Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jrrarglblarg said:
MALL on the border! Not a friggerty wall!

This post is an attempt to help keep alaskabushpilot's post on topic.
Click to expand...

You have people arguing, with zero knowledge of our complex immigration system, for checkless immigrations from problem countries while at the same time immigration from longstanding allies is made arduous, expensive, and all manner of obstacle thrown in your way. This absolutely is germane. Your ignorance of immigration policy does not dictate what is germane.

The medical check for example - the current crop of government-favored immigrants get free health care with any old problem they march in with whereas all the MARRIED people from allied countries can't get in if they don't pass the sputum test or any number of other medical tests.

There are huge waves of economic migrants into Europe, having nothing to do with Syria. An amazing proportion of these immigrants are not even literate in their own language. They are unemployable. We have really strict laws governing even tourist visas from other countries where you have to prove that you have money, a job, assets back home or else you can't even vacation here.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
You have people arguing, with zero knowledge of our complex immigration system, for checkless immigrations from problem countries while at the same time immigration from longstanding allies is made arduous, expensive, and all manner of obstacle thrown in your way. This absolutely is germane. Your ignorance of immigration policy does not dictate what is germane.

The medical check for example - the current crop of government-favored immigrants get free health care with any old problem they march in with whereas all the MARRIED people from allied countries can't get in if they don't pass the sputum test or any number of other medical tests.

There are huge waves of economic migrants into Europe, having nothing to do with Syria. An amazing proportion of these immigrants are not even literate in their own language. They are unemployable. We have really strict laws governing even tourist visas from other countries where you have to prove that you have money, a job, assets back home or else you can't even vacation here.
Click to expand...

Another derail of a thread based on your vast knowledge of yet another arcane topic. Please provide your actual argument.

Are you arguing against "what some people say" or against current immigration policy. "What some people say" is not a coherent argument as we've learned that you have what we can call "your own sources".

Current policy is that refugees go through medical examinations overseas. If they fail, they are not allowed to the US unless the medical problem is imminently treatable. There are exceptions, e.g. spouses and offspring of American citizens.

Please provide your credentials. Choose one:
A-I currently work for USCIS, Homeland Security, CDC or other related organization.
B-I heard about it on the internet.
C-I once dealt with immigration and accordingly, am an expert.
D-B+C

I believe the answer is D. I have every faith that you will not verify any of that, though, so let's go back to just what the hell it is you're arguing about. Current policy or what you've heard some people say they'd like the policy to be. Surely you're not arguing that we shouldn't have medical check ups for immigrants? Are you arguing that your wife should've been given a pass? I have no idea where your wife is from, but communicable diseases are from everywhere. I know Canadians who have to pass the medical requirement and their border is contiguous with the US so diseases can walk across on their own.

What all this has to do with "Trump", the topic of the thread, I'm not certain. He has no coherent policy on immigration and certainly does not delve into specifics of this nature.
 
Trump says so many awful things that I almost missed this one:

“I would like to think she would find another career or find another company if that was the case,”
Click to expand...

Context: asked by a reporter how he would feel if his daughter Ivanka were sexually harassed by a boss. So, if a woman is sexually harassed in her workplace, the solution is for her to "find another career or find another company".
 
Puppycow said:
Trump says so many awful things that I almost missed this one:



Context: asked by a reporter how he would feel if his daughter Ivanka were sexually harassed by a boss. So, if a woman is sexually harassed in her workplace, the solution is for her to "find another career or find another company".
Click to expand...
To be fair, Ivanka's boss is Donald and he's just saying what he hopes she would do if she gets tired of him sexually harassing her.
 
The Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City is closing after Labor Day. Now, Donald doesn't own it any more due to the fact that he's a terrible businessman, but not good optics for him.
 
Ladewig said:
Race will freeze in August?

Who here thinks that Trump will not want better coverage than the Olympics are getting? He hates being out of the news cycle. He will almost certainly will be searching for a way to be at the top of the news.

And I wish him luck in finding his way into the headlines.
Click to expand...

Oh, that will be easy! If a Russian loses a medal, he will go full tirade about how the Russians were "cheated" and the entire games are fixed. And he'll ask for Putin to invade Brazil... :)
 
Foolmewunz said:
Another derail of a thread based on your vast knowledge of yet another arcane topic. Please provide your actual argument.

A-I currently work for USCIS, Homeland Security, CDC or other
B-I heard about it on the internet.
C-I once dealt with immigration and accordingly, am an expert.
D-B+C

...le snip.
Click to expand...

Ugh. I got stuck on the circular reference D-B+C where D is D-B+C

AlaskaBushPilot... you still haven't responded to any of the counter-arguments against your "all the leftists do is shriek 'racist' all the time, and it won't work" assertions going back to around posts #255 to #277

The media and the Democrats (and Republicans) have continued to call him out for his remarks, and his poll numbers continue to drop.
 
sunmaster14 said:
...The charges weren't brought because the FBI director and the DOJ chose to rewrite the statute,...
Click to expand...
So you missed the whole part of Comey's address then when he said he could not find a single case where anyone was prosecuted for the same offense and indicting Clinton would be a double standard?

I'm not surprised the salivating right wingers missed that part.
 
Puppycow said:
... Context: asked by a reporter how he would feel if his daughter Ivanka were sexually harassed by a boss. So, if a woman is sexually harassed in her workplace, the solution is for her to "find another career or find another company".
Click to expand...
The worst part of that statement is he had not a clue of the implications of his words.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
So you missed the whole part of Comey's address then when he said he could not find a single case where anyone was prosecuted for the same offense and indicting Clinton would be a double standard?

I'm not surprised the salivating right wingers missed that part.
Click to expand...
You see, when the well respected Republican FBI Director swore under oath that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute Hillary, that he wouldn't prosecute anyone for what she did, that prosecuting her would be a double standard and celebrity hunting, ect, that just proved he is either incompetent or corrupt. Because clearly, random HDS sufferers on the Internet know more about federal criminal law than the FBI/DOJ.
 
According to this BBC story, Clint Eastwood will be voting for Donald Trump. I was not surprised at Eastwood's comments:

Eastwood, 86, also said Mr Trump was an enemy of political correctness, adding: "We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren't called racist."
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36968053

..for some people perhaps it is being able to go back to the casual racism of yesteryear :rolleyes:
 
Tony Stark said:
You see, when the well respected Republican FBI Director swore under oath that no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute Hillary, that he wouldn't prosecute anyone for what she did, that prosecuting her would be a double standard and celebrity hunting, ect, that just proved he is either incompetent or corrupt. Because clearly, random HDS sufferers on the Internet know more about federal criminal law than the FBI/DOJ.
Click to expand...

To most people, it's enough that Trump says she should be in jail. He's the Republican nominee, isn't he? He's smarter than... well... just about everyone. And he 'says it like it is'. He's the only one who isn't in anyone's pocket. The FBI must have been bought off.
 
I see Meg Whitman has decided to raise funds for Clinton and vote for her. She says she cannot "endorse a candidacy that I believe has exploited anger, grievance, xenophobia, and racial division" and "Donald Trump's demagoguery has undermined the fabric of our national character".

Ouch.
 
The same BBC article I quoted earlier summarises Trump's "rocky week" so far - I think it's unfair in parts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36968053

Mr Trump's rocky week so far:
Mr Trump declined to endorse fellow party members House Speaker Paul Ryan and Arizona Senator John McCain in their coming elections.
Click to expand...

Is he obliged to do this ? Both Ryan and McCain have been critical of Trump - I don't see it as unreasonable that he should delay, or even refuse, to endorse people who are so openly critical of him.

Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee Mike Pence broke with his running mate and endorsed Mr Ryan.
Click to expand...

Isn't that part of the role of the Vice Presidential candidate, to do things for the benefit of the campaign that the Presidential candidate cannot ? I thought that one of the reasons to choose a particular running mate was to broaden the appeal of the ticket ?

Mr Trump continued to criticise Khizr and Ghazala Khan despite repeated calls from his allies to stop.
Click to expand...

Yes, Trump has handled this very badly and it has rightly backfired on him. He has had many opportunities to "de-escalate" and he has chosen time and again to up the ante.

Mr Trump warned supporters that the coming election could be "rigged", casting doubt on the fairness of the voting process.
Click to expand...

The voter ID laws which were struck down were put in place by Republican-led state legislatures. Voter ID seems to be a hot issue for Republicans and so suggesting that bu striking down these laws, the judiciary are at risk of allowing election fraud to take place sounds like sensible party politics to me.

He referred to his opponent, Mrs Clinton, as "the devil".
Click to expand...

Yes, this was clumsy wording but IMO nothing more sinister than that. He used the phrase "deal with the devil" with respect to Bernie Sanders and wanted to make it clear that the deal had been done with Hillary. IMO this has been blown out of all proportion.

His top spokeswoman said policies put in place in 2009 by President Barack Obama were responsible for the 2004 death of Capt Khan.
Click to expand...

This is poor research - then again maybe he could persuade some veterans who have been turned off by the Khan affair to return to the fold with this.

Mr Trump said he would advise his daughter to find another job if she were the victim of sexual harassment. He was discussing the recent ousting of Fox News boss Roger Ailes after allegations of sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

It can be really, really difficult to prove sexual harassment in the workplace and sometimes companies resort to dragging the victim's name through the mud in and attempt to discredit them. Its important that people who sexually harass at work, and the companies who seem to tolerate it are brought to book but not everyone has the necessary fortitude to follow it through.

Maybe in cases where the harassment is not necessarily that clear cut and/or cases where the victim is vulnerable, pursuing the case through the courts is not the in the best interests of the victim and instead changing jobs may be the least worst alternative.

Of course it would be different if the workplace was properly unionised and the union could fight the case on behalf of the employee. Even then it may still be a good idea to change jobs if the legal action has residual effects for the employee or even if working there continues to bring back memories of the harassment.

Mr Trump was handed a Purple Heart - a medal given to wounded members of the US military - at a campaign rally in Virginia. "I always wanted to get the Purple Heart," Mr Trump said. "This was much easier." The comments have drawn criticism from veterans' groups online.
Click to expand...

In more skilled hands, these exact same comments could have come across as the candidate being humbled by the veteran's service and sacrifice and highlighting that the veteran got his Purple Heart the hard way while receiving it as a gift was the easy way.

Mr Trump joked that a mother and her crying baby should be ejected from the Virginia rally. "You can get the baby out of here," he said from the stage.
Click to expand...

It was a joke, albeit one in poor taste :rolleyes:


Look I'm all for pointing out when Trump has made some sort of gaffe but making mountains out of molehills and suggesting that every single one is putting the campaign in crisis is, IMO, diluting the message and means that serious gaffes (like the Khan affair) may be handwaved away with the less serious, and indeed irrelevant ones.
 
The Don said:
According to this BBC story, Clint Eastwood will be voting for Donald Trump. I was not surprised at Eastwood's comments:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36968053

..for some people perhaps it is being able to go back to the casual racism of yesteryear :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Clint Eastwood is 86, when he was growing up some parts of America had segregated drinking fountains, segregated schools, lynchings, and tried to prevent laws allowing mixed-race couples to marry. Does he not remember this? Has he been spending more time talking to empty chairs?
 
The Don said:
Is he obliged to do this ? Both Ryan and McCain have been critical of Trump - I don't see it as unreasonable that he should delay, or even refuse, to endorse people who are so openly critical of him.
Click to expand...

No, he's not obliged to do this. He had the freedom to do everything he did this week. It's a free country.

But the press doesn't always do a good job of saying just what went wrong in every case. What went wrong in this case was not just that he didn't endorse the candidates, but the manner of his non-endorsement. He made it clear that he was throwing his weight around and retaliating against what he perceived of as previous sleights. It shows his thin skin and vindictive nature. They said nasty things (in his mind) about him, so he has to hit back. Such a man is unfit to be President.


Yes, Trump has handled this very badly and it has rightly backfired on him. He has had many opportunities to "de-escalate" and he has chosen time and again to up the ante.
Click to expand...

Bingo. He can't back down. He can't admit mistakes. He can't be self critical and revisit his own decisions in the light of new evidence. It's not part of his character. I don't want such a man making life or death decisions.



The voter ID laws which were struck down were put in place by Republican-led state legislatures. Voter ID seems to be a hot issue for Republicans and so suggesting that bu striking down these laws, the judiciary are at risk of allowing election fraud to take place sounds like sensible party politics to me.
Click to expand...

If that's what he is getting at, there's a small degree of logic to it. Maybe it's bad press coverage that I didn't know that's what he was referring to. As it is, it just sounded paranoid. Trump often sounds paranoid. I think he's paranoid. Bad trait for a President.

And does anyone else keep seeing Charles Foster Kane in Donald Trump?


IMO this has been blown out of all proportion.
Click to expand...

On this point, I must agree. However, I'll hedge that a little. Presidential candidates, and Presidents, have to be aware that their every word is meaningful. Trump is a loose cannon.

This is poor research - then again maybe he could persuade some veterans who have been turned off by the Khan affair to return to the fold with this.
Click to expand...

This is no research, and no knowledge. This is Trump screaming "It's not my fault!" like the little child he resembles.
Look I'm all for pointing out when Trump has made some sort of gaffe but making mountains out of molehills and suggesting that every single one is putting the campaign in crisis is, IMO, diluting the message and means that serious gaffes (like the Khan affair) may be handwaved away with the less serious, and indeed irrelevant ones.
Click to expand...

In the primaries, this worked for him. . It's the "make so many gaffes that each new gaffe isn't worth reporting" strategy. I think it will work for his core supporters, but the falls into the "You can fool some of the people all of the time" category.
 
The Don said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36968053

Mr Trump's rocky week so far:
Mr Trump declined to endorse fellow party members House Speaker Paul Ryan and Arizona Senator John McCain in their coming elections.
Click to expand...

Is he obliged to do this ? Both Ryan and McCain have been critical of Trump - I don't see it as unreasonable that he should delay, or even refuse, to endorse people who are so openly critical of him.
Click to expand...
Trump is under no obligation to endorse anyone. Although both Ryan and McCain have (reluctantly) endorsed Trump, Trump could have explained his non-endorsement by telling the reporter he doesn't want to interfere in their Republican primaries. Instead of doing that, he got cute and drew attention to his non-endorsement of two party leaders who have endorsed Trump despite Trump's pointedly personal criticism. That infuriated Reince Priebus, and served only to confirm the Democratic story about Trump being so flawed and divisive that many leading Republicans have either refused to endorse him or have done so reluctantly.

The Don said:
Republican Vice-Presidential Nominee Mike Pence broke with his running mate and endorsed Mr Ryan.
Click to expand...

Isn't that part of the role of the Vice Presidential candidate, to do things for the benefit of the campaign that the Presidential candidate cannot ? I thought that one of the reasons to choose a particular running mate was to broaden the appeal of the ticket ?
Click to expand...
Pence was free to endorse and did so, but said Trump had encouraged him to do so. Coming on the same day as the story about Trump's overly cute non-endorsement of those same people, that made it look like an attempt to limit the damage caused by Trump's interview. Coming on the same day as reports of frustration and poor morale within Trump's campaign and some kind of "intervention" planned by Republican leaders outside of that campaign, it had the indirect effect of appearing to confirm those reports.

Coming on the same day as several serious gaffes that gave credence to Democrats' criticism of Trump's character and fitness for office, the endorsement brouhaha gave even more credence to those criticisms. By themselves, in the context of a more competent campaign, the endorsement gaffes would have been minor.

Ninja'd by Meadmaker, but I'll post anyway.
 
After doing some deep lurking in public Facebook comment threads last night, I think it is safe to say that Trump has a very solid lock on the conspiracy theorist demographic.
 
Upchurch said:
After doing some deep lurking in public Facebook comment threads last night, I think it is safe to say that Trump has a very solid lock on the conspiracy theorist demographic.
Click to expand...
Makes sense. He is after all a conspiracy theorist himself.
 
Melania was an illegal immigrant.

While Trump and her husband, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, have said she came to the United States legally, her own statements suggest she first came to the country on a short-term visa that would not have authorized her to work as a model. Trump has also said she came to New York in 1996, but the nude photo shoot places her in the United States in 1995, as does a biography published in February by Slovenian journalists.

The inconsistencies come on top of reports by CBS News and GQ Magazine that Trump falsely claimed to have obtained a college degree in Slovenia but could be more politically damaging because her husband has made opposition to illegal immigration the foundation of his presidential run.
Click to expand...
 
