MrPurple
MrPurple's JournalWhen should a domestic abuser be fired from work?
The me too movement and the current publicity over Rob Porter has had me wondering about the situation of firing someone over abuse allegations in their personal life, which they haven't been convicted of or charged with. The behavior is reprehensible and I'm not saying that I think it should be tolerated. And, I can see where the decision in the entertainment industry, where the offender is high profile, is straightforward because of bad PR. I guess the same factors apply to working in a White House position.
But, in general, should someone who has been accused of abuse in their personal life be unemployable? In Porter's case, Kelly is at fault for vouching for his character, when he knew about the allegations. But, on the list of horrors of the Trump administration, for me this is about number 50,000.
I think this off with their heads mentality yields an environment, where it's possible to frame a potentially innocent person, like Al Franken. Porter doesn't appear to be innocent, and I'm glad for the Trump administration to be sustaining damage for ANYTHING, but when I see the amount of time MSNBC has given to this yesterday and today, I don't really view it as a positive thing.
What do you think?
Trump on video screens behind Sarah Huckleberry during press conference
Did anyone just see this? The press conference opened with a word from President Trump and while Huckabee stood at the podium, the Dotard spoke on two large screens on either side of the podium about how great his tax cut was and that he's making America Great again more quickly than anyone could have expected.
This seemed pretty 1984'ish. The press conference is in the White House - Trump is in the White House today But, they have him spewing his we're winning talking points on tv screens instead of just walking into the next room to the podium. I'm sure they'd rather not have him in front of the press, likely giving answers about Steve Bannon and the quotes from the new book that will pour more gasoline on the fire. But, this is ridiculous.
Should the Democrats cooperate with Trump on infrastructure projects?
I was disappointed that the Democrats didn't seem to stage more dramatic filibusters of the tax bill, or if they did, they didn't generate much coverage. They really needed to use enough apocalyptic language to generate more coverage, laying down the gauntlet that shorting the treasury (which is already in deficit) by trillions of dollars is going to squeeze out Medicare and Social Security later down the road.
I suspect that Trump's infrastructure bills will just be tax breaks for his crony developers to do glitzier projects while core infrastructure goes mostly unattended (replacing old lead pipes isn't the kind of sexy thing that Trump can put his name on). IMO, every infrastructure hearing needs to be a place where the Democrats drive home how the treasury has just been sacked and that the Republicans have wasted the money that could have been used for infrastructure. Every infrastructure debate should be treated as a negotiation to undo tax law changes that most benefit the wealthy in order to pay for them.
That likely won't succeed, but the messaging needs to repeatedly drive home the specifics of tax law changes that that send money back to billionaires and what that is depriving us of. If you look at the Gallup Daily Tracking poll, Trump's popularity has improved after the tax bill. The Democrats need to drive home what it actually does and lay the groundwork that will make it difficult for Ryan and the Rethugs to claim that "entitlement reform" is needed. The public need to be hit over the head with the message that it's the Republican tax cut for the wealthy that's the reason the Medicare and Social Security will be coming up short and that the remedy isn't program cuts, it's undoing the irresponsible tax code changes.
Profile Information
Member since: Sat Dec 3, 2016, 06:51 PMNumber of posts: 985
