I like Spicer's replacement Scaramucci already. When asked by CNN why the President they lie about calls them fake news, his reponse was, to paraphrase: "You mean like the time you did a fake news story on me?"
Which is 100% true. They did publish a non credible story about him, about the Russia madness of course, that then led to CNN having to lay off the employees involved to save their failing reputation. This isn't uncommon in the Trump era, sadly, yet some wonder why the label of Fake News sticks so well. Despite them inventing the term in the first place
I reckon Scaramucci fits Trump much better, with the skills to do it with, compared to Spicer.
@jjstraka34 Interesting piece by Marshall. IMO, esp. in regards to the last sentence of that article.
"And the country is likely heading toward a major constitutional and political crisis because Trump is signaling that he will not allow the normal course of the law to apply to him – a challenge which puts the entire edifice of democratic government under threat."
Just to follow that line of thinking, I mention this because I can honestly see somebody on a far corner of the political spectrum (or just disturbed in some major way) taking a hard line interpretation of the 2nd amendment (that free state bit), for example, or some other reason that bugs a person, and going for Trump all out. He is certainly pushing people's buttons.
We really don't need that again. I know, some will sat 'that could/ will never happen', but it has in the past (even recently with shooters like Hodgkinson and Loughner) , to various figures in government, police, and private citizens, for much less or a reason.
It was actually Trump, in the campaign at a rally, who said that the "2nd Amendment people" might be able to do something about Hillary. Go back to Sharon Angle running against Harry Reid and her "2nd Amendment remedies". The Tea Party talking about "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants". People on both ends of the political spectrum may commit violent acts with guns, but only one party actively pushes rhetoric centered around guns, and how they may one day be used in an uprising against the government. I want to see Trump in jail, not dead.
The rhetoric Trump used from the stage during the campaign, like his sexual assault admission, has been completely forgotten in the midst of everything else. Going back, it's still beyond belief that a Presidential candidate was advocating physical violence from the stage on a regular basis, literally telling people in his crowd that it was ok to assault protesters. And it happened, constantly. I still firmly believe many people went to Trump rallies in the HOPE that they would see some liberal get the shit kicked out of them while Trump encouraged it all from the stage like Mussolini. Trump's early rallies were straight-up fascistic. This is why I tend to scoff whenever someone says the left is encouraging violence by being so strident in their opposition to the man. How can anyone hold that position when TRUMP HIMSELF was offering to pay the legal fees of people who punched protesters at his rallies??
@jjstraka34 That last NRA message was probably not helping things, well, depending on what one is rooting for I suppose. That type of action alluded to would be quite the mess.
Even Republicans assume Trump leaked Kislyak intercepts to force out Jeff Sessions
That is why I said that this news item was very fortuitous. In Magic we call this "a lucky topdeck" and in real life we call it "a coincidence"...but I don't think it is a coincidence. No, someone had the juicy item ready to go when they needed it and it takes only one phone call or e-mail to get the ball rolling.
From the article: Civil rights groups are warning a pair of bipartisan bills targeting boycotts of Israel and Israeli settlements would criminalize free speech and peaceful protest. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act would make it a felony for U.S. citizens to support boycotts of Israel and Israeli settlements, punishable by at least a $250,000 fine, with a maximum penalty of a fine of $1 million and 20 years in prison. So far, 46 senators—31 Republican, 15 Democrat—and 234 congressmembers, from both sides of the aisle, support the legislation. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as AIPAC, reportedly helped craft the bill and has made its passage one of the group’s top lobbying priorities for the year.
In a letter Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, urged senators to oppose the bill’s passage. The ACLU wrote, quote, "We take no position for or against the effort to boycott Israel or any foreign country, for that matter. However, we do assert that the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, punish U.S. persons based solely on their expressed political beliefs," unquote.
The bill has received backing from many prominent senators on both sides of the aisle. Democrats backing the bill include Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both of New York, as well as Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Maria Cantwell of Washington. Republican backers include Ted Cruz of Texas, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Marco Rubio of Florida.
I don't have anything against Israel--it's their country and they have the right to run it as they see fit. Here in the United States, however, we have the right to protest if we disagree with something and plenty of people disagree with how Israel treats Palestinians (a topic which could be its own thread). This news story isn't about Israel vs Palestine, though, but about the government trying to make it a crime to stand on a street corner with a sign or actively try to get businesses to quit doing business with Israel. That isn't merely wrong but unconstitutionally wrong and yet both political parties are willing to sign off on this legislation.
It is legislation like this which you need to keep in mind when you vote for your Congressional representatives next year. Before you check that box with a "D" next to the name and before you check that box with an "R" next to the name, remember that those Democrats and Republicans are thinking it making it so that you could face fines of up to $1 million and/or prison time of up to 20 years (obviously most cases won't result in the maximum penalty) for wanting corporations not to sell things to people in settlement areas like Gaza.
Verified that Trump's been doing research on whether he can pardon himself and his family. Stay classy GOP, you guys are backing a winner, so much winning.
And of course as with everything Trump says just because he says "everyone says" something or no one is better means the opposite of what he's saying. Like when he says "no one respects women more than me", of course a great many many people respect women more than he has.
Interesting @smeagolheart. Do you think then that when Trump said "no politician in history has been treated more unfairly" he actually meant the opposite .
