• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

Don't forget America is a very corrupt country

Trump: "We have a very corrupt country. Very corrupt country. And it's a sad thing to say.
If you take all of those millions of people off social security, all of the sudden we have a very powerful social security."
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I really don't think the stuff about Trump being afraid of, or beholden to, Putin are relevant here.

He's punishing Ukraine because he's a pathological narcissist who never forgets a slight, so they have to suffer defeat for failing to dish the dirt on the Bidens as he wanted, and he's going to make Russia pay hundreds of billions to let them win (payment in kind, in the form of mineral rights in conquered Ukraine).
Click to expand...

except putin has slighted him on multiple occasions

anyway as always once i start repeating myself it’s time to stop on the topic. eventually, i believe, how the office of the president was infiltrated by russia will come to light. hopefully in my lifetime
 
The hierarchy is becoming interesting. Dump has been sidelined by President Elonia, whose country is in turn a puppet of the russian federation. Did I miss any steps? Should I include Musk's toddler he apparently sics like a pitbull on King Dump?

By the way, now that Dump is king, but also apparently a figurehead, can we call X Oblast a constitutional monarchy, or is that only for sovereign countries?
 
Andy_Ross said:
Don't forget America is a very corrupt country

Trump: "We have a very corrupt country. Very corrupt country. And it's a sad thing to say.
If you take all of those millions of people off social security, all of the sudden we have a very powerful social security."
Click to expand...

He already saved over $200 billion by killing hundreds of thousands from COVID.

So many Americans died from COVID, it’s boosting Social Security to the tune of $205 billion​

As the U.S. approaches the fifth anniversary of the official start of the COVID-19 pandemic, new research finds so many Americans died from the virus that the nation’s Social Security trust fund will see a net increase of hundreds of billions of dollars as a result of retirement benefits that will not be paid out.

The working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that approximately 1.7 million excess deaths among Americans 25 and older occurred between 2020 and 2023 related to the pandemic. Premature deaths related to COVID mean Social Security will not make retirement payments to those individuals in the future, reducing payments by about $294 billion, the researchers found.

At the same time, some of that gain is offset by the lost tax revenue from those individuals, as well as increased survivor benefits to spouses and children of the deceased, resulting in an estimated $205 billion less in future outlays.
Click to expand...

And I'm sure he'll do it again.
 
"They're not working": Trump accuses federal workings of slacking after he spent the day golfing

President Donald Trump took a shot at federal workers' industriousness after spending the day at his golf course in Miami.

While speaking at the FII Priority Summit on Wednesday, Trump decried telecommuting in the federal workforce. Though Trump himself had spent the day hitting the links, he said that remote federal workers were likely spending their workdays playing tennis and golf.

"All federal workers must once again show up to work. Show up to work in person like the rest of us. It doesn't work when you don't show up," he said. "You can't work at home. They're not working. They're playing tennis, they're playing golf or they have other jobs. But they're not working or they're certainly not working hard. You could never build a company or a country with that. So, we have a very strong policy and if they don't show up to work they get fired."

Trump has reportedly spent 9 days golfing in the first month of his second term.
Click to expand...
 
kookbreaker said:
UO: OK, you say employee X was fired for cause "Not good at their job...". OK they have appealed that claim so you need to support that. Can you please list the incidents demonstrating their lack of skills at their job?

DOGE: List the what now?

UO: Appeal approved.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to understand. If you are fired for being bad at your job, you get unemployment. There is nothing to appeal, because that doesn't disqualify you.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Trump supporter: “I think that people are ridiculous that they think Putin is such an enemy. He isn't doing anything. He just wants back what was his”

“He invaded Ukraine, killing thousands of people”

Trump supporter: “That's fine with me.”

Video in link

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892302691189059765
Click to expand...

They walk among us.
Click to expand...

This is so true. Every time I leave the house, 2/3 of the people around me either voted for him, or they couldn't be bothered to vote. Either way, they are ◊◊◊◊ and garbage, but I have no choice but to be surrounded by ◊◊◊◊ and garbage.
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Wait, really?
Click to expand...
That's been my experience. But as you can see, others are reporting much more favorable treatment in their experience. So I remain hopeful.

kookbreaker said:
Yes, most unemployment offices will give the former workers a chance to appeal the firing. Given DOGE is sloppy, corrupt, and incompetent they won't have much in the evidence department.

UO: OK, you say employee X was fired for cause "Not good at their job...". OK they have appealed that claim so you need to support that. Can you please list the incidents demonstrating their lack of skills at their job?

DOGE: List the what now?

UO: Appeal approved.
Click to expand...
This jibes with my experience, especially under California labor law. If you want to fire someone for poor performance you have to have a fairly robust evidentiary record that you notified the employee of performance issues and put in place a plan to help them improve before ultimately letting them go.

Speaking as an employer, this is why I consider it unethical to fire someone on performance grounds when the true cause is a reduction in force. When your termination letter says, "We regret to inform you that your position with the department has been eliminated," your unemployment claim gets a rubber-stamp approval. If hundreds or thousands of newly terminated employees now have to explain the grounds of their firing and wait for adjudication, there will be a lengthy backlog and some will simply not bother. Having something in writing from your former employer saying you're an underperforming employee causes you all kinds of problems.

Ziggurat said:
You don't seem to understand. If you are fired for being bad at your job, you get unemployment. There is nothing to appeal, because that doesn't disqualify you.
Click to expand...
It doesn't automatically disqualify you. It still raises an issue that must be adjudicated rather than simply approved. As I said, I'm speaking from 20 years' experience as an employer in my state.
 
Also let's not pretend unemployment is much of a safety net. In my state the absolute maximum benefit is $320 a week. For 20 weeks. That's it.
 
Ziggurat said:
You don't seem to understand. If you are fired for being bad at your job, you get unemployment. There is nothing to appeal, because that doesn't disqualify you.
Click to expand...
If you are fired for cause, it can be an issue with UI. "Being bad at your job" is often seen as legitimate reason for denial of UI claims. Its probably easier to appeal than other firing causes but it can still be an issue.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Also let's not pretend unemployment is much of a safety net. In my state the absolute maximum benefit is $320 a week. For 20 weeks. That's it.
Click to expand...
Its not, but the point is the typical GOP cruelty is at play here. DOGE is also probably thinking of patting itself on the back by not getting an increase in UI rates.

Some states that could bite them in the ass if the State employment department sees it as a rate dodge. Sadly the people who should face any fines won't be the ones fined.
 
Ziggurat said:
You don't seem to understand. If you are fired for being bad at your job, you get unemployment. There is nothing to appeal, because that doesn't disqualify you.
Click to expand...
You can't imagine any harm accruing to thousands of people who now need to find a new job but their previous employer lied they were so bad at their job they got fired?
 
Last edited:
Donald is worried about the gold in Fort Knox.
He's sending DOGE in to check it.

We’re going to go into Fort Knox to make sure the gold is still there. You know that? We’re going to go into Fort Knox. You know about that? We hope everything is fine with Fort Knox. But we’re going to go to Fort Knox and make sure the gold is still there.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892429309027012664
 
Ziggurat said:
Why didn't we?

Because, to be honest, the West (meaning both the US and Europe) didn't want Ukraine to win. We didn't want Russia to collapse and route. Why? Because we were worried about the risk of nuclear escalation. That's why we never gave Ukraine enough aid for that to happen. And that's STILL the case. We STILL aren't willing to do that, we are STILL worried about the risk of nuclear escalation, or even direct non-nuclear confrontation. Maybe we should be willing to take that risk, to really arm Ukraine to the teeth and let them take the fight to Russia, but the reality is that we're not. Instead, the path the West chose was attritional warfare, because it weakens Russia at minimal risk to the West, and hey, we're not dying.

There's a Machiavellian cruelty in this approach.

Because that's the only play they have. But it's a really costly one for Ukraine.

Perhaps we should, but we aren't willing to. And I don't just mean Trump. I mean Biden before him, and all of Europe as well.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be as costly for the Ukrainians as we're making it. Attrition can be efficient, as well as effective.

This "to the last Ukrainian" business is something you've decided is the only way to play this.

I think there are other plays. I think we can push Moscow a lot closer to the brink than we originally thought. And I think that in the interval between here and there, there is enough room for a well-equipped Ukraine to rout the occupation forces and reclaim the lost territory.

You don't want Ukraine to win. I do.

And on top of that - and more to the point - the Trump wing of the GOP wants Russia to win. I might be able to respect a Machiavellian strategy of using up Ukraine if it means a decisive setback for Russia, but that's not what Trump is preaching or trying to do. He's trying to rescue Moscow from its blunder, not capitalize on it.
 
The West's Ukraine policy was based on the assumption that Putin would see some sense at some point.
But Putin, by thinking that wining this conflict is existential for Russia has continued the fight for so long that by now it is going to be the end of Russia, win or lose. The only question is whether it will take Ukraine with it or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom