Trump Team Asks State Dept. To Name Those Working On Gender Equality
86 replies, posted
At this point I'm almost expecting him being impeached within his first year.
Oh I get what he meant by MAGA now. He meant like how america was in the early 1900s!
[QUOTE=Dantz Bolrew;51570527]And how is purging leftisits a good thing or something worth doing in the first place?[/QUOTE]
I don't think it is--even though the State Department should be largely apolitical IMO. I'm just spitballing with the idea that the transition team is making this a bigger issue than Trump wants it to be. Just because he won the presidency does not mean that people like Reince Preibus or Mike Pence are gonna follow his every command. Who's to say his lieutenants aren't going to take things into their own hands when Trump has a blind spot?
[QUOTE=Chonch;51570635]I don't think it is--even though the State Department should be largely apolitical IMO. I'm just spitballing with the idea that the transition team is making this a bigger issue than Trump wants it to be. Just because he won the presidency does not mean that people like Reince Preibus or Mike Pence are gonna follow his every command. Who's to say his lieutenants aren't going to take things into their own hands when Trump has a blind spot?[/QUOTE]
That's what i'm afraid of which would actually be even worse than Trump Doing these things himself, that we have to ask is this Trump or is this GOP controling Pence or his Cronies
Boy, things just keep getting worse and worse and he isn't even sworn in yet. I wonder how long until he starts a war with the whole world and gets the whole world nuked into oblivion.
hey guys like the last time was just a joke kk because his team said so, this time's tots another joke kk?
[QUOTE=xxfalconxx;51570727]Boy, things just keep getting worse and worse and he isn't even sworn in yet. I wonder how long until he [B]starts a war with the whole world and gets the whole world nuked into oblivion[/B].[/QUOTE]
Every day it feels more and more imminent.
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;51570620]Oh I get what he meant by MAGA now. He meant like how america was in the early 1900s![/QUOTE]
More like the 1860s.
Has anyone confirmed what he's going to do with the names? Seems like an awful lot of doomsaying when the article literally just refers to him collecting the names.
y'all wanna calm down till it gets confirmed what he's doing, the way the Trump team phrases the request "promote gender equality, such as ending gender-based violence, promoting women's participation in economic and political spheres, entrepreneurship, etc." sounds like they're not viewing these as negative aspects, they aren't going to refer to a department as "ending gender-based violence"
and then come out saying they want to fuck up their shit.
Wonder what would happen if a handful of federal departments just flatly refused to work with the Trump administration.
[QUOTE=1239the;51570871]Wonder what would happen if a handful of federal departments just flatly refused to work with the Trump administration.[/QUOTE]
There would likely be a handful of new job opportunities in the public sector.
I'm not even sure what this means
they literally just sticking their head in the office and being like, "hey so uh, who's working on the equality thing?"
like fuck the only specifics i can think of is mlk
I can't wait for the House Politically Correct Activities Committee to be formed.
State Dept should follow the DoE and refuse to provide any names
REMINDER: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/omarosa-list-donald-trump/[/url]
If it isn't clear by now, trump's team is making a shitlist of people he doesn't agree with. I don't know what he plans to do with that list but it's clearly not good.
[B][U]So far:[/U][/B]
He's asked for a list of people who support climate change.
He's asked for a list of people who support gender equality.
I'm predicting now that he's going to ask for a list of people who support LGBTQ rights soon down the road. Hopefully at that point, people start to wake up and realise what trump is doing, especially with a pence VP.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51570951]REMINDER: [URL]http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/omarosa-list-donald-trump/[/URL]
If it isn't clear by now, trump's team is making a shitlist of people he doesn't agree with. I don't know what he plans to do with that list but it's clearly not good.
[B][U]So far:[/U][/B]
He's asked for a list of people who support climate change.
He's asked for a list of people who support gender equality.
I'm predicting now that he's going to ask for a list of people who support LGBTQ rights soon down the road. Hopefully at that point, people start to wake up and realise what trump is doing, especially with a pence VP.[/QUOTE]
Here I thought Omarosa didn't even work with the campaign yet. We'll see how this turns out when Trump inevitably makes his stance known.
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;51570963]It is quite probable they arent clarifying their intent of ousting people they disagree with since saying that out loud is too terrible for PR, even for Trump[/QUOTE]
I can't recall PR ever having an effect on Trump's decision, why would he suddenly care about it now that he has the Oval Office secured?
[QUOTE=Chonch;51570357]I'm interested to see what the reason for this request is. This article is very ominous and lacks detail.
[Editline]kelleman with air quotes and those semetic brackets[/editline]
In true NPR fashion, this article is just vague enough to incite fear. Trump's team should clarify their intent to prevent this irresponsible kind of reporting.[/QUOTE]
This is a joke, right?
It's NPR. One of the most reliable, honest, bipartisan networks out there. It's not ominous, it's honest. They do not [I]know[/I] more beyond the fact that his team made this request, so they're not going to shoehorn in their [I]opinion[/I] where it is not needed.
Or did you want unsupported speculation? I mean, if the speculation doesn't match your opinions you can call it out, and if it does, you can obviously use it to support your own view point, right?
[QUOTE=Radical_ed;51571029]This is a joke, right?
It's NPR. One of the most reliable, honest, bipartisan networks out there. It's not ominous, it's honest. They do not [I]know[/I] more beyond the fact that his team made this request, so they're not going to shoehorn in their [I]opinion[/I] where it is not needed.
Or did you want unsupported speculation? I mean, if the speculation doesn't match your opinions you can call it out, and if it does, you can obviously use it to support your own view point, right?[/QUOTE]
There is no such thing as unbiased media--not even CSPAN is immune. I listen to NPR practically nonstop every single day, and from my perspective there is a definite left lean--CPB execs have hinted at it, Duke has studied it. CBA posting links on mobile, go google it if you care enough and PM me your findings.
That said, Shapiro/Schneider/whoever would've had a lot more to offer had he just read off that CNN article above, as odd as that sounds. Don't get me wrong, this article is interesting and needed to be posted, but there is little more than speculation being reported here, and it's not too much of a jump to think the story might be designed to inspire some magical thinking about what might happen.
Ohoho, ohhhh, that's great.
I want to die.
[QUOTE=Chonch;51570899]There would likely be a handful of new job opportunities in the public sector.[/QUOTE]
He wanted to freeze federal hiring, so unless he goes back on that, America would just have to go without those people.
Of course, we know he'd go back on it, because he's proven to be a massive fraud so far.
First they came for the environmentalists, but I did not speak out because I wasn't an environmentalist.
Then they came for the egalitarians, but I did not speak out because I wasn't an egalitarian.
Then they came for the gays, but I did not speak out because I wasn't a gay.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.
[QUOTE=fulgrim;51570409]I never understood why anyone would oppose equality movements. It's like just the most abhorrent shit to me.
Still, these are the guys who are effectively captain planet villains when it comes to climate change- so i'm hardly surprised.[/QUOTE]
late to the discussion, I know, but a lot of equal opportunity stuff completely dismisses merit or at least puts it backseat to politics
the advantages of being a woman/minority in certain roles sometimes outweigh qualifications or experience, which is almost never acceptable
I'm all for representative work forces but not at the cost of meritocracy, if one person is the best fit for a role then they deserve that role, no exceptions
[editline]22nd December 2016[/editline]
the request for violence against women stuff is indefensible tho
[QUOTE=cccritical;51571444]late to the discussion, I know, but a lot of equal opportunity stuff completely dismisses meritocracy
the advantages of being a woman/minority in certain roles sometimes outweigh qualifications or experience, which is almost never acceptable
I'm all for representative work forces but not at the cost of meritocracy, if one person is the best fit for a role then they deserve that role, no exceptions[/QUOTE]
except that a lot of gender equality work focuses on domestic violence, childcare, pregnancy/abortion medical care, and many other things not related to hiring practices.
[QUOTE=1239the;51571465]except that a lot of gender equality work focuses on domestic violence, childcare, pregnancy/abortion medical care, and many other things not related to hiring practices.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I was talking pretty much exclusively about hiring practices, are you talking about specific jobs?
[QUOTE=cccritical;51571471]I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I was talking pretty much exclusively about hiring practices, are you talking about specific jobs?[/QUOTE]
Was referring specifically to this:
[quote]but a lot of equal opportunity stuff completely dismisses merit or at least puts it backseat to politics[/quote]
Yes, the parts of gender equality that focuses on direct action with putting diversity over merit are questionable, but overall a minor part of the whole 'gender equality' movement - and is often used as an excuse to dismiss the entire package which includes so much more than just that.
[QUOTE=1239the;51571483]
Yes, the parts of gender equality that focuses on direct action with putting diversity over merit are questionable, but overall a minor part of the whole 'gender equality' movement - and is often used as an excuse to dismiss the entire package which includes so much more than just that.[/QUOTE]
Then I think you and I agree. The only problem I have with equal opportunity is that, too often, those who deserve a job or a position are placed second to those less qualified. It's in the name of fairness but it throws mud all over what I consider to be fair.
[editline]23rd December 2016[/editline]
There's a specific term to what I'm talking about but I can't for my life remember it right now. I'm only talking about hiring practices, that's always gotten me heated.
[QUOTE=xxfalconxx;51570727]Boy, things just keep getting worse and worse and he isn't even sworn in yet. I wonder how long until he starts a war with the whole world and gets the whole world nuked into oblivion.[/QUOTE]
Someone will take him out before it comes to that, if that's even a remote possibility. Trump's an idiot, but even he's not *that* stupid.
[QUOTE=xxfalconxx;51570727]Boy, things just keep getting worse and worse and he isn't even sworn in yet. [B]I wonder how long until he starts a war with the whole world and gets the whole world nuked into oblivion.[/B][/QUOTE]do you actually believe that this is a possibility
[QUOTE=Claxx;51570840]y'all wanna calm down till it gets confirmed what he's doing, the way the Trump team phrases the request "promote gender equality, such as ending gender-based violence, promoting women's participation in economic and political spheres, entrepreneurship, etc." sounds like they're not viewing these as negative aspects, they aren't going to refer to a department as "ending gender-based violence"
and then come out saying they want to fuck up their shit.[/QUOTE]
It's not like they're going to just request "a list of fucking SJW liberals" and considering Trump has spoken out against "political correctness" I can't really think of any good reason why he'd want a list of people doing things that a number of people considering hallmarks of sjws.
I'll believe the intentions are positive, or at least innocuous, when he starts requesting lists of people that are working towards things things we know he is already unquestioningly in favor of because so far they've only requested lists of people advocating human involvement in climate change, which we know that Trump exlicitly does not believe in, and people working towards gender equality, something which some groups of people would argue are the purview of SJWs.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;51570951]REMINDER: [URL]http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/omarosa-list-donald-trump/[/URL]
If it isn't clear by now, trump's team is making a shitlist of people he doesn't agree with. I don't know what he plans to do with that list but it's clearly not good.
[B][U]So far:[/U][/B]
He's asked for a list of people who support climate change.
He's asked for a list of people who support gender equality.
I'm predicting now that he's going to ask for a list of people who support LGBTQ rights soon down the road. Hopefully at that point, people start to wake up and realise what trump is doing, especially with a pence VP.[/QUOTE]
Sounds more like Stalin than Hitler imo
[QUOTE=Monkah;51571732]do you actually believe that this is a possibility[/QUOTE]
Well nothing trump has done has really been calm or unifying has it
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.