The inconsistencies come on top of reports by CBS News and GQ Magazine that Trump falsely claimed to have obtained a college degree in Slovenia but could be more politically damaging because her husband has made opposition to illegal immigration the foundation of his presidential run.
Click to expand...

She's not brown enough for that to matter.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Not true.
Click to expand...

True.

sunmaster14 said:
The charges weren't brought because the FBI director and the DOJ chose to rewrite the statute, which they are not authorized to do in principle. In practice of course they can do anything they want. All anybody else can do is whine about it.
Click to expand...

They brought no charges because she hadn't done anything wrong. They said so.

sunmaster14 said:
Would you mind if a family of 10 Syrian refugees moved into your house then?
Click to expand...

My house isn't that big. But one or two could fit in here.
 
Travis said:
True.



They brought no charges because she hadn't done anything wrong. They said so.
Click to expand...

You don't think being "extremely careless" with top secret information is wrong? It's actually so wrong that there's a statute that makes it a felony.

My house isn't that big. But one or two could fit in here.
Click to expand...

Oh, I have no doubt that 10 more people could fit in there, and those 10 would be quite happy to do it. In many poor regions of the world, people live 10 to a small room and have to crap outside in the street. In any case, you said that people have a right to live whereever they want, so it wouldn't really be up to you decide how many people would be happy to fit in your house. I suppose you would have a right to move out though.
 
sunmaster14 said:
You don't think being "extremely careless" with top secret information is wrong? It's actually so wrong that there's a statute that makes it a felony.
Click to expand...

How is that going for you? Any indictments yet?


Oh, I have no doubt that 10 more people could fit in there, and those 10 would be quite happy to do it. In many poor regions of the world, people live 10 to a small room and have to crap outside in the street. In any case, you said that people have a right to live wherever they want, so it wouldn't really be up to you decide how many people would be happy to fit in your house. I suppose you would have a right to move out though.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that people from poor regions of the world would defecate
in the street if invited to live in someone's home?

Are you trying to say that refugees from war torn countries are barbarians,
and as such would just take over someone's house?

Please cite some evidence of Syrian refugees using the street to defecate.

When would Travis give up the rights to his home and how many refugees
would live there?

Really, what are you trying to say?
If I got it wrong, please correct me.
 
The Don said:
The same BBC article I quoted earlier summarises Trump's "rocky week" so far - I think it's unfair in parts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36968053....
Click to expand...
Are you saying the reporting is unfair or the fact Trump's poll numbers tanked is unfair?

The voter ID laws which were struck down were put in place by Republican-led state legislatures. Voter ID seems to be a hot issue for Republicans and so suggesting that bu striking down these laws, the judiciary are at risk of allowing election fraud to take place sounds like sensible party politics to me.
Click to expand...
Sensible party politics to promote more manufactured fear mongering? I think the report was saying striking down the laws denies Trump the benefit of supressing the minority vote.

Yes, this was clumsy wording but IMO nothing more sinister than that. He used the phrase "deal with the devil" with respect to Bernie Sanders and wanted to make it clear that the deal had been done with Hillary. IMO this has been blown out of all proportion....
Click to expand...
Trump has a long history of name calling. It has worn thin.

It can be really, really difficult to prove sexual harassment in the workplace and sometimes companies resort to dragging the victim's name through the mud in and attempt to discredit them. Its important that people who sexually harass at work, and the companies who seem to tolerate it are brought to book but not everyone has the necessary fortitude to follow it through.

Maybe in cases where the harassment is not necessarily that clear cut and/or cases where the victim is vulnerable, pursuing the case through the courts is not the in the best interests of the victim and instead changing jobs may be the least worst alternative....
Click to expand...
What is it about victim blaming that you don't understand?

Your post is an example of why Trump still has a following.
 
sunmaster14 said:
You don't think being "extremely careless" with top secret information is wrong? It's actually so wrong that there's a statute that makes it a felony.....
Click to expand...
It must be hard for people to find out their view of reality doesn't pan out.

