Support NeoGAF

[User 463088]

File for unemployment asap and also get an attorney involved if you think it's worth it. If not enjoy the vacation and move on to a better job.

Thanks. I mean, I can find something else I hated it anyway, but you know, whatever I have to do to not be a total leech on society. I spent a little of my savings, but I'm a worrywort, so I kept enough back that I'll survive.

Corporate world can be brutal.

Makes people into monsters.

Sorry to hear Adam. Hang in there. I've been there before.

Ugh. I know right? But thanks. I'll survive. Just pisses me off. We should have things in place like this to protect workers .I'm lucky. If I didn't have my mom and savings, there's no telling what would happen. Other people aren't so lucky.

 

[CCS]

It's alright. I'll live. I've been thinking about starting my own business doing what I do. I've also been looking for an excuse to write full time. I have enough to get by for a year or so without working, so I can manage. Just...I think I'm doing the right shit, and I'm just thrown under the damn bus. Plus, my arm hurts like a mo'fo.



I was a QA/WFM supervisor for a local call center. Ironically, I deal with this shit all the time. Wouldn't have let a floor rep go for shit like this, but I was still in probation and they were like you're out.

I really hope things work out. If you've been thinking of starting your own business might be a good time, but given you've got plenty of savings as you say you've got time to think and work out what to do. Really sorry that's happened to you

 

[Abinash117]

You guys just love doom and gloom. It'll be fine, dems are capable of registering new democrats and many people flat out hate Trump.

Also Hillary should encourage a/the bill to make sure businesses don't discriminate against sex orientation as her main policies. 1) It make it a issue that the GOP have to be against. 2) Help her look more progressive, especially to the young crowd. 3) Highlight an issue that still is not finished. 4) It needs to happen.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Thanks. I mean, I can find something else I hated it anyway, but you know, whatever I have to do to not be a total leech on society. I spent a little of my savings, but I'm a worrywort, so I kept enough back that I'll survive.

You're not a leach you paid into it! Enjoy the fruits of progressive labor haha!

They already make it pretty tough to get anyways, always worth a shot.

You just got fired for doing the right thing... nothing wrong with taking what it is rightfully yours as you look for a better job.

EDIT: Plus you want to keep what ever savings you do have.

 

[Cerium]

Trump brags that his followers would kill for him.

Donald Trump on Tuesday praised his supporters for being so loyal that they would kill.

“Even the really dishonest press says Trump’s people are the most incredible,” the billionaire said during a rally in Sparks, just hours ahead of the Nevada caucuses. “Sixty-eight percent would not leave under any circumstance. I think that means murder. I think it means anything.”

Citing an unspecified poll, Trump said that more than nine in 10 of his supporters would “probably never leave.”

 

[gutter_trash]

re-watching the latter videos of MSNBC Election Night 2012 about the Republican salt

..

..

the GOP have learned nothing

 

[Macho Madness]

re-watching the latter videos of MSNBC Election Night 2012 about the Republican salt

..

..

the GOP have learned nothing

It's pretty simple. The party wanted to change. The base doesn't want to, and they see our changing country as for the worse.

 

[RastaMentality]

@JTSantucci: Trump says he did call Bush after dropping out - “I did call him to wish him the best – he didn’t take my call.” Says maybe he missed return

lolol

 

[Oltsu]

Part of it's getting dog piled when they try and have a discussion, but part of it is also that the NeoGAF rules make a lot of the social conservative beliefs a tough needle to thread without getting banned.

its also harder and harder to find a moderate republican that is under the age of 50.

Eh, that group has long been gone - I think at this point it's primarily the dogpiling and accusations of being inherently sexist or racist from the get-go.

As a long time lurker but a new poster I'd say that the biggest issue is just the usual internet thing of "anyone even slightly to the right of me must be a right wing bigot". In reality people (especially the ones who even care enough to take part in discussions about politics) have nuanced views and priorities. Very few moderates hold all the stereotypical views of the american right.

I'm not american but I'd probably have a very tough time fitting into either party over there. I did do the isidewith.com test a while back as thoroughly as possible (all extra questions, question priorities etc.) and I ended up with sanders in the lead, followed by trump, paul and clinton. Each at around 75-65%. And at home I usually vote right but still support universal healthcare, free education, gay marriage etc.

If I was voting in the states I'd be pretty pissed with the Dems' positions on immigration, affarmative action etc. and frankly scared by the younger generation of Dems' support of things like completely banning guns, hate speech laws and so on.

But on the other hand maybe even more pissed at the GOP's utterly stupid stances on abortion, deregulation etc.

Depending on the company I could be called right or left. If I started posting in GAF threads about social issues I'd probably get called right since I find the collectivism and focus on race / gender over income / class in the current wave of young progressives slightly troubling (and quite frankly illiberal as a lot of these talking points abuse personal liberties in favor of making demographic X look better on a spreadsheet) and were I in the states I'd be terrified that those same ideas could move from the young to the actual politicians.

And unless my hunch is completely wrong I'd be pretty comfortable with guessing that a lot of the younger conservatives who actually do think beyond "TRUMP STRONK" and are somewhat moderate might be quite close to me politically. And it's exactly those black and white "you're a hypocrite" "no you're a racist" discussions where people like me begin to tune out.

 

[Cerium]

lolol

lmao

 

[B-Dubs]

lolol

Did Trump really think Jeb would pick up? :lol

 

[CCS]

lolol

Pls pick up.

 

[PBY]

lolol

trololololol

 

[PBY]

Also did we talk about this re: Bernie?

"I am encouraged to see that the president is sending Congress a plan to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison. As I have said for years, the prison at Guantanamo must be closed as quickly as possible," Sanders said in a statement released through his campaign. "Others, including my opponent, have not always agreed with me."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...-gitmo-shut-down-clinton-219672#ixzz411zL6SbC

 

[Macho Madness]

Also did we talk about this re: Bernie?

"I am encouraged to see that the president is sending Congress a plan to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison. As I have said for years, the prison at Guantanamo must be closed as quickly as possible," Sanders said in a statement released through his campaign. "Others, including my opponent, have not always agreed with me."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-...-gitmo-shut-down-clinton-219672#ixzz411zL6SbC

Meh he says that about her a lot. It's a fair point if you care about someone always being right about the issue. It doesn't play to me very well because my mind has been changed a lot over the years on certain issues.

 

[PBY]

Meh he says that about her a lot. It's a fair point if you care about someone always being right about the issue. It doesn't play to me very well because my mind has been changed a lot over the years on certain issues.

I don't think its an unfair attack at all. This is a policy-based jab.

 

[BoboBrazil]

lolol

 

[Macho Madness]

I don't think its an unfair attack at all. This is a policy-based jab.

I know. The larger point he's making there is that she wasn't "always for it". It's a fair thing to say. It just personally does nothing for me.

 

[Black Mamba]

Trump brags that his followers would kill for him.

He's not wrong:

Individuals with a disposition to authoritarianism demonstrate a fear of "the other" as well as a readiness to follow and obey strong leaders. They tend to see the world in black-and-white terms. They are by definition attitudinally inflexible and rigid. And once they have identified friend from foe, they hold tight to their conclusions. This intransigent behavioral tendency of authoritarians may help explain why Trump’s support can seem, as a strategist for Marco Rubio complained in the New York Times, like "granite."

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11099644/trump-support-authoritarianism

Best of luck Adam!

 

[Iolo]

lolol

donaldtrump-sounding-airhorn-into-telephone.gif

 

[Cybit]

As a long time lurker but a new poster I'd say that the biggest issue is just the usual internet thing of "anyone even slightly to the right of me must be a right wing bigot". In reality people (especially the ones who even care enough to take part in discussions about politics) have nuanced views and priorities. Very few moderates hold all the stereotypical views of the american right.

I'm not american but I'd probably have a very tough time fitting into either party over there. I did do the isidewith.com test a while back as thoroughly as possible (all extra questions, question priorities etc.) and I ended up with sanders in the lead, followed by trump, paul and clinton. Each at around 75-65%. And at home I usually vote right but still support universal healthcare, free education, gay marriage etc.

If I was voting in the states I'd be pretty pissed with the Dems' positions on immigration, affarmative action etc. and frankly scared by the younger generation of Dems' support of things like completely banning guns, hate speech laws and so on.

But on the other hand maybe even more pissed at the GOP's utterly stupid stances on abortion, deregulation etc.

Depending on the company I could be called right or left. If I started posting in GAF threads about social issues I'd probably get called right since I find the collectivism and focus on race / gender over income / class in the current wave of young progressives slightly troubling (and quite frankly illiberal as a lot of these talking points abuse personal liberties in favor of making demographic X look better on a spreadsheet) and were I in the states I'd be terrified that those same ideas could move from the young to the actual politicians.

And unless my hunch is completely wrong I'd be pretty comfortable with guessing that a lot of the younger conservatives who actually do think beyond "TRUMP STRONK" and are somewhat moderate might be quite close to me politically. And it's exactly those black and white "you're a hypocrite" "no you're a racist" discussions where people like me begin to tune out.

FWIW, I think this pretty much sums me up in many ways as well - especially this burgeoning clash between progressiveism and classical liberalism regarding the free speech vs authoritarian-ish college policies.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'd say there's a degree of variety in here about trade, about immigration, about military intervention and so on.

What you won't see on GAF is "socially conservative" opinion, if it amounts to the denigrating of other people as lesser than, or violating the rights of a segment of society.

I think it's been somewhat conflated that "liberal" means one needs to be opposed to things like reducing trade barriers or needs to be isolationist or for more open borders or, in a more US-centric case, vehemently anti-gun. It's become an umbrella term, but typically left-wing parties are an assortment of sometimes conflicting interest groups.

 

[Macho Madness]

This is why I tend to say things like "I agree with most liberal policies" while not necessarily labeling myself a liberal. I did not know that hate speech being banned was a hot topic among college aged people. Free speech is big to me. I don't want the government telling anyone what they can or cannot say, though I agree that people can and should be punished in the private sector for hate speech. But that's a big difference.

 

[Macho Madness]

Scalia suffered from coronary artery disease, obesity and diabetes, among other ailments that probably contributed to the justice's sudden death.

 

[Cybit]

I'd say there's a degree of variety in here about trade, about immigration, about military intervention and so on.

What you won't see on GAF is "socially conservative" opinion, if it amounts to the denigrating of other people as lesser than, or violating the rights of a segment of society.

I think it's been somewhat conflated that "liberal" means one needs to be opposed to things like reducing trade barriers or needs to be isolationist or for more open borders or, in a more US-centric case, vehemently anti-gun. It's become an umbrella term, but typically left-wing parties are an assortment of sometimes conflicting interest groups.

Well, in the USA's case, having only two major parties means that both parties are generally some weird unholy alliance group compared to multi-party systems.

As for the socially conservative bit...I think that's entirely too charitable to GAF. The issue is that we're all basically left of center, so what passes for "conservative" here is basically "Democrat", and not even Blue Dog Democrat I'd argue. The first time someone signals that they're even moderately against something defined as progressivism (say, the issue about free speech vs safe space at Mizzou) - the thread turns into a giant shitshow pretty quickly, with people getting accused of being racist or sexist because they sided with free speech.

Or, alternatively, watch what people can get away with saying in threads about Asians as opposed to black / hispanics. There are some super duper cringe-worthy asian threads in OT, so much so that the running joke in Asian-GAF is "don't get banned because you get angry at the responses"

There's also a fairly core group of people who tend to start / precipitate the dogpile as well, though oddly enough, not that many in PoliGAF, so yay? (I usually have most of them on ignore at this point, though)

 

[RastaMentality]

@mmurraypolitics: @RalstonReports just told @chucktodd that we COULD have a Nevada winner *tomorrow afternoon* https://t.co/2dmE6VABnq

Don’t Expect Nevada Results Tonight

First Read: “Today is the Nevada contest on the Republican side, but don’t expect to find out the results at a reasonable hour. Caucus-goers start gathering between 8:00 pm ET and 10:00 pm ET (submitting votes via paper ballot). All meetings end by midnight ET. In addition, the contest doesn’t have a history of being well run.”

Jon Ralston says the best case scenario is getting results by 2 a.m. ET.

https://politicalwire.com/2016/02/23/dont-expect-to-know-nevada-winner-tonight/

This is so shitty.

 

[OmniOne]

I don't think its an unfair attack at all. This is a policy-based jab.

Sanders has also voted against the Presidents plan to close the base.

http://digital.vpr.net/post/sanders-leahy-have-voted-both-sides-guantanamo-closure#stream/0

Vermont’s senators have both been part of single-digit Senate minorities voting to close the prison, but they’ve also both voted against those interests. That includes a Sanders vote against the measure designed to fund Obama’s January 2009 executive order to close the prison within one year, and a Leahy vote in the fall for a defense bill that bars the government from moving Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.

Two years later, Vermont’s senators were on opposing sides of the issue. When it came time to fund Obama’s campaign promise to close the prison within a year, Sanders balked. In a 90-6 vote, Sanders and the majority of the Senate declined to fund Guantanamo’s closure.

That vote, specifically, was on an amendment that would have added $80 million for Guantanamo’s closure to a military spending bill. Sanders, who voted against the $91.3 billion funding package, also voted not to add the $80 million for the closure of Guantanamo to the bill.

In a statement at the time, Sanders explained his vote.

“A number of important questions remain unanswered regarding the rather complicated issue of not just how you close down the facility, but what you do with the prisoners,” he said in part. “In order to answer these questions, President Obama has appointed a high-level committee of top administration officials who will be issuing a report in the coming months. I think that it is prudent to review that plan they develop before we spend $80 million in taxpayer money.”

Sounds like Sanders likes to have it both ways, and then play like he's the only straight shooter in the room.

 

[Cerium]

Sanders has also voted against the Presidents plan to close the base.

http://digital.vpr.net/post/sanders-leahy-have-voted-both-sides-guantanamo-closure#stream/0

Sounds like Sanders likes to have it both ways, and then play like he's the only straight shooter in the room.

Kind of like all those Bernie stans who want a political revolution but won't skip class or Spring Break to actually vote.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Regarding the bubble discussion, and the "anyone to the right of me is a bigot"-- I've been working on reconciling those impulses with the generally good people I know who vote Republican. For some, it's a matter of priorities. They aren't interested in helping the poor all that much, but they know people who abuse the system, don't work (or even try) and live "for free" while they themselves work. Where I live, I see "working poor" or underemployed people all the time, but many of them don't. So that "47%" talk and "Obama phones" rings truer for them than it does for me.

Thankfully, the right-oriented people I know a) are totally cool with gay rights or are at least of the opinion that their religious objections are a personal matter and should not be law.

 

[gutter_trash]

FWIW, I think this pretty much sums me up in many ways as well - especially this burgeoning clash between progressiveism and classical liberalism regarding the free speech vs authoritarian-ish college policies.

and there lies the biggest wedge among classical liberalism in Europe (France) vs politically correct progressives in the US when it pertained to being critical towards religion, religious customs and the whole Danish Cartoon and Charlie Hebdo Cartoons disparity between the two.

In France, secularist Liberals want freedom of speech of making fun of all regions.

in the US, oh, can't offend a minority religion so walk on egg shells, even when that religion has misogynistic and homophobic views

 

[AnotherNils]

edit: And in what world is it better to say "no hearings, no votes no matter what" than "hearings, but we'll vote no?"

Well, here's my theory. If they stonewall, they're just being stubborn. But if they hold hearings or, worse yet, vote on a nominee they open the door to public making their judgement not on the idea of "let the public decide" but on the merits of the actual nominee. If he's reasonable and well qualified, the GOP can't win that PR war.

Further, let's say public opinion isn't strong enough on the first nominee so Obama pulls them and replaces them with a better qualified/more reasonable person. There's so much god damn time left that they'd could do this twice before Election Day. That doesn't help them either.

But a blanket stonewall. That's a different kind of perception.

 

[sphagnum]

Thanks. I mean, I can find something else I hated it anyway, but you know, whatever I have to do to not be a total leech on society. I spent a little of my savings, but I'm a worrywort, so I kept enough back that I'll survive.

The people who run the company are leeches, not you.

 

[Teggy]

Trump brags that his followers would kill for him.

Except that's not what he said, Politico. He said they wouldn't leave if HE murdered someone. Which is something he's said before.

Not that that's any better, but I don't know how they got that headline out of that quote.

Edit: the headline of the article is correct if you click through, but the first line of the article is not.

 

[shinra-bansho]

As for the socially conservative bit...I think that's entirely too charitable to GAF. The issue is that we're all basically left of center, so what passes for "conservative" here is basically "Democrat", and not even Blue Dog Democrat I'd argue. The first time someone signals that they're even moderately against something defined as progressivism (say, the issue about free speech vs safe space at Mizzou) - the thread turns into a giant shitshow pretty quickly, with people getting accused of being racist or sexist because they sided with free speech.

Or, alternatively, watch what people can get away with saying in threads about Asians as opposed to black / hispanics. There are some super duper cringe-worthy asian threads in OT, so much so that the running joke in Asian-GAF is "don't get banned because you get angry at the responses"

So, I'm just going to point out here that the mods typically aren't reading every thread. Even though now that there's more of us across more time zones. So we have inboxes.

I'll note that as an Asian, I'd probably frown upon to put it nicely any racist comments in such threads.

 

[Cybit]

and there lies the biggest wedge among classical liberalism in Europe (France) vs politically correct progressives in the US when it pertained to being critical towards religion, religious customs and the whole Danish Cartoon and Charlie Hebdo Cartoons disparity between the two.

In France, secularist Liberals want freedom of speech of making fun of all regions.

in the US, oh, can't offend a minority religion so walk on egg shells, even when that religion has misogynistic and homophobic views

I also think, that in my case, which is being a data nerd asian-american who grew up in small town midwest before moving to Seattle as an adult, the difference between culture and race are much starker to me on a personal level. Because of that, the freedom of speech thing is super important to me, because even if it is currently tilted against speech I disapprove of, at some point, that same tool can get used to punish me. Many younger liberals have come of age in a world where liberals are much more politically powerful than they were in the 2000s. So they see these as tools that can be used to punish "bad" people, not necessarily thinking of "what happens when my views aren't the politically powerful ones". Add in the crazy echo chamber effect of the internet and modern technology and communication...and you have a recipe for disaster IMO.

Ask those involved with gay rights in the 70s about things being "so bad we have to censor it". Ask gamers growing up in the 90s.

Aside: On the Asian-American thing - good article from NYT about it

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/m...cans-feel-about-the-peter-liang-protests.html

The last part is the part that hits home for me

And yet it would be catastrophic to ignore the protesters’ concerns altogether. Asian-Americans have begun to protest in the streets, in part, because they have begun to wake up from that multicultural dream in which their concerns are lumped in with the rest of the minority groups of America. The word “minority” has increasingly come to encompass only black and Hispanic people. Perhaps it always did. It is my belief that Asian-Americans have to form their own way of talking about race, privilege and justice, one that acknowledges both our relative privilege and the costs of our invisibility. But that language takes time to build, and at the next political action, the message will certainly still be clumsy and riddled with contradiction. I only hope it serves a more just cause than the freedom of Peter Liang.

So, I'm just going to point out here that the mods typically aren't reading every thread. Even though now that there's more of us across more time zones. So we have inboxes.

I'll note that as an Asian, I'd probably frown upon to put it nicely any racist comments in such threads.

My apologies in that I didn't mean to take it as any kind of comment about the mods - I see enough insane crazypants stuff on a daily basis that y'all gotta deal with that something that feels relatively benign in comparison (generally it's more ignorance than anything) isn't usually enough for me to want to PM a mod about.

It's more of a comment about how a) Asian-American minority status is still sort of seen fundamentally differently in the US as a whole right now I think, and b) We're asians, we don't like to complain.

But you know, you're right - I should probably PM a mod rather than just ignore the thread in most cases.

 

[Teggy]

Scalia suffered from coronary artery disease, obesity and diabetes, among other ailments that probably contributed to the justice's sudden death.

...as well as a feather-based blockage in his trachea

Spoiler

 

[Black Mamba]

Scalia suffered from coronary artery disease, obesity and diabetes, among other ailments that probably contributed to the justice's sudden death.

and here I thought the spread of the gay killed him.

 

[User 463088]

Sanders voted against giving the President the funds he needed to close Guantanamo Bay. So, maybe he shouldn't be throwing stones there.

 

[Makai]

Ingraham says Rubio would push amnesty as president.

 

[BoboBrazil]

Don’t Expect Nevada Results Tonight

https://politicalwire.com/2016/02/23/dont-expect-to-know-nevada-winner-tonight/

This is so shitty.

Eh? Trump wins. The battle for second is more interesting between Rubio and Cruz. Cruz firing communications director will hurt him.

 

[RastaMentality]

Eh? Trump wins. The battle for second is more interesting between Rubio and Cruz. Cruz firing communications director will hurt him.

Do people really care about that? It makes him seem like he's getting desperate but so did Rubio after NH.

 

[Cerium]

Eh? Trump wins. The battle for second is more interesting between Rubio and Cruz. Cruz firing communications director will hurt him.

The margin of victory matters too.

There's a market on Predictit for whether Trump wins by 15 or more. I'm tempted to bet on it but caucuses are just so fucked it's hard to tell.

 

[BoboBrazil]

Do people really care about that? It makes him seem like he's getting desperate but so did Rubio after NH.

No way of knowing. Media hasn't been friendly to him today.

 

[PBY]

Wait

So results DON'T roll in after 10 EST? Like, in Iowa... we were getting results rolling in no?

 

[Tesseract]

Hey guys, after Donald Trump wins, do you think we should use nukes to fix the earth's wobble, and solve climate change? No more seasons, turn those seasons off. The earth is a tremendous mess.

 

[Makai]

No seriously, Laura Ingraham is ripping Rubio

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...y_going_to_push_amnesty_if_hes_president.html

She chastised a caller for considering voting Hillary over Trump.

 

[Macho Madness]

Wait

So results DON'T roll in after 10 EST? Like, in Iowa... we were getting results rolling in no?

Earliest results won't be in until 12 EST. We'll probably get some entrance polls around then. Actual results probably won't be in until tomorrow morning to afternoon.

 

[Slacker]

Do people really care about (Cruz firing his communications director)? It makes him seem like he's getting desperate but so did Rubio after NH.

It gives Trump major ammo for his "Cruz is a liar" line of attack.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Hey guys, after Donald Trump wins, do you think we should use nukes to fix the earth's wobble, and solve climate change? No more seasons, turn those seasons off. The earth is a tremendous mess.

Who would pay for it?

Hopefully the Lizard People.

 

[RustyNails]

Don’t Expect Nevada Results Tonight

https://politicalwire.com/2016/02/23/dont-expect-to-know-nevada-winner-tonight/

This is so shitty.

Dont trust anything Ralston says. We got the results in an hour last election.