• 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

theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
No. I didn't decide this. The West decided this. Biden decided this. Germany decided this. France decided this. The UK decided this. It's not the only possible way to play this, but it's the way that the West chose. Not me. And they aren't changing their minds.
theprestige said:
You don't want Ukraine to win. I do.
Click to expand...
Again, wrong. The problem is, I don't see a way for them to do so, given the political constraints we're actually working with. And again, I'm not just talking Trump. Despite all the pretense to the contrary, the West doesn't really want Ukraine to win, because that's dangerous. That risks nuclear escalation, and the West doesn't want to risk that, even at the cost of Ukraine.
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
I didn't say Trump is trying to do that. I said it's what Biden and Europe have been trying to do. And succeeding.
 
kookbreaker said:
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.
Click to expand...
"For cause" is too vague. I've looked at two states specifically (New York and Utah), and in both states, being bad at your job isn't reason for denial.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Cicero, referring to himself when he was Consul and the powers awarded to him in a Senatus Consultum Ultimum (final decree of the Senate) to put down the down the Catilinarian Conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Any scoundrel can claim to be saving the country, and most scoundrels eventually do. Are citizens obliged to hold back and let them plunge ahead with their crimes on that flimsy account?
 
"And why did you leave your previous job?"
"As you see, my employer says they fired me for being so bad at my job they had to get rid of me."
<beat> "We'll let you know."
 
Ziggurat said:
"For cause" is too vague. I've looked at two states specifically (New York and Utah), and in both states, being bad at your job isn't reason for denial.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm sure your Googling from afar is superior to my lived experience. If you terminate an employee for cause and give that cause as unsatisfactory performance, there will be an inquiry prior to an adjudication of eligibility. I have participated in a number of these investigations, which can take up to three months. If you terminate an employee and give the cause as a reduction in force, eligibility is automatic.

Tell me what you think of the ethics of firing someone alleging poor performance when the real reason is a reduction in force, and when you cannot substantiate any determination of poor performance.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
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.
Click to expand...
Also let's remember, even if they get parts of Ukraine (which they probably at this point will), that just sets them up for what Beau of the Fifth Column always called 'the hard part'. I predict partisans with plenty combat experience and Western weaponry and equipment. Then again, I also see them working to forcibly remove residents and replace them with russians.

Abooga said:
Isn´t that a traitorous thing to say? What if they go and find there´s no gold, or there´s lots of gold missing, the dollar would plummet.
Click to expand...
The DOGE teenagers will have to brave a series of traps, solve a riddle*, and find a note saying 'lol I hid all the gold in a secret place you'll never find it --Obama' The gold will reappear once the Democrats take office again.

*They'll pull through. We know from Harry Potter that teenagers are adept at this.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
No. I didn't decide this. The West decided this. Biden decided this. Germany decided this. France decided this. The UK decided this. It's not the only possible way to play this, but it's the way that the West chose. Not me. And they aren't changing their minds.
Click to expand...
This is getting silly. I disagree with this policy. I think it's wrongheaded. I think we can and should do more, both to further degrade Moscow as a power, and to rescue all of Ukraine while we still can.

You're getting close to arguing that I shouldn't disagree with the law, because it's the law.
Ziggurat said:
Again, wrong. The problem is, I don't see a way for them to do so, given the political constraints we're actually working with. And again, I'm not just talking Trump. Despite all the pretense to the contrary, the West doesn't really want Ukraine to win, because that's dangerous. That risks nuclear escalation, and the West doesn't want to risk that, even at the cost of Ukraine.

I didn't say Trump is trying to do that. I said it's what Biden and Europe have been trying to do. And succeeding.
Click to expand...
Trump is trying to do even worse. He's trying to sacrifice Ukraine without even accomplishing Europe's Machiavellian objective.

And, again, I disagree with this "to the last Ukrainian" policy. And I disagree that the only alternative to this policy is for Ukraine to capitulate to Moscow. I think Ukraine should win, and can win with our help. And I'd absolutely prefer the Machiavellian outcome to what Trump is doing.
 
JayUtah said:
Yes, I'm sure your Googling from afar is superior to my lived experience. If you terminate an employee for cause and give that cause as unsatisfactory performance, there will be an inquiry prior to an adjudication of eligibility. I have participated in a number of these investigations, which can take up to three months. If you terminate an employee and give the cause as a reduction in force, eligibility is automatic.

Tell me what you think of the ethics of firing someone alleging poor performance when the real reason is a reduction in force, and when you cannot substantiate any determination of poor performance.
Click to expand...
Likewise I've had experience with dealing with UI from when I ran the store. I generally would tell employees let go I had no problem telling them they could say they were laid off and be automatically approved.

However, one of them ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up so bad when applying for UI I had to have a long discussion with the UI rep about the circumstances of his dismissal. He had his claim denied until he managed to get an appeal.
 
Constitutional amendment to allow Trump third term introduced in the House today.

A Republican House member introduced a resolution Thursday to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow President Donald Trump — and any other future president — to be elected to a third term in the White House.

Trump “has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal,” said Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee, who proposed extending the current maximum of two elected terms.

Ogles’ resolution is tailored specifically to permit Trump to serve a third term, but not to allow three out of the four living former presidents to serve third terms.

″No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms,” the amendment states.

 
Vance at CPAC:

"Our culture sends a message to young men that you should suppress every masculine urge ... my message to young men is don't allow this broken culture to send you a message that you're a bad person because you're a man, bc you like to tell a joke, bc you like to have a beer with your friends."
 
AmyStrange said:
Usually, they would've had to at least worked more than three months, but I'm not sure, because I've never worked less than six months before collecting.

Benefits are usually decided on quarterly earnings for the last year, and the last quarter is usually not part of that equation.


-
Click to expand...
In Illinois, at least, you don't have to have worked a certain length of time. you have to have earned a certain amount of money ($1600) within the base period (last four complete quarters, I think), and at least $440 has to have been outside the highest earning quarter. But it doesn't have to be consecutive quarters, and it doesn't have to be at the same job.
 
If DOGE kids show up to Fort Knox in their usual fashion I'd laugh to see one or more of them take a 5.56mm to the chest.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Constitutional amendment to allow Trump third term introduced in the House today.
Click to expand...
Thankfully it's very unlikely to succeed inasmuch has any amendment to the Constitution is a long shot—even popular ones. I predict any such amendment will fall well short of the three-fourths of the states needed to ratify it. A likelier path is to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that the 22nd Amendment "somehow" means only consecutive terms and therefore doesn't apply to Donald Trump.
 
Yeah, these "Please notice me sempai trump!" bills are a dime a dozen, usually freshmen congress critters who have to have something to show to their supporters back home. They get sent to a quiet death in their relevant committees, and even they get through there, they'll never get through the senate.
 
theprestige said:
This is getting silly. I disagree with this policy. I think it's wrongheaded. I think we can and should do more, both to further degrade Moscow as a power, and to rescue all of Ukraine while we still can.

You're getting close to arguing that I shouldn't disagree with the law, because it's the law.
Click to expand...
No, that's not my point at all. You are absolutely free to disagree, and voice that disagreement. My point is 1) you don't just disagree with Trump, you disagree with Biden and Europe, 2) you and I disagree less than you think, and 3) even if Trump reverses course, you're still not likely to get your policy preference.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
Is there a non-Trump wing of the GOP any more ?

Are there any Republican Congresspeople or Senators who are willing to poke their heads over the parapet and actually say that the US should continue to support Ukraine - or at least not support Russia
 
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...
Where are you guys getting this stuff about not being able to get unemployment if "fired for cause?"

I haven't been unemployed for 30 years, but I know others that have and have helped them file. Fired for cause doesn't make you ineligible or require an appeal. Misconduct does, but that's a different thing.

When you file, the employer gets a chance to contest it. If they don't (usually the case) you get benefits. If they do, you basically have a hearing (conference call) with you, your employer, and a caseworker to decide if you quit or were fired (fired = eligible, quit + usually not) and if it was due to misconduct. Your job performance or qualifications are not an issue. Mistakes are not an issue. And the misconduct has to be deliberate and knowing. A single instance of violating a policy won't usually do it either.

It's actually pretty hard to not be eligible, in my experience.
 
The Don said:
Is there a non-Trump wing of the GOP any more ?

Are there any Republican Congresspeople or Senators who are willing to poke their heads over the parapet and actually say that the US should continue to support Ukraine - or at least not support Russia
Click to expand...

They are all too scared that trump will turn the MAGA zealots on them

Those that aren't are part of the MAGA zealot pack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom