Ploliticts has no place at work. Where I could bring in my banners and yard signs and park them in my office, I will not. I am a professional and I'm not employed by a political campaign so it's NOT part of my job.
If you want to discuss political issues around the water cooler, do so with a huge amount of tolerance and understanding. Do NOT make pronouncements about the "idiots" on the other side. Do NOT argue the hot button issues with co-workers. Now if
What about when one side of the poitical argument is all about destroying the other side at the same as demanding maximum respect while giving zero back?
This a false equivalence. Say one side makes an utterly stupid accusation, the other side has to waste energy defending against that accusation. Both sides look equally irrational because they are both discussing fantasy and not discussing reality. The art in Trumps tactic is to distract otherwise rational people with fantasy so the other side looks like a fool too.
Do you mean like claims of Russian collusion? Gang rapes in high school? Falsely claiming a president refused to visit a military cemetery because the dead there were "losers" and "suckers"? Lying about the FBI thinking a corrupt politician's son's laptop is Russian disinformation?
Which one had more than one actual source? At best you supposedly had two journalists talking to the same anonymous sources. But they are all now thoroughly debunked, and they all were amplified by a bunch of dishonest politicians and media flacks. It's not exactly "one side makes an utterly stupid accusation, the other side has to waste energy defending against that accusation", unless you count the media as part of the side that lied about a facially ridiculous claim.
You are saying both sides are equally bad because both sides are dishonest. That's like saying a Ferrari and a Fiat both have the same top speed because they are both cars.
You asserted something very specific. Substantiate your claim, or the rest of us will conclude that you were lying. It's not my job to prove what you think.
You asserted "[s]ome had multiple trustworthy sources" and refused to even specify which you think those were, much less defend the claim that the sources were trustworthy. They never were trustworthy, but the media acted like partisan operatives and demanded that the country pay attention and talk about those ridiculous claims. And now you fall back on the lazy, intellectually bankrupt tactic of crying racism and accusing me of being a paid troll. Yawn.
Politics has no place at work (Score:4, Insightful)
Are people nuts? Don't take chances at work...
Ploliticts has no place at work. Where I could bring in my banners and yard signs and park them in my office, I will not. I am a professional and I'm not employed by a political campaign so it's NOT part of my job.
If you want to discuss political issues around the water cooler, do so with a huge amount of tolerance and understanding. Do NOT make pronouncements about the "idiots" on the other side. Do NOT argue the hot button issues with co-workers. Now if
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This a false equivalence. Say one side makes an utterly stupid accusation, the other side has to waste energy defending against that accusation. Both sides look equally irrational because they are both discussing fantasy and not discussing reality. The art in Trumps tactic is to distract otherwise rational people with fantasy so the other side looks like a fool too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you mean like claims of Russian collusion? Gang rapes in high school? Falsely claiming a president refused to visit a military cemetery because the dead there were "losers" and "suckers"? Lying about the FBI thinking a corrupt politician's son's laptop is Russian disinformation?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want to fact check every one of those yourself? Some had multiple trustworthy sources, some had one unreliable source.
Pushing internet strangers to do your research for you is poor form.
Re: (Score:2)
Which one had more than one actual source? At best you supposedly had two journalists talking to the same anonymous sources. But they are all now thoroughly debunked, and they all were amplified by a bunch of dishonest politicians and media flacks. It's not exactly "one side makes an utterly stupid accusation, the other side has to waste energy defending against that accusation", unless you count the media as part of the side that lied about a facially ridiculous claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Which one had more than one actual source?
You tell me. I'm not doing your research.
You are saying both sides are equally bad because both sides are dishonest. That's like saying a Ferrari and a Fiat both have the same top speed because they are both cars.
Re: (Score:2)
You asserted something very specific. Substantiate your claim, or the rest of us will conclude that you were lying. It's not my job to prove what you think.
Re: (Score:2)
You made a claim. I proved it was untrue. Now you are trying to change the subject. The "the rest of us" already concluded you are a liar.
I'm wondering if you are really a pro-trump racist nutjob, a paid troll, or you just want to annoy people for attention.
Re: (Score:2)
You asserted "[s]ome had multiple trustworthy sources" and refused to even specify which you think those were, much less defend the claim that the sources were trustworthy. They never were trustworthy, but the media acted like partisan operatives and demanded that the country pay attention and talk about those ridiculous claims. And now you fall back on the lazy, intellectually bankrupt tactic of crying racism and accusing me of being a paid troll. Yawn.
Re:Politics has no place at work (Score:2)
And now you fall back on the lazy, intellectually bankrupt tactic of crying racism and accusing me of being a paid troll. Yawn.
The old tactic of accusing other people of what you are doing to divert attention. That stopped working for Trump, it's not going to work for you.
The liar-in-chief is losing by a landslide because anyone with rudimentary intelligence or above has abandoned him.