Interesting @smeagolheart. Do you think then that when Trump said "no politician in history has been treated more unfairly" he actually meant the opposite .
He probably meant that one.
Some people have speculated that he has a narcissism complex and thinks everything revolves around him. I believe this theory was originally started by a military man; an officer named Captain Obvious. (meant to be a joke there ymmv)
On top of that he doesn't really think things through a lot of times like how Presidents who caught bullets in their head like Lincoln and JFK might have been treated more unfairly. Or the guy he replaced who is still getting attacked by Trump was treated unfairly.
I would say no other American politician has had so many and such egregious faults/wrongdoings overlooked, so he might still be doing a wonky opposite thing, as he's been babied so much, ie treated indecently fairly.
Not inspiring in the least and totally empty. I'll be voting for whoever the justice democrat is thanks, not the corporate democrats who offer "better" which means nothing.
Trump is now, in his position as Commander-in-Chief, telling service members to put political pressure on Senators and Congressmen to pass the GOP health-care bill. This could be construed as an order. If Barack Obama had ever done anything REMOTELY like this, I don't even want to fathom the outcry:
The reason the question "can he do that??" comes up with Donald Trump so often is that no other President has even THOUGHT about doing things that are this unethical. In the course of this 6 months, at events speaking to military service members, Donald Trump has a.) bragged about his Electoral College victory b.) whined that he is the worst-treated politician in history and c.) has told people under his direct command that they need to go out and actively support a partisan political issue. This is insane.
It's actually quite useful to stress test the US constitution to show how broken it is.
Once normality is restored time for a re-write.
The problems with the Constitution are one thing, but the real problem here is the abandonment of the contract of political norms and unspoken rules. This isn't just a Trump thing. The Republicans simply REFUSED to allow a sitting, duly-elected President to fill a Supreme Court vacancy last year. It was utterly unprecedented in the history of the Republic. Alot of this stuff isn't enforceable, we have simply, up to this point, been living under a mutually agreed upon political contract that says there are things you just don't do. When one party decides they aren't going to play by those rules anymore, there isn't really anything that can be done if voters don't hold them accountable. This is Donald Trump for sure, but it's also Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. When the history of this era is written, it with be the craven complicity of the Republican party in the face of Trump's presidency that will be the most important story:
It's actually quite useful to stress test the US constitution to show how broken it is.
Once normality is restored time for a re-write.
The problems with the Constitution are one thing, but the real problem here is the abandonment of the contract of political norms and unspoken rules.
This is actually the argument against introducing a written constitution to the UK, which I'm only just beginning to understand the merit of.
If it's in writing, there is always the temptation to apply the letter of the law rather than the spirit. In the UK the "political norms and unspoken rules" are the constitution, and will be upheld by judges.
It's actually quite useful to stress test the US constitution to show how broken it is.
Once normality is restored time for a re-write.
The problems with the Constitution are one thing, but the real problem here is the abandonment of the contract of political norms and unspoken rules.
This is actually the argument against introducing a written constitution to the UK, which I'm only just beginning to understand the merit of.
If it's in writing, there is always the temptation to apply the letter of the law rather than the spirit. In the UK the "political norms and unspoken rules" are the constitution, and will be upheld by judges.
We are quickly entering (if we haven't already arrived there) a place where the only thing that matters is the theory of "might makes right", or, as Cersei Lannister would say, "power is power". We're going to find out very soon.
Once again, this is an extremely racist thing to say without proof that someone in the former administration didn't do their job up to its expected potential, and that person was only hired due to "fill a quota."
An example of a person who didn't do their job to its expected potential is Michael D. Brown. That is the danger of putting the wrong people in the wrong position for the wrong reasons.
There is no proof the Obama administration did this with any of their positions. If there was, it would have blown up during his administration, not after it.
Yes, there is evidence that they did it. It was realeased in the same info dump as the DNC's election rigging.
I would like to know what is racist about stating the facts of the matter. That's what happened.
Unless, for some reason, discounting arabic christians because they're christians and making lists of arabic muslims for hiring purposes isn't discrimination by religion and race. Which would make me racist for thinking it is?
The left simply can not disentangle themselves from the reflexive use of inflammatory and baseless name calling, it seems.
Anyway, here's the source.
And seriously, if anyone wants to tell me how giving preferences and penalties to individuals due to race and religion isn't discrimination and how I am racist, I am all ears.
This is constantly being brought up as a counter argument to anything that might be found as Russia tampering in the election.
One. Single. Email.
Sometimes it is brought up multiple times in the same post as justification for what any of Trump's team did as justification.
Even though it has been stated numerous times:
It didn't effect the outcome of the DNC primary election
The person's responsible for it were held accountable
It was revealed only through a Russia hack of the servers
It has nothing to do with the current investigation and topics at hand.
It's the perfect counter to Russia hyteria because A) it's proven unlike their own claims it is election interference which they wont stop morally grandstanding about and C) nothing has changed so they will probably do it again if they sense the opportunity. It's juicy, low hanging fruit at it's best.
If you think the DNC leaks are not related to the Russia investigation you're massively uninformed about the topic, no offense. In that context, I get why me bringing it up is confusing to you.
The exposure of corrupt behavior on all levels of the leftist establishment was *the* Russian interference they harped on for so long about from the Clinton/Trump debates onword. This is what they were talking about. You really can not disentangle the two events, the alleged hacking and the claim of Russian hackers altering an election.
The person's responsible were held accountable? Debbie Wasserman got a job on Clinton's campaign. Donna Brazille became DNC interim chair. You call that accountability? I call it appeasing the mob and protecting your own.
It is incredibly hard to make the case that it didn't effect the 2016 primary when you have no un-rigged primary to compare it to. The one who had it rigged in their favor won, so there is that.
Regardless, you can't just knowingly rig an election and then say it's okay because you didn't rig it enough to win.
"well the DNC did this, so there" isn't a responsible response when it comes to discussing the current's administrations problems. It might give you a slight justification as a reason to why you thought it necessary to vote them in, but it doesn't excuse what has happened and continues to happen because this administration is in charge.
Stop bringing it up.
Russiamania isn't a problem, it's a distraction.
The best justification for voting Trump is the modern day left, frankly. I need no other.
For the record, I will continue to talk about what I want, and you can continue to tell me to shut up about it if you don't like the message, but i'm afraid I will keep on doing my thing.
Again, how was the DNC primary "rigged"?? You continually say it's common knowledge and tell everyone to visit Wikileaks, which, by the way, is now up to their necks in this and is absolutely untrustworthy themselves. If you are willing to steal private communication, there is zero reason to believe you wouldn't alter that same information.
Furthermore, every defense of the Trump crew amounts to the *shock* old Soviet tactic called "whataboutism": Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery in British English) is a variant of tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about...." followed by an event in the Western world.
There isn't a single defense of Trump being made by you or anyone else that doesn't amount to "but Hillary tried to steal my toys!!!". Trump cannot exist without her as a foil.
And no, the Russian interference wasn't just limited to the inner workings of the primary. It was also the strategic dissemination of false stories to social media feeds, namely, "Pizzagate", which posited that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta were running a pedophile ring out of a DC pizza parlor. A story that actually caused a person to show up at said pizza parlor with a gun looking to save the children. Frankly, it came from the same fever swamps as the idea that Seth Rich was murdered because of the DNC, which, as I recall, you yourself bought into. Who was pushing this theory harder than anyone?? Julian Assange, cowering in his embassy.
Once again, this is an extremely racist thing to say without proof that someone in the former administration didn't do their job up to its expected potential, and that person was only hired due to "fill a quota."
An example of a person who didn't do their job to its expected potential is Michael D. Brown. That is the danger of putting the wrong people in the wrong position for the wrong reasons.
There is no proof the Obama administration did this with any of their positions. If there was, it would have blown up during his administration, not after it.
Yes, there is evidence that they did it. It was realeased in the same info dump as the DNC's election rigging.
I would like to know what is racist about stating the facts of the matter. That's what happened.
Unless, for some reason, discounting arabic christians because they're christians and making lists of arabic muslims for hiring purposes isn't discrimination by religion and race. Which would make me racist for thinking it is?
The left simply can not disentangle themselves from the reflexive use of inflammatory and baseless name calling, it seems.
Anyway, here's the source.
And seriously, if anyone wants to tell me how giving preferences and penalties to individuals due to race and religion isn't discrimination and how I am racist, I am all ears..
So my phone is acting and running out of juice, and didnt let me post my first response, so I am just going to stick to this for now and come back for the rest later.
I never asked if there was evidence of this, I asked, who in the last administration (I'll even add the caveat, who was hired because of this practice) did not do their job effectively and to the standards of the position?
If it is no one, it is a moot point to bring up. The public sector is very different from the private sector as the individuals hired should reflect the community in which they serve. This gives, especially in democracies, different community groups a say in how the country is governed.
It is not as if every single last employee was hired because they were muslim, or jewish or gay or disabled or any other secondary criteria a government may look at in filling these positions. They were hired because they were first qualified to fill the position.
To say they were only hired because of their race, or religion is racist, as you are discrediting not only their qualifications to get the job, but also the job they did effectively.
It would be a different scenerio if by chance one of these individuals did not do the job properly and there was other candidates as qualified or more so who would have done better job. Police sometimes usually run into this problem, but their is a balancing act that must be performed by the public sector that the private is immune too.
Compare that to last two republican candidates who filled/are filling the positions with underqualified people who are either loyal staunch supporters (and even family members) or old friends. This type of hiring is actually more dangerous as seen during the Hurricane Katrina.
1. You should know that if somebody does accuse you, or any other forumite, of being a racist, that accusation would be a violation of the Site Rules--specifically, the rule against personal attacks. If it happens, report it and the moderating team will address the issue in private. You don't need to worry about people attacking you--we don't tolerate that kind of nonsense here. 2. The email from Wikileaks you posted does not represent racial discrimination--not even a single instance. I'll quote from the email itself:
"Here are the compiled lists of Asian American and Muslim American candidates for top Administration jobs, sub-cabinet jobs, and outside boards/agencies/policy committees. A couple things to note about the list of Muslim American candidates:
1) In the candidates for top jobs, I excluded those with some Arab American background but who are not Muslim (e.g., George Mitchell). Many Lebanese Americans, for example, are Christian. In the last list (of outside boards/commissions), most who are listed appear to be Muslim American, except that a handful (where noted) may be Arab American but of uncertain religion (esp. Christian)."
Look at the two sentences in bold. The first one explicitly says that this email is about Muslim candidates. The second one explains that some of the Arab American candidates are not in this group because, despite being Arab American, they're not Muslim.
It's not saying "we're only considering Muslims for these positions," which would be either affirmative action or active discrimination (I'd say the latter; others would say the former). It's saying "some of the candidates are Muslim, but not all of the Arab American candidates are Muslim," which is a truism--Arab doesn't always mean Muslim and vice versa.
The email doesn't even say that they're going to show preference for candidates of this background. In fact, Froman flat-out says that some of the candidates aren't necessarily worth picking. The only thing the email exposes is that Podesta, Smith, and Froman were aware of the candidates' ethnic and sometimes religious backgrounds... which is pretty standard for any government job.
The closest thing to racism in the email is Froman bringing up the possibility that other people might be worried about a government official being Muslim.
High-profile Muslim Americans tend to be the subject of a fair amount of blogger criticism, and so the individuals on this list would need to be ESPECIALLY carefully vetted.
Just because an email mentions that somebody is Arab or Muslim or non-Muslim doesn't mean they're secretly engaged in massive racial discrimination. The meaning of the email is pretty clear if you stop and read each word.
Just because an email mentions that somebody is Arab or Muslim or non-Muslim doesn't mean they're secretly engaged in massive racial discrimination. The meaning of the email is pretty clear if you stop and read each word.
I'm not sure that distinction will not be ignored.
What aboutism Trump's government of white Christian men? That's totally fine right, chief? But the DNC was looking to employ a Muslim once and OMG right? Laughable. As if Trump was totally unaware that all those white Christian men were not muslims, that must have just been happy cooincidence for him. Or he totally picked racially.
And now that Trump has his son in law as an employee married to his beloved Ivanka there's nothing Jared could do that Trump would not pardon him for or excuse. And that's why you don't encourage nepotism in a business (or government). The bosses son can do no wrong, even stuff your sorry butt would get fired for. Not to mention the undeserved promotions and job positions. However qualified he may or may not be are irrelevant. He's there because of a relationship with the boss and so he's held to a different set of rules (there are no rules).
In a STARK example of the aforementioned "whataboutism", today on FOX News, former House member Jason Chafetz said that if Don Jr. and Jared Kushner are going to have to appear before Congress, Republicans should demand.....that Chelsea Clinton do so as well. Whatever is happening to Trump's children is the fault of themselves and Trump himself. Jared and Ivanka are official White House advisers with West Wing offices. Don Jr. was (supposedly) put in charge of Trump's business empire, which is the source of no end of conflicts of interest. They put themselves in the game with their OWN actions and decisions. Chelsea Clinton has never been involved in the political machinations of her parents. Which, by the way, didn't stop Rush Limbaugh from calling her a "dog" on television when she was 13 years old. Again, all the Republicans have to offer as an answer for everything is "burn the witch." The witch being any female with the last name of Clinton.
I'm just gonna ignore the fact for now that my ears would be bleeding from the shrill screams of bloody murder if that exact same, word for word message were of Trump's cabinet and pertained to hiring lists of white christian or russian men...
The candidates for top jobs were removed for not being muslim. They were picked for the hiring list for top jobs in the first place, by their own admission, because they were both arabic and muslim. It's really very simple.
He even says: "**In the candidates for top jobs, I excluded** those with some Arab American background but who are not Muslim (e.g., George Mitchell). "
A direct admission of removing people as a candidate for tob jobs because of their religion. A direct quote. There isn't any fancy interpreting needed. It's stated in black and white. Excluded. As a candidate. For top jobs. For not being muslim.
He didn't say "I excluded them from the list" which would have been almost as bad but more defendable. No. He said I EXCLUDED them as a CANDIDATE for TOP JOBS.
I hate to repeat myself but your statement of "Just because an email mentions that somebody is Arab or Muslim or non-Muslim doesn't mean they're secretly engaged in massive racial discrimination" is just so far off the mark of what was actually said.
I would like to know why you need a hiring list of specifically asian and muslim americans in the first place if that wasn't a considered factor. Maybe someone can explain that to me in a way that makes sense.
Fallacies are almost always abused and misused on the internet. Tu Quoque is a fallacy that applies when one asserts a claim is untrue on the basis of hypocrisy. That is not my claim. My claim is that it is not true on the basis of no evidence and a clear case of witch hunting, while also asserting the left are total hypocrites with no principles at all short of what can be used in the direct moment to score brownie points on Trump. A subtle distinction, but an important one.
Let's see, Democrats were looking to hire a Muslim because they noticed they didn't have any.
Vs.
Republicans just don't hire any Muslims and don't want want any Muslims. Republicans feel instead "they can all go back to (insert country here)!"
Do you think the government is overrun with Muslims or something? What's wrong with looking to include some qualified people to balance things out even a tiny bit to better represent the country. How many would you tolerate sir? One? Two? Three? or us that omg too many.
I hate to repeat myself as well, so let me just quote it from above:
I never asked if there was evidence of this, I asked, who in the last administration (I'll even add the caveat, who was hired because of this practice) did not do their job effectively and to the standards of the position?
If it is no one, it is a moot point to bring up. The public sector is very different from the private sector as the individuals hired should reflect the community in which they serve. This gives, especially in democracies, different community groups a say in how the country is governed It is not as if every single last employee was hired because they were muslim, or jewish or gay or disabled or any other secondary criteria a government may look at in filling these positions. They were hired because they were first qualified to fill the position.
To say they were only hired because of their race, or religion is racist, as you are discrediting not only their qualifications to get the job, but also the job they did effectively.
I will repeat myself again, which person (or persons) from the Obama administration did not do their job effectively and efficiently enough to warrant criticism?
You will also note in the email, the list provided wasn't even vetted yet. It was a starting position to recruit potential candidates for positions. Anyone not listed was not immediately excluded from holding a position it is just that anyone not listed didn't meet the secondary criteria the government was looking for when filling certain positions.
If your decision making for hiring choices is influenced by race or religion at all, that's discrimination. Unless it's relevant to the job. Whether they were qualified or not, as i'm sure they were, is irrelevant to this fact.
If your decision making for hiring choices is influenced by race or religion at all, that's discrimination. Unless it's relevant to the job. Whether they were qualified or not, as i'm sure they were, is irrelevant to this fact.
Pure coincidence then that Trump's cabinet picks were 85 percent white and 75 percent men. Oh right, because it hasn't leaked from Russia that he said he was looking for white doods, it's ok. That what you are going with? Come on, look at the results.
If that's what you come up with when filling your cabinet then maybe you should do something about it to better represent America.
Be like the stalwart Democrats, you notice a problem - omg all we got are white old men - and try to fix it.
I don't think a single email between Democratic officials qualifies as proof of massive racial discrimination under the Obama administration, as was originally argued, but even if we look at this one single isolated email...
@WarChiefZeke, the candidates included both Muslims and non-Muslims, Arab Americans and non-Arab Americans.
The obvious counter-argument is: but what about those Arab Americans who weren't Muslims? Why were they excluded from the list?
Because they were included on a separate list.
The non-Muslim list.
The non-Muslim candidates weren't thrown out. They were just put on a different list.
Sure, we can complain that everyone should have been on the same list. But they didn't throw out Muslim candidates. You quote them as doing so, but you don't quote them in full:
He didn't say "I excluded them from the list" which would have been almost as bad but more defendable. No. He said I EXCLUDED them as a CANDIDATE for TOP JOBS.
He did say "I excluded them from the list." Just above the word "excluded," he explicitly says that he's talking about the list of Muslims; not all candidates under review:
I would like to know why you need a hiring list of specifically asian and muslim americans in the first place if that wasn't a considered factor. Maybe someone can explain that to me in a way that makes sense.
Personally, I don't think you do need such a list--people should be hired strictly based on their qualifications. But considering the fact that Michael Froman repeatedly recommended that such candidates should be discarded simply because of their qualifications...
There is only one candidate I thought was a viable one for a Secretary-level job among the Muslim Americans...
...The very senior people I put on the last list tended not to be terribly involved in politics or policy, or in the case of some Asian Americans, had already served in the Clinton and even Carter Administrations and so I thought we should seek new talent...
...I suspect some of the people I list would not survive such a vet [vetting process]...
...for various reasons, I didn't think any of them would necessarily be suitable for an Administration appointment. Nevertheless, I wanted to flag them for you in case you wanted to evaluate them further...
...it's pretty clear that Froman shares the same view that you and I do: people should be hired based on their qualifications, not on their demographics.
I quote the email in full, at length, and in context. And that's what it says, when you look at more than one sentence.
The email doesn't even say if any of those Muslims actually got hired or not... Froman himself said he only recommended hiring a single person from the Muslim list.
If you wanted to show preferential treatment to Muslims, you'd probably recommend hiring more than just one.
I have some sympathy for both sides on the question of "the list". If it were demonstrated that a number of people had been appointed who didn't have the appropriate qualifications, skills and experience then the process described in the email would certainly be subject to criticism. In the absence of such a demonstration though I don't think there's a problem.
Does the email suggest that a preference for jobs was being shown to people of a particular religion - yes. Is that preference in itself a problem - no. As has already been mentioned it is appropriate in the public sector for one of the criteria for job selection to be that post-holders reflect their community.
@WarChiefZeke you refer to the outcry that would happen if a preference were shown to white christian or russian men. In the case of white christian men they are already over-represented in the public sector and there would thus be no basis for showing them a preference on the grounds of reflecting the community (and this is why of course the apparent preference given to white christian men in Trump's government has come in for criticism). In the case of Russians I assume you're referring to people of Russian heritage rather than foreign nationals (as the latter would certainly cause an outcry ). The US population includes about 400,000 people born in Russia, but if you include those with ancestry from the old USSR the figure is over 3m. That's sufficiently large that, if it could be shown that this group was subject to discrimination and severely under-represented in public service, it would be conceivable for a program of affirmative action to apply to them. In practice though I suspect that the 3m is not a homogeneous group.
There's currently a discussion related to this going on in the UK. The BBC were forced by the government to include in their current annual report information on the amounts paid to staff by gender - highlighting the roughly 10% gap between the pay of men and women. That's the result both of women being paid less for apparently similar roles and being less likely to get senior roles in the first place. The BBC have been defending their position on the grounds that they've already been working to reduce the gap for a number of years (in the wider economy the gap is 18%). However, despite already performing better than competitors in this area, the BBC have committed to eliminating the gap entirely by 2020. That will mean that if you're a woman you will have a better chance of getting a pay rise / avoiding a pay cut and of maintaining or enhancing your role as a presenter. That could certainly be regarded as discrimination, but personally I don't object to it.
If your decision making for hiring choices is influenced by race or religion at all, that's discrimination. Unless it's relevant to the job. Whether they were qualified or not, as i'm sure they were, is irrelevant to this fact.
The public sector is very different from the private sector as the individuals hired should reflect the community in which they serve. This gives, especially in democracies, different community groups a say in how the country is governed (adding: and allows those communities to have fair representation)
Comments
The rhetoric Trump used from the stage during the campaign, like his sexual assault admission, has been completely forgotten in the midst of everything else. Going back, it's still beyond belief that a Presidential candidate was advocating physical violence from the stage on a regular basis, literally telling people in his crowd that it was ok to assault protesters. And it happened, constantly. I still firmly believe many people went to Trump rallies in the HOPE that they would see some liberal get the shit kicked out of them while Trump encouraged it all from the stage like Mussolini. Trump's early rallies were straight-up fascistic. This is why I tend to scoff whenever someone says the left is encouraging violence by being so strident in their opposition to the man. How can anyone hold that position when TRUMP HIMSELF was offering to pay the legal fees of people who punched protesters at his rallies??
By the way, were you aware that Congress is thinking of making it illegal to participate in "Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions" protests against Israel?
From the article:
Civil rights groups are warning a pair of bipartisan bills targeting boycotts of Israel and Israeli settlements would criminalize free speech and peaceful protest. The Israel Anti-Boycott Act would make it a felony for U.S. citizens to support boycotts of Israel and Israeli settlements, punishable by at least a $250,000 fine, with a maximum penalty of a fine of $1 million and 20 years in prison. So far, 46 senators—31 Republican, 15 Democrat—and 234 congressmembers, from both sides of the aisle, support the legislation. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as AIPAC, reportedly helped craft the bill and has made its passage one of the group’s top lobbying priorities for the year.
In a letter Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, urged senators to oppose the bill’s passage. The ACLU wrote, quote, "We take no position for or against the effort to boycott Israel or any foreign country, for that matter. However, we do assert that the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, punish U.S. persons based solely on their expressed political beliefs," unquote.
The bill has received backing from many prominent senators on both sides of the aisle. Democrats backing the bill include Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, both of New York, as well as Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Maria Cantwell of Washington. Republican backers include Ted Cruz of Texas, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Marco Rubio of Florida.
I don't have anything against Israel--it's their country and they have the right to run it as they see fit. Here in the United States, however, we have the right to protest if we disagree with something and plenty of people disagree with how Israel treats Palestinians (a topic which could be its own thread). This news story isn't about Israel vs Palestine, though, but about the government trying to make it a crime to stand on a street corner with a sign or actively try to get businesses to quit doing business with Israel. That isn't merely wrong but unconstitutionally wrong and yet both political parties are willing to sign off on this legislation.
It is legislation like this which you need to keep in mind when you vote for your Congressional representatives next year. Before you check that box with a "D" next to the name and before you check that box with an "R" next to the name, remember that those Democrats and Republicans are thinking it making it so that you could face fines of up to $1 million and/or prison time of up to 20 years (obviously most cases won't result in the maximum penalty) for wanting corporations not to sell things to people in settlement areas like Gaza.
And of course as with everything Trump says just because he says "everyone says" something or no one is better means the opposite of what he's saying. Like when he says "no one respects women more than me", of course a great many many people respect women more than he has.
Some people have speculated that he has a narcissism complex and thinks everything revolves around him. I believe this theory was originally started by a military man; an officer named Captain Obvious. (meant to be a joke there ymmv)
On top of that he doesn't really think things through a lot of times like how Presidents who caught bullets in their head like Lincoln and JFK might have been treated more unfairly. Or the guy he replaced who is still getting attacked by Trump was treated unfairly.
"A Better Deal: Better Skills, Better Jobs, Better Wages."
http://www.newsweek.com/democrats-stealing-papa-johns-slogan-2018-639904
Not inspiring in the least and totally empty. I'll be voting for whoever the justice democrat is thanks, not the corporate democrats who offer "better" which means nothing.
The reason the question "can he do that??" comes up with Donald Trump so often is that no other President has even THOUGHT about doing things that are this unethical. In the course of this 6 months, at events speaking to military service members, Donald Trump has a.) bragged about his Electoral College victory b.) whined that he is the worst-treated politician in history and c.) has told people under his direct command that they need to go out and actively support a partisan political issue. This is insane.
Once normality is restored time for a re-write.
If it's in writing, there is always the temptation to apply the letter of the law rather than the spirit. In the UK the "political norms and unspoken rules" are the constitution, and will be upheld by judges.
I would like to know what is racist about stating the facts of the matter. That's what happened.
Unless, for some reason, discounting arabic christians because they're christians and making lists of arabic muslims for hiring purposes isn't discrimination by religion and race. Which would make me racist for thinking it is?
The left simply can not disentangle themselves from the reflexive use of inflammatory and baseless name calling, it seems.
Anyway, here's the source.
And seriously, if anyone wants to tell me how giving preferences and penalties to individuals due to race and religion isn't discrimination and how I am racist, I am all ears.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/28660 It's the perfect counter to Russia hyteria because A) it's proven unlike their own claims
If you think the DNC leaks are not related to the Russia investigation you're massively uninformed about the topic, no offense. In that context, I get why me bringing it up is confusing to you.
The exposure of corrupt behavior on all levels of the leftist establishment was *the* Russian interference they harped on for so long about from the Clinton/Trump debates onword. This is what they were talking about. You really can not disentangle the two events, the alleged hacking and the claim of Russian hackers altering an election.
The person's responsible were held accountable? Debbie Wasserman got a job on Clinton's campaign. Donna Brazille became DNC interim chair. You call that accountability? I call it appeasing the mob and protecting your own.
It is incredibly hard to make the case that it didn't effect the 2016 primary when you have no un-rigged primary to compare it to. The one who had it rigged in their favor won, so there is that.
Regardless, you can't just knowingly rig an election and then say it's okay because you didn't rig it enough to win. Russiamania isn't a problem, it's a distraction.
The best justification for voting Trump is the modern day left, frankly. I need no other.
For the record, I will continue to talk about what I want, and you can continue to tell me to shut up about it if you don't like the message, but i'm afraid I will keep on doing my thing.
Furthermore, every defense of the Trump crew amounts to the *shock* old Soviet tactic called "whataboutism":
Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery in British English) is a variant of tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about...." followed by an event in the Western world.
There isn't a single defense of Trump being made by you or anyone else that doesn't amount to "but Hillary tried to steal my toys!!!". Trump cannot exist without her as a foil.
And no, the Russian interference wasn't just limited to the inner workings of the primary. It was also the strategic dissemination of false stories to social media feeds, namely, "Pizzagate", which posited that Hillary Clinton and John Podesta were running a pedophile ring out of a DC pizza parlor. A story that actually caused a person to show up at said pizza parlor with a gun looking to save the children. Frankly, it came from the same fever swamps as the idea that Seth Rich was murdered because of the DNC, which, as I recall, you yourself bought into. Who was pushing this theory harder than anyone?? Julian Assange, cowering in his embassy.
I would like to know what is racist about stating the facts of the matter. That's what happened.
Unless, for some reason, discounting arabic christians because they're christians and making lists of arabic muslims for hiring purposes isn't discrimination by religion and race. Which would make me racist for thinking it is?
The left simply can not disentangle themselves from the reflexive use of inflammatory and baseless name calling, it seems.
Anyway, here's the source.
And seriously, if anyone wants to tell me how giving preferences and penalties to individuals due to race and religion isn't discrimination and how I am racist, I am all ears..
So my phone is acting and running out of juice, and didnt let me post my first response, so I am just going to stick to this for now and come back for the rest later.
I never asked if there was evidence of this, I asked, who in the last administration (I'll even add the caveat, who was hired because of this practice) did not do their job effectively and to the standards of the position?
If it is no one, it is a moot point to bring up. The public sector is very different from the private sector as the individuals hired should reflect the community in which they serve. This gives, especially in democracies, different community groups a say in how the country is governed.
It is not as if every single last employee was hired because they were muslim, or jewish or gay or disabled or any other secondary criteria a government may look at in filling these positions. They were hired because they were first qualified to fill the position.
To say they were only hired because of their race, or religion is racist, as you are discrediting not only their qualifications to get the job, but also the job they did effectively.
It would be a different scenerio if by chance one of these individuals did not do the job properly and there was other candidates as qualified or more so who would have done better job. Police sometimes usually run into this problem, but their is a balancing act that must be performed by the public sector that the private is immune too.
Compare that to last two republican candidates who filled/are filling the positions with underqualified people who are either loyal staunch supporters (and even family members) or old friends. This type of hiring is actually more dangerous as seen during the Hurricane Katrina.
1. You should know that if somebody does accuse you, or any other forumite, of being a racist, that accusation would be a violation of the Site Rules--specifically, the rule against personal attacks. If it happens, report it and the moderating team will address the issue in private. You don't need to worry about people attacking you--we don't tolerate that kind of nonsense here.
2. The email from Wikileaks you posted does not represent racial discrimination--not even a single instance. I'll quote from the email itself: Look at the two sentences in bold. The first one explicitly says that this email is about Muslim candidates. The second one explains that some of the Arab American candidates are not in this group because, despite being Arab American, they're not Muslim.
It's not saying "we're only considering Muslims for these positions," which would be either affirmative action or active discrimination (I'd say the latter; others would say the former). It's saying "some of the candidates are Muslim, but not all of the Arab American candidates are Muslim," which is a truism--Arab doesn't always mean Muslim and vice versa.
The email doesn't even say that they're going to show preference for candidates of this background. In fact, Froman flat-out says that some of the candidates aren't necessarily worth picking. The only thing the email exposes is that Podesta, Smith, and Froman were aware of the candidates' ethnic and sometimes religious backgrounds... which is pretty standard for any government job.
The closest thing to racism in the email is Froman bringing up the possibility that other people might be worried about a government official being Muslim. Just because an email mentions that somebody is Arab or Muslim or non-Muslim doesn't mean they're secretly engaged in massive racial discrimination. The meaning of the email is pretty clear if you stop and read each word.
What aboutism Trump's government of white Christian men? That's totally fine right, chief? But the DNC was looking to employ a Muslim once and OMG right? Laughable. As if Trump was totally unaware that all those white Christian men were not muslims, that must have just been happy cooincidence for him. Or he totally picked racially.
And now that Trump has his son in law as an employee married to his beloved Ivanka there's nothing Jared could do that Trump would not pardon him for or excuse. And that's why you don't encourage nepotism in a business (or government). The bosses son can do no wrong, even stuff your sorry butt would get fired for. Not to mention the undeserved promotions and job positions. However qualified he may or may not be are irrelevant. He's there because of a relationship with the boss and so he's held to a different set of rules (there are no rules).
The candidates for top jobs were removed for not being muslim. They were picked for the hiring list for top jobs in the first place, by their own admission, because they were both arabic and muslim. It's really very simple.
He even says: "**In the candidates for top jobs, I excluded** those with some Arab American background but who are not Muslim (e.g., George Mitchell). "
A direct admission of removing people as a candidate for tob jobs because of their religion. A direct quote. There isn't any fancy interpreting needed. It's stated in black and white. Excluded. As a candidate. For top jobs. For not being muslim.
He didn't say "I excluded them from the list" which would have been almost as bad but more defendable. No. He said I EXCLUDED them as a CANDIDATE for TOP JOBS.
I hate to repeat myself but your statement of "Just because an email mentions that somebody is Arab or Muslim or non-Muslim doesn't mean they're secretly engaged in massive racial discrimination" is just so far off the mark of what was actually said.
I would like to know why you need a hiring list of specifically asian and muslim americans in the first place if that wasn't a considered factor. Maybe someone can explain that to me in a way that makes sense.
Fallacies are almost always abused and misused on the internet. Tu Quoque is a fallacy that applies when one asserts a claim is untrue on the basis of hypocrisy. That is not my claim. My claim is that it is not true on the basis of no evidence and a clear case of witch hunting, while also asserting the left are total hypocrites with no principles at all short of what can be used in the direct moment to score brownie points on Trump. A subtle distinction, but an important one.
Vs.
Republicans just don't hire any Muslims and don't want want any Muslims. Republicans feel instead "they can all go back to (insert country here)!"
Do you think the government is overrun with Muslims or something? What's wrong with looking to include some qualified people to balance things out even a tiny bit to better represent the country. How many would you tolerate sir? One? Two? Three? or us that omg too many.
You will also note in the email, the list provided wasn't even vetted yet. It was a starting position to recruit potential candidates for positions. Anyone not listed was not immediately excluded from holding a position it is just that anyone not listed didn't meet the secondary criteria the government was looking for when filling certain positions.
If that's what you come up with when filling your cabinet then maybe you should do something about it to better represent America.
Be like the stalwart Democrats, you notice a problem - omg all we got are white old men - and try to fix it.
@WarChiefZeke, the candidates included both Muslims and non-Muslims, Arab Americans and non-Arab Americans.
The obvious counter-argument is: but what about those Arab Americans who weren't Muslims? Why were they excluded from the list?
Because they were included on a separate list.
The non-Muslim list.
The non-Muslim candidates weren't thrown out. They were just put on a different list.
Sure, we can complain that everyone should have been on the same list. But they didn't throw out Muslim candidates. You quote them as doing so, but you don't quote them in full: He did say "I excluded them from the list." Just above the word "excluded," he explicitly says that he's talking about the list of Muslims; not all candidates under review: About the anti-affirmative action argument: Personally, I don't think you do need such a list--people should be hired strictly based on their qualifications. But considering the fact that Michael Froman repeatedly recommended that such candidates should be discarded simply because of their qualifications... ...it's pretty clear that Froman shares the same view that you and I do: people should be hired based on their qualifications, not on their demographics.
I quote the email in full, at length, and in context. And that's what it says, when you look at more than one sentence.
If you wanted to show preferential treatment to Muslims, you'd probably recommend hiring more than just one.
Does the email suggest that a preference for jobs was being shown to people of a particular religion - yes. Is that preference in itself a problem - no. As has already been mentioned it is appropriate in the public sector for one of the criteria for job selection to be that post-holders reflect their community.
@WarChiefZeke you refer to the outcry that would happen if a preference were shown to white christian or russian men. In the case of white christian men they are already over-represented in the public sector and there would thus be no basis for showing them a preference on the grounds of reflecting the community (and this is why of course the apparent preference given to white christian men in Trump's government has come in for criticism). In the case of Russians I assume you're referring to people of Russian heritage rather than foreign nationals (as the latter would certainly cause an outcry
There's currently a discussion related to this going on in the UK. The BBC were forced by the government to include in their current annual report information on the amounts paid to staff by gender - highlighting the roughly 10% gap between the pay of men and women. That's the result both of women being paid less for apparently similar roles and being less likely to get senior roles in the first place. The BBC have been defending their position on the grounds that they've already been working to reduce the gap for a number of years (in the wider economy the gap is 18%). However, despite already performing better than competitors in this area, the BBC have committed to eliminating the gap entirely by 2020. That will mean that if you're a woman you will have a better chance of getting a pay rise / avoiding a pay cut and of maintaining or enhancing your role as a presenter. That could certainly be regarded as discrimination, but personally I don't object to it.