and there is no penalty for not reaching it! Withdrawing from the WHO is an interesting one, because as much as republicans hated the advice coming from it, if most of the world is collaborating on something and you are on the outside looking in, money doesn’t just buy you out! …. Yes the pardons are a disgrace. I think the DEI stuff will have traction in UK. Many people unaware how much public money is spent on this ideology." I didn't realise that providing equitable access to employment opportunities was an "ideology". Until you are one of the people in the crosshairs of discrimination, you wouldn't understand. I have to argue with my employer for things like the right to open a door. The right to use the toilet without having to move several floors and wait for the lift (no-one else has to do this). The right to be able to get into and use any classroom or meeting room. But yeah. Ideology. I thought better of you, Leo. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The pardoning of every jan 6th person was a bad move, I think even there republicans thought he would separate those found guilty of violent offences, and those who actually pleaded guilty You can’t say you “back the blue “ if you release all those who attack them! Paris climate agreement is one of those I will never understand as the US sets its own target.. and there is no penalty for not reaching it! Withdrawing from the WHO is an interesting one, because as much as republicans hated the advice coming from it, if most of the world is collaborating on something and you are on the outside looking in, money doesn’t just buy you out! …. Yes the pardons are a disgrace. I think the DEI stuff will have traction in UK. Many people unaware how much public money is spent on this ideology. I didn't realise that providing equitable access to employment opportunities was an "ideology". Until you are one of the people in the crosshairs of discrimination, you wouldn't understand. I have to argue with my employer for things like the right to open a door. The right to use the toilet without having to move several floors and wait for the lift (no-one else has to do this). The right to be able to get into and use any classroom or meeting room. But yeah. Ideology. I thought better of you, Leo. " 'DEI' and equal legal rights are completely separate issues which you are conflating. I fully support (in theory and practice) equal rights and opportunities. I don't support the ideologically driven and ineffective DEI industry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The pardoning of every jan 6th person was a bad move, I think even there republicans thought he would separate those found guilty of violent offences, and those who actually pleaded guilty You can’t say you “back the blue “ if you release all those who attack them! Paris climate agreement is one of those I will never understand as the US sets its own target.. and there is no penalty for not reaching it! Withdrawing from the WHO is an interesting one, because as much as republicans hated the advice coming from it, if most of the world is collaborating on something and you are on the outside looking in, money doesn’t just buy you out! …. Yes the pardons are a disgrace. I think the DEI stuff will have traction in UK. Many people unaware how much public money is spent on this ideology. I didn't realise that providing equitable access to employment opportunities was an "ideology". Until you are one of the people in the crosshairs of discrimination, you wouldn't understand. I have to argue with my employer for things like the right to open a door. The right to use the toilet without having to move several floors and wait for the lift (no-one else has to do this). The right to be able to get into and use any classroom or meeting room. But yeah. Ideology. I thought better of you, Leo. 'DEI' and equal legal rights are completely separate issues which you are conflating. I fully support (in theory and practice) equal rights and opportunities. I don't support the ideologically driven and ineffective DEI industry. " DEI initiatives are required because the so-called legal protections against discrimination, don't work. It's illegal in the UK to discriminate in employment based on any of the protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act, yet such discrimination is widespread and the Act can only be enforced by individuals having the means to take an employer (past, present or future) to a tribunal and thus shouldering all the potential downsides of an unsuccessful claim. I chair a DEI forum within my employer, for staff with disabilities. It's not ideologically driven in slightest and relies on the voluntary input and staff. And it's needed. I can't give details on an open forum but suffice to say that without a mandate to push for proper workplace inclusion, many people would be heavily disadvantaged or unable to work because the people who make the big decisions (who are not disabled) have zero conceptual understanding. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The New President has issued a large range of new EO's. What are your thoughts on these new laws ? Will they be overturned in the Courts ? What is your favourite new EO ? " I've only just looked at a list of them. I think my favourite is this one: RESTORING NAMES THAT HONOR AMERICAN GREATNESS (Their caps, not mine). Why? Well, it's absurd, harmless and allows the rest of the world to take the piss. 🙂 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" DEI initiatives are required because the so-called legal protections against discrimination, don't work. It's illegal in the UK to discriminate in employment based on any of the protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act, yet such discrimination is widespread and the Act can only be enforced by individuals having the means to take an employer (past, present or future) to a tribunal and thus shouldering all the potential downsides of an unsuccessful claim. I chair a DEI forum within my employer, for staff with disabilities. It's not ideologically driven in slightest and relies on the voluntary input and staff. And it's needed. I can't give details on an open forum but suffice to say that without a mandate to push for proper workplace inclusion, many people would be heavily disadvantaged or unable to work because the people who make the big decisions (who are not disabled) have zero conceptual understanding. " This. 100%. This is why DEI is needed as KC so eloquently and patiently explains. From first hand experience. You can't get more relevant or knowledgeable than that. Zero conceptual understanding and awareness flow from the top right down. And even if it didn't, then there are still people's individual "blind spots". Cutting DEI is at the least the equivalent of wearing blinkers and ignoring the issues. At the worst, it's disenfranchising. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The pardoning of every jan 6th person was a bad move, I think even there republicans thought he would separate those found guilty of violent offences, and those who actually pleaded guilty You can’t say you “back the blue “ if you release all those who attack them! Paris climate agreement is one of those I will never understand as the US sets its own target.. and there is no penalty for not reaching it! Withdrawing from the WHO is an interesting one, because as much as republicans hated the advice coming from it, if most of the world is collaborating on something and you are on the outside looking in, money doesn’t just buy you out! …. Yes the pardons are a disgrace. I think the DEI stuff will have traction in UK. Many people unaware how much public money is spent on this ideology. I didn't realise that providing equitable access to employment opportunities was an "ideology". Until you are one of the people in the crosshairs of discrimination, you wouldn't understand. I have to argue with my employer for things like the right to open a door. The right to use the toilet without having to move several floors and wait for the lift (no-one else has to do this). The right to be able to get into and use any classroom or meeting room. But yeah. Ideology. I thought better of you, Leo. 'DEI' and equal legal rights are completely separate issues which you are conflating. I fully support (in theory and practice) equal rights and opportunities. I don't support the ideologically driven and ineffective DEI industry. DEI initiatives are required because the so-called legal protections against discrimination, don't work. It's illegal in the UK to discriminate in employment based on any of the protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act, yet such discrimination is widespread and the Act can only be enforced by individuals having the means to take an employer (past, present or future) to a tribunal and thus shouldering all the potential downsides of an unsuccessful claim. I chair a DEI forum within my employer, for staff with disabilities. It's not ideologically driven in slightest and relies on the voluntary input and staff. And it's needed. I can't give details on an open forum but suffice to say that without a mandate to push for proper workplace inclusion, many people would be heavily disadvantaged or unable to work because the people who make the big decisions (who are not disabled) have zero conceptual understanding. " Voluntary initiatives in private companies are completely different to publicly funded DEI roles and programmes. These have expanded massively at great expense with little solid evidence they are effective, and plenty of evidence they are dominated by a left wing ideology. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"See the latest bunch of orders. A few million staff up for voluntary redundancy. An order stopping gender changing for under 19's isn't the order similar in nature to the banning of puberty blockers made here, however the EO adds hormones. The banning of gender reassignment surgery was also added in the EO, this has always been banned for children in the UK. My feeling was here in the UK we generally accepted it was the correct thing to do. I'm guessing TDS will create a backlash in the US and world. " Difference is England isnt trying to dehumanise trans people’s existence at the same time as dishonest / deplorable/ perverts / mentally ill etc like trumpet man is saying He takes it too far with this rhetoric as it will only lead to violence increased on an oppressed group already as people feel it will be ok to do so . Also the UK has adopted the holistic approach to minors. The EO just flat out says no no no to anything . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position." Well all political stands are ideological to a point. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position. Well all political stands are ideological to a point." dei is objective and seeks to include members of the population in society, whereas being anti-dei is subjective and seeks to exclude members of the population from society for idealogical reasons. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position. Well all political stands are ideological to a point. dei is objective and seeks to include members of the population in society, whereas being anti-dei is subjective and seeks to exclude members of the population from society for idealogical reasons." Viewing DEI as unnecessary, redundant, or even harmful doesn’t necessarily imply alignment with any political ideology. In fact, claiming that rejecting DEI is inherently ideological suggests an acknowledgment that DEI itself is a political ideology that must be followed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position. Well all political stands are ideological to a point. dei is objective and seeks to include members of the population in society, whereas being anti-dei is subjective and seeks to exclude members of the population from society for idealogical reasons. Viewing DEI as unnecessary, redundant, or even harmful doesn’t necessarily imply alignment with any political ideology. In fact, claiming that rejecting DEI is inherently ideological suggests an acknowledgment that DEI itself is a political ideology that must be followed. " garbage | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position. Well all political stands are ideological to a point. dei is objective and seeks to include members of the population in society, whereas being anti-dei is subjective and seeks to exclude members of the population from society for idealogical reasons. Viewing DEI as unnecessary, redundant, or even harmful doesn’t necessarily imply alignment with any political ideology. In fact, claiming that rejecting DEI is inherently ideological suggests an acknowledgment that DEI itself is a political ideology that must be followed. garbage "Out of ideas again I see, a little quicker than normal which is a shame.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position. Well all political stands are ideological to a point. dei is objective and seeks to include members of the population in society, whereas being anti-dei is subjective and seeks to exclude members of the population from society for idealogical reasons. Viewing DEI as unnecessary, redundant, or even harmful doesn’t necessarily imply alignment with any political ideology. In fact, claiming that rejecting DEI is inherently ideological suggests an acknowledgment that DEI itself is a political ideology that must be followed. garbage "You almost made a sensible point there, I'm glad you're OK! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position. Well all political stands are ideological to a point. dei is objective and seeks to include members of the population in society, whereas being anti-dei is subjective and seeks to exclude members of the population from society for idealogical reasons. Viewing DEI as unnecessary, redundant, or even harmful doesn’t necessarily imply alignment with any political ideology. In fact, claiming that rejecting DEI is inherently ideological suggests an acknowledgment that DEI itself is a political ideology that must be followed. garbage
Out of ideas again I see, a little quicker than normal which is a shame. "I think the point is that a lot of people don’t see “race, gender and sexuality” as DEI worthy… but when it comes to “disability” people are very quick to say…. “Oh but I don’t mean that!!!!!!!” You would not have the DDA without DEi initiatives… Even in the civil service DEI is as much about encouraging people to apply for jobs that they may not have thought about in the past! Because as much as I love my job… the people above me for example tend to be older and whiter | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position. Well all political stands are ideological to a point. dei is objective and seeks to include members of the population in society, whereas being anti-dei is subjective and seeks to exclude members of the population from society for idealogical reasons. Viewing DEI as unnecessary, redundant, or even harmful doesn’t necessarily imply alignment with any political ideology. In fact, claiming that rejecting DEI is inherently ideological suggests an acknowledgment that DEI itself is a political ideology that must be followed. garbage
Out of ideas again I see, a little quicker than normal which is a shame.
I think the point is that a lot of people don’t see “race, gender and sexuality” as DEI worthy… but when it comes to “disability” people are very quick to say…. “Oh but I don’t mean that!!!!!!!”
You would not have the DDA without DEi initiatives…
Even in the civil service DEI is as much about encouraging people to apply for jobs that they may not have thought about in the past! Because as much as I love my job… the people above me for example tend to be older and whiter "We have laws that need to be followed, reading how DEI is a leveller for companies that don’t follow the law is not acceptable, they need reporting and dealing with, that is why we have laws. Serious question; are there any circumstances that the law doesn’t cover that it should? I feel DEI has turned into is exclusion of merit, I’m sure it wasn’t intended to start out like that but that is where it is now through ideological thinking and no framework. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position. Well all political stands are ideological to a point. dei is objective and seeks to include members of the population in society, whereas being anti-dei is subjective and seeks to exclude members of the population from society for idealogical reasons. Viewing DEI as unnecessary, redundant, or even harmful doesn’t necessarily imply alignment with any political ideology. In fact, claiming that rejecting DEI is inherently ideological suggests an acknowledgment that DEI itself is a political ideology that must be followed. garbage
Out of ideas again I see, a little quicker than normal which is a shame.
I think the point is that a lot of people don’t see “race, gender and sexuality” as DEI worthy… but when it comes to “disability” people are very quick to say…. “Oh but I don’t mean that!!!!!!!”
You would not have the DDA without DEi initiatives…
Even in the civil service DEI is as much about encouraging people to apply for jobs that they may not have thought about in the past! Because as much as I love my job… the people above me for example tend to be older and whiter "Public service productivity is lower than it was in 1997, an incredible fact considering all the tech since then which should have increased productivity with no effort. Perhaps the Civil Service could form a few committees to address that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position. Well all political stands are ideological to a point. dei is objective and seeks to include members of the population in society, whereas being anti-dei is subjective and seeks to exclude members of the population from society for idealogical reasons. Viewing DEI as unnecessary, redundant, or even harmful doesn’t necessarily imply alignment with any political ideology. In fact, claiming that rejecting DEI is inherently ideological suggests an acknowledgment that DEI itself is a political ideology that must be followed. garbage
Out of ideas again I see, a little quicker than normal which is a shame.
I think the point is that a lot of people don’t see “race, gender and sexuality” as DEI worthy… but when it comes to “disability” people are very quick to say…. “Oh but I don’t mean that!!!!!!!”
You would not have the DDA without DEi initiatives…
Even in the civil service DEI is as much about encouraging people to apply for jobs that they may not have thought about in the past! Because as much as I love my job… the people above me for example tend to be older and whiter
Public service productivity is lower than it was in 1997, an incredible fact considering all the tech since then which should have increased productivity with no effort. Perhaps the Civil Service could form a few committees to address that?"See… a lot of things to address here… Civil service .. lovely big old general term.. so which bit are you snipping at? DVLA? Passport renewal? Immigration officers? Prison service? Pension services? Job centres? Name them! The “civil service” is not just people sitting at a desk… speaking of which As a general rule, in those roles that are not customer facing civil services productivity has actually gone UP in the last few years! Stuff like working from home, hybrid rotation patterns… sickness has decreased and the amount that government is spending on renting buildings has decreased (you don’t need so many in an office so you don’t need as large a building!…. Who knew!) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position. Well all political stands are ideological to a point. dei is objective and seeks to include members of the population in society, whereas being anti-dei is subjective and seeks to exclude members of the population from society for idealogical reasons. Viewing DEI as unnecessary, redundant, or even harmful doesn’t necessarily imply alignment with any political ideology. In fact, claiming that rejecting DEI is inherently ideological suggests an acknowledgment that DEI itself is a political ideology that must be followed. garbage
Out of ideas again I see, a little quicker than normal which is a shame.
I think the point is that a lot of people don’t see “race, gender and sexuality” as DEI worthy… but when it comes to “disability” people are very quick to say…. “Oh but I don’t mean that!!!!!!!”
You would not have the DDA without DEi initiatives…
Even in the civil service DEI is as much about encouraging people to apply for jobs that they may not have thought about in the past! Because as much as I love my job… the people above me for example tend to be older and whiter
Public service productivity is lower than it was in 1997, an incredible fact considering all the tech since then which should have increased productivity with no effort. Perhaps the Civil Service could form a few committees to address that?
See… a lot of things to address here…
Civil service .. lovely big old general term.. so which bit are you snipping at? DVLA? Passport renewal? Immigration officers? Prison service? Pension services? Job centres?
Name them!
The “civil service” is not just people sitting at a desk… speaking of which
As a general rule, in those roles that are not customer facing civil services productivity has actually gone UP in the last few years!
Stuff like working from home, hybrid rotation patterns… sickness has decreased and the amount that government is spending on renting buildings has decreased (you don’t need so many in an office so you don’t need as large a building!…. Who knew!) "Do you have a source for that increase in productivity? Of course it has gone up since Covid as it was starting from a zero base ! But long term public services productivity is awful and in most sectors is still below pre-Covid levels. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position. Well all political stands are ideological to a point. dei is objective and seeks to include members of the population in society, whereas being anti-dei is subjective and seeks to exclude members of the population from society for idealogical reasons. Viewing DEI as unnecessary, redundant, or even harmful doesn’t necessarily imply alignment with any political ideology. In fact, claiming that rejecting DEI is inherently ideological suggests an acknowledgment that DEI itself is a political ideology that must be followed. garbage
Out of ideas again I see, a little quicker than normal which is a shame.
I think the point is that a lot of people don’t see “race, gender and sexuality” as DEI worthy… but when it comes to “disability” people are very quick to say…. “Oh but I don’t mean that!!!!!!!”
You would not have the DDA without DEi initiatives…
Even in the civil service DEI is as much about encouraging people to apply for jobs that they may not have thought about in the past! Because as much as I love my job… the people above me for example tend to be older and whiter
Public service productivity is lower than it was in 1997, an incredible fact considering all the tech since then which should have increased productivity with no effort. Perhaps the Civil Service could form a few committees to address that?
See… a lot of things to address here…
Civil service .. lovely big old general term.. so which bit are you snipping at? DVLA? Passport renewal? Immigration officers? Prison service? Pension services? Job centres?
Name them!
The “civil service” is not just people sitting at a desk… speaking of which
As a general rule, in those roles that are not customer facing civil services productivity has actually gone UP in the last few years!
Stuff like working from home, hybrid rotation patterns… sickness has decreased and the amount that government is spending on renting buildings has decreased (you don’t need so many in an office so you don’t need as large a building!…. Who knew!)
Do you have a source for that increase in productivity? Of course it has gone up since Covid as it was starting from a zero base ! But long term public services productivity is awful and in most sectors is still below pre-Covid levels."Do unions allow productivity measures on individuals in the public sector? I'm sure that was stumbling block in negotiations on pay rises with the tories, we will pay you more but you need to be more productive; Unions: NO. Labour come to the table, here is what you want and a bit more: Unions; what do you want in return; NOTHING. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position. Well all political stands are ideological to a point. dei is objective and seeks to include members of the population in society, whereas being anti-dei is subjective and seeks to exclude members of the population from society for idealogical reasons. Viewing DEI as unnecessary, redundant, or even harmful doesn’t necessarily imply alignment with any political ideology. In fact, claiming that rejecting DEI is inherently ideological suggests an acknowledgment that DEI itself is a political ideology that must be followed. garbage
Out of ideas again I see, a little quicker than normal which is a shame.
I think the point is that a lot of people don’t see “race, gender and sexuality” as DEI worthy… but when it comes to “disability” people are very quick to say…. “Oh but I don’t mean that!!!!!!!”
You would not have the DDA without DEi initiatives…
Even in the civil service DEI is as much about encouraging people to apply for jobs that they may not have thought about in the past! Because as much as I love my job… the people above me for example tend to be older and whiter
Public service productivity is lower than it was in 1997, an incredible fact considering all the tech since then which should have increased productivity with no effort. Perhaps the Civil Service could form a few committees to address that?
See… a lot of things to address here…
Civil service .. lovely big old general term.. so which bit are you snipping at? DVLA? Passport renewal? Immigration officers? Prison service? Pension services? Job centres?
Name them!
The “civil service” is not just people sitting at a desk… speaking of which
As a general rule, in those roles that are not customer facing civil services productivity has actually gone UP in the last few years!
Stuff like working from home, hybrid rotation patterns… sickness has decreased and the amount that government is spending on renting buildings has decreased (you don’t need so many in an office so you don’t need as large a building!…. Who knew!)
Do you have a source for that increase in productivity? Of course it has gone up since Covid as it was starting from a zero base ! But long term public services productivity is awful and in most sectors is still below pre-Covid levels."Yes I do have a source of the increase in productivity… it’s called the cabinet office!!!
Even the cabinet office themselves admits that productivity has gone up… which is why when Jacob Rees mogg was trying to reverse those things such as working from home, a lot of people including his own conservative colleagues were against it!
It wasn’t a zero start at the beginning of COVID! What Covid actually in a sense did, especially for back office staff, but it was implemented to customer facing as well, were things that were being trailed such as working from home, hybrid working patterns
The only thing that did slow it down at the beginning was they couldn’t get laptops out to people fast enough! If you think the average civil servant was at home twiddling thumbs you don’t have a clue! I know a lot of people where instead of being able to do home visits to vulnerable people spent hours on the phones to them! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Robert Reich American News x Heather Cox Richardson These are fantastic sources on Facebook. Worth following to see what's going on. Incredible stuff. (You younger folk may not be on Facebook of course)" "Fantastic source" and "Facebook" should never be in the same sentence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Robert Reich American News x Heather Cox Richardson These are fantastic sources on Facebook. Worth following to see what's going on. Incredible stuff. (You younger folk may not be on Facebook of course)" ""Fantastic source" and "Facebook" should never be in the same sentence." Maybe he was using the original meaning of 'fantastic', i.e. derived from fantasy, untrue, made-up, etc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Robert Reich American News x Heather Cox Richardson These are fantastic sources on Facebook. Worth following to see what's going on. Incredible stuff. (You younger folk may not be on Facebook of course) "Fantastic source" and "Facebook" should never be in the same sentence. Maybe he was using the original meaning of 'fantastic', i.e. derived from fantasy, untrue, made-up, etc." I jolly well hope so! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"taking a stance of being anti-DEI is an idealogical position. Well all political stands are ideological to a point. dei is objective and seeks to include members of the population in society, whereas being anti-dei is subjective and seeks to exclude members of the population from society for idealogical reasons. Viewing DEI as unnecessary, redundant, or even harmful doesn’t necessarily imply alignment with any political ideology. In fact, claiming that rejecting DEI is inherently ideological suggests an acknowledgment that DEI itself is a political ideology that must be followed. garbage
Out of ideas again I see, a little quicker than normal which is a shame.
I think the point is that a lot of people don’t see “race, gender and sexuality” as DEI worthy… but when it comes to “disability” people are very quick to say…. “Oh but I don’t mean that!!!!!!!”
You would not have the DDA without DEi initiatives…
Even in the civil service DEI is as much about encouraging people to apply for jobs that they may not have thought about in the past! Because as much as I love my job… the people above me for example tend to be older and whiter
Public service productivity is lower than it was in 1997, an incredible fact considering all the tech since then which should have increased productivity with no effort. Perhaps the Civil Service could form a few committees to address that?
See… a lot of things to address here…
Civil service .. lovely big old general term.. so which bit are you snipping at? DVLA? Passport renewal? Immigration officers? Prison service? Pension services? Job centres?
Name them!
The “civil service” is not just people sitting at a desk… speaking of which
As a general rule, in those roles that are not customer facing civil services productivity has actually gone UP in the last few years!
Stuff like working from home, hybrid rotation patterns… sickness has decreased and the amount that government is spending on renting buildings has decreased (you don’t need so many in an office so you don’t need as large a building!…. Who knew!)
Do you have a source for that increase in productivity? Of course it has gone up since Covid as it was starting from a zero base ! But long term public services productivity is awful and in most sectors is still below pre-Covid levels.
Yes I do have a source of the increase in productivity… it’s called the cabinet office!!!
Even the cabinet office themselves admits that productivity has gone up… which is why when Jacob Rees mogg was trying to reverse those things such as working from home, a lot of people including his own conservative colleagues were against it!
It wasn’t a zero start at the beginning of COVID! What Covid actually in a sense did, especially for back office staff, but it was implemented to customer facing as well, were things that were being trailed such as working from home, hybrid working patterns
The only thing that did slow it down at the beginning was they couldn’t get laptops out to people fast enough! If you think the average civil servant was at home twiddling thumbs you don’t have a clue! I know a lot of people where instead of being able to do home visits to vulnerable people spent hours on the phones to them! "Could you provide a Web link for your source? I can't find any figures for Civil Service productivity in isolation and certainly none for specific sectors. I do know that there are horrendous waits for driving tests, passports etc and that HMRC simply terminates calls much of the time. Perhaps they have an urgent DEI seminar to attend? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And so the tariff wars begin…. As of tomorrow, 25% on Mexico, 25% on Canada… and an additional 10% on china I will be interested in seeing the retaliation" Any chance of a link for your source? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And so the tariff wars begin…. As of tomorrow, 25% on Mexico, 25% on Canada… and an additional 10% on china I will be interested in seeing the retaliation" This has all the makings of a massive mistake for the States. Canada will retaliate - it has no choice. What tariffs will it put on the electricity it supplies to the US. Also could they charge for the oil piped through Canada or even threaten the pipeline. Trumpeter is treating both Mexico and Canada if they were the Fentaniyl dealers rather than merely being the unwilling hosts of the suppliers. His grasp on how the world operates us at about the level of a 5 year old. Trouble is there in no one in government prepared to tell him he is wrong. A very sad period for a once great country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tariff on EU coming but he didn’t say how much Will mortgage fraud Mandelson persuade Trump not to tariff UK goods " It won't end well. He'll body slam Mandelson, then do a turnbuckle throw him till he's unconscious. 40% tariff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