If it was such a serious felony, why has no one before Clinton who did the same thing been prosecuted for the same thing?
 
varwoche said:
A brief tally... Lied about her education, lied about her background as an athlete, plagiarized a speech, and now her immigration facts in doubt. Match.com couldn't have done a better job finding a like-minded mate.
Click to expand...

The "athlete" lie was his first wife, Ivana, who was on a non-existent Olympic team.
 
Stacko said:
Melania was an illegal immigrant.
Click to expand...

Except for my current sadness and horror at the state of US politics, this report seems exceptionally worthy of a huge bag of popcorn.

I can't wait to see Mr T asked about this in an interview. Will he send his current wife back where she came from? Will Mrs T provide documentation as to her arrival and work status in the US?

Maybe some Russian hackers can get the complete details?

:popcorn6 :popcorn6 :popcorn6 :popcorn6
 
Good morning Stacko.
Stacko said:
Barron is an anchor baby.
Click to expand...
Technically, aren't his kids with Ivana also "Anchor Babies."? She didn't become a naturalized citizen until 1988, after Donald Jr, Ivanka, and Eric were born here in the states. This doesn't really mean anything me personally but I just wondering where someone like Donald Trump draws the line. From Wiki
They had three children: Donald John Jr. (born December 31, 1977), Ivanka Marie (born October 30, 1981), and Eric Fredrick (born January 6, 1984)
Click to expand...
 
JPK said:
Good morning Stacko.

Technically, aren't his kids with Ivana also "Anchor Babies."? She didn't become a naturalized citizen until 1988, after Donald Jr, Ivanka, and Eric were born here in the states. This doesn't really mean anything me personally but I just wondering where someone like Donald Trump draws the line. From Wiki
Click to expand...

No. Anchor Babies have nothing to do with the parents having not yet become citizens. Anchor Babies are children of "illegals" who by being born in the US are automatically citizens and can "sponsor" their parents as "immediate family", later.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Are you saying the reporting is unfair or the fact Trump's poll numbers tanked is unfair?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that the reporting is unfair. They've padded the list to make it looks like there have been lots of "incidents" when in fact many of them IMO are perfectly explainable and not that bad.

IMO it's much more effective to focus on those areas where he genuinely has screwed up.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Sensible party politics to promote more manufactured fear mongering? I think the report was saying striking down the laws denies Trump the benefit of supressing the minority vote.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely true that voter ID rules lead to minority voter suppression, but it's also mainstream GOP policy in many states. Trump is hardly crazy to promote mainstream GOP policy.

Skeptic Ginger said:
Trump has a long history of name calling. It has worn thin.
Click to expand...

He has, I just don't necessarily think that this is an example.

Skeptic Ginger said:
What is it about victim blaming that you don't understand?

Your post is an example of why Trump still has a following.
Click to expand...

How is it victim blaming to suggest that there may be circumstances under which it would be less traumatic for the victim to try to move on than to attempt to get redress against the likely odds ?

A single person with limited resources attempting to tackle a well funded corporation over an incident where the prima facie case is weak may be well advised to walk away instead of getting involved in years of legal wrangling which could leave them bankrupt and with their personal and professional reputation in tatters.
 
Good afternoon. foolmewunz.
Foolmewunz said:
No. Anchor Babies have nothing to do with the parents having not yet become citizens. Anchor Babies are children of "illegals" who by being born in the US are automatically citizens and can "sponsor" their parents as "immediate family", later.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I wasn't clear on the definition as its really not something I ever think about or am concerned with.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
... IMO it's much more effective to focus on those areas where he genuinely has screwed up.
Click to expand...

Well, there's his repeated flailing about with regards to nuclear proliferation in reference to the hottest point on the planet in terms of this form of risk (East Asia), his acquiescence to changing international borders by force (Ukraine), and his backtracking on NATO treaty obligations (Baltic states). Quite enough.

The man is entirely unfit for POTUS. Analyze nearly any other aspect of his policies and persona, and it gets worse.
 
How is it victim blaming to suggest that there may be circumstances under which it would be less traumatic for the victim to try to move on than to attempt to get redress against the likely odds ?
Click to expand...

His answer presumed there would be no adjustment and that all adjustments would be the responsibility of the victim. "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" is not an appropriate response to sexual harassment. That this is his answer suggests that sexual harassment accusations in his organization is not not taken seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom