Jpowers

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

25,099 posts in this topic

33 minutes ago, Red&Black said:

That's how I define Rapinoe's antics, her attention seeking sense of inadequacy.  And she's at the top of her game.  Sad.

Antics, like insulting celebrities through twitter at 2:00 am and having constant pep rallies despite years of accusing Obama of campaigning too much while in office.  Those kinds of antics?*

 

*I know you're not going to respond in good faith, but I'm asking anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Red&Black said:

McCann (Sports Illustrated) said: “The players’ unions negotiated these systems. This type of argument thus implicitly directs USWNT players to blame their own union for negotiating a system that pays them in ways they find unacceptable.”

Also...

"Before we dive in, it’s important to understand how World Cup prize money works. FIFA sets the amount and awards any prize money to the winning country’s federation. The federation — in this case USSF — then distributes it to the players based on each team’s collective-bargaining agreement.

Total prize money for the Women’s World Cup in 2019 is $30 million — the champions will walk away with about $4 million. For contrast, in the 2018 Men’s World Cup, the champions won $38 million from a total pool of about $400 million. In other words, the champions from the men’s world cup were awarded more than the total prize money in the women’s tournament. So there’s no question that there’s a huge gap in earning potential here."

In essence, you can't tell FIFA what to do with their money, because that's communist.

So you would be in favor with the women negotiating through their union a higher rate of pay commensurate with the amount of revenue they bring in compared to the men, right? 

I think that's exactly what Rapinoe and her teammates want. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Serge said:

Oh yeah, the Democrats definitely need to ask him how he didn't find a criminal conspiracy since it was so obvious there was one. Try to antagonize him some doing it, too, so it's like Mueller has to explain why he didn't find what the Democrats said he'd find. Trump's going down for sure this time!

They seem to have legit questions before it's put to rest. Either way, it's their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Red&Black said:

That's how I define Rapinoe's antics, her attention seeking sense of inadequacy.  And she's at the top of her game.  Sad.

I think the inadequacy she's seeking to bring attention to is the pay the women's team receives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mdrake34 said:

Antics, like insulting celebrities through twitter at 2:00 am and having constant pep rallies despite years of accusing Obama of campaigning too much while in office.  Those kinds of antics?*

 

*I know you're not going to respond in good faith, but I'm asking anyways.

...And speaking of those constant pep rallies, they cost money and Trump is bankrupting some of the cities he holds them in and not reimbursing them. Orlando was one, Washington, DC is the latest...

Trump's costly July Fourth event bankrupted Washington's security, anti-terror fund

President Donald Trump's military-style July Fourth parade drained a special Washington, D.C., city fund designed to help pay for extra security and anti-terrorism measures during large events in the nation's capital, the mayor said in a letter to the White House.

Expenses related to security at Trump's parade exhausted the fund — known as the Emergency Planning and Security (ESPF) fund — and are expected to soon put it $6 million in the red, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser explained in the letter written to Trump on Tuesday.

Bowser said the amount used from the fund for "your additional July 4th holiday activities and subsequent First Amendment demonstrations" totaled $1.7 million and that the amount would deplete the account. She asked Trump to help have the city reimbursed.
 
 
Leon Troutsky and mdrake34 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Big_Dog said:

They seem to have legit questions before it's put to rest. Either way, it's their job.

And if the Democrats play it wrong it could be a disaster. If they don't get the answers they're looking for and get antagonistic, they might end up pushing for impeachment right when the general public's completely done with hearing about Russiagate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Serge said:

And if the Democrats play it wrong it could be a disaster. If they don't get the answers they're looking for and get antagonistic, they might end up pushing for impeachment right when the general public's completely done with hearing about Russiagate.

I hope they aren't that dumb. If they find nothing they need to stop. We're all tired of this c.ra.p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Big_Dog said:

I hope they aren't that dumb. If they find nothing they need to stop. We're all tired of this c.ra.p

You're an inspiration to us all

AF89 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Serge said:

And if the Democrats play it wrong it could be a disaster. If they don't get the answers they're looking for and get antagonistic, they might end up pushing for impeachment right when the general public's completely done with hearing about Russiagate.

The goal needs to be educating the public by highlighting the wrongdoing in the Mueller report.  Part of that needs to include a question about his legal reasoning for not saying Trump obstructed justice and fleshing that out more fully.  Part of that needs to be highlighting specific instances of wrongdoing...very clear ones like ordering that Mueller be fired and ordering that the investigation scope be limited to exclude Trump and his campaign.

But it needs to highlight and bring attention to things the public hasn't read.  I'm afraid it's going to be like almost every other hearing...a bunch of BS drama and grandstanding by both sides.

That's why I said earlier that I think the most interesting part of the hearing will be GOP questions.  Mueller's not going to get flustered and he's got more credibility than they do.  So if they try some kind of takedown, that'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

Big_Dog and Serge like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

I think the inadequacy she's seeking to bring attention to is the pay the women's team receives.

Is this the same womans soccer team that lost 8-2  to a 17 under boys soccer team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Leon Troutsky said:

The goal needs to be educating the public by highlighting the wrongdoing in the Mueller report.  Part of that needs to include a question about his legal reasoning for not saying Trump obstructed justice and fleshing that out more fully.  Part of that needs to be highlighting specific instances of wrongdoing...very clear ones like ordering that Mueller be fired and ordering that the investigation scope be limited to exclude Trump and his campaign.

But it needs to highlight and bring attention to things the public hasn't read.  I'm afraid it's going to be like almost every other hearing...a bunch of BS drama and grandstanding by both sides.

That's why I said earlier that I think the most interesting part of the hearing will be GOP questions.  Mueller's not going to get flustered and he's got more credibility than they do.  So if they try some kind of takedown, that'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

I imagine they'll ask where the criminal conspiracy with Russia is if the Democrats don't ask. I'm not worried about Mueller. I'm worried the Democrats are going to leave with a different impression of what took place than most of the viewers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Great American said:

Is this the same womans soccer team that lost 8-2  to a 17 under boys soccer team?

1 hour ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

They bring in more revenue and are more successful. You'd think a conservative like yourself would want their pay to reflect that. Instead you're just mad because they're girls wanting equality and got Trump's panties in a wad.

Sad.

 

lostone, mdrake34, AF89 and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

On today's very special episode, blockhead learns why so many black people in the Western hemisphere have white ancestors.

Probably explains @Andrews_31's love for white women.

Andrews_31 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SpongeDad said:

The double slit experiment gives strong suggestions that consciousness creates reality....

We've got unidentified aerial phenomenon in our air space....

But you know.....24/7 Trump:argh:             :rolleyes:

Twitter is currently not working, so get in your UFO talk while the gettin's good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

 

Trust me ... I'm not mad at anyone over a game of soccer.  I have no idea what kind of revenue they bring in.  If they're making the league millions of dollas then they should be paid accordingly.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mdrake34 said:

Twitter is currently not working, so get in your UFO talk while the gettin's good.

Millennial meltdown incoming.......along with blaming Trump close behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SpongeDad said:

The double slit experiment gives strong suggestions that consciousness creates reality....

We've got unidentified aerial phenomenon in our air space....

But you know.....24/7 Trump:argh:             :rolleyes:

giphy.gif?cid=790b76115d2787332f3339596b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Great American said:

Trust me ... I'm not mad at anyone over a game of soccer.  I have no idea what kind of revenue they bring in.  If they're making the league millions of dollas then they should be paid accordingly.     

That is what they're pointing out and asking for.

Gritzblitz 2.0 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SpongeDad said:

I don't blame her. Powdered doughnuts have a weird texture.

She actually loves them, I just snapped at the right second as she was turning her head and it looked like she was making that face. 

An elderly former client of mine loved glazed donuts, but he lived in a small town that only sold the powdered donuts like that (he called them cake donuts) so I always took him a dozen fresh glazed donuts when I went to meet with him.  He lit up like a christmas tree every time. 

SpongeDad likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Serge said:

I imagine they'll ask where the criminal conspiracy with Russia is if the Democrats don't ask. I'm not worried about Mueller. I'm worried the Democrats are going to leave with a different impression of what took place than most of the viewers.

I'm worried the Democrats are going to leave thinking their case for impeachment is airtight, so it'll be devastating when the Senate Republicans vote it down, which'll ultimately impact Trump in a way that will justify using that impeachment, whereas most of the general public will only see snippets of the hearing, probably the most exciting parts, and that's probably going to include Mueller reiterating that Trump himself wasn't connected in a way that he could indict him for anything to do with Russian spies. The Democrats, the liberals, the left, and certainly the liberal media might all think they're creating the spark they need to go forward with impeachment, and they might all be wrong for thinking it was even going to be bigger than a regular-*** news cycle for most Americans.

They might not hear enough to have a firm opinion, or they might hear enough, and decide they'd rather impeach Trump for something that'd make a bigger impact. At least some of the Democrats are counting on people hearing enough, and deciding after not having decided beforehand that, in this matter, Trump acted so inappropriately that it justifies being the the thing the Democrats impeach Trump for. And at least some of those Democrats will probably decide after the hearing that enough was confirmed to go forward with impeachment. It's possible they'll come out of there and get so high on their own farts that they pressure the party to impeach Trump for the one thing no one outside their party even wants to impeach Trump for, especially after that hearing. That'd actually ******* help Trump's public image for having such pig-headed antagonists. That'd be the long-term legacy of Russiagate; it served Trump's interests more than the Democrats could ever admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now