>But there are questions about Coinbase's commitment to racial justice.
Concern troll political hit-piece.
Concern troll political hit-piece.
One Black employee, cited in the report, said that “her manager suggested in front of colleagues that she was dealing drugs and carrying a gun.” Another Black employee said that a co-worker “broadly described Black employees as less capable” during a recruiting meeting. The company told employees that the story painted "an inaccurate picture.”
"10 alarming things Trump has promised to do in a second term"
Please list the EO numbers and explain your rational of how you arrived there using the text in the EO, rather than some highfalutin opinion written by an activist.
I keep hearing this, but nobody can seemingly answer such a simple question. I can only conclude they are blatant liars and propagandists.
And I don't think the surprise win of 2016 with no GOP machinery backing him out of the gate is going to be a good analog to the preparations that are ongoing right now. He will have far, far more capable people around him, a sense of revenge, and nothing to lose.
The correct answer to "Will you be a dictator?" when asked to a US presidential candidate, is "No." The fact that ridiculous question even had to be asked, and came from someone throwing him a softball (Hannity), and he still couldn't answer it correctly are all serious alarm bells.
And if you look what he said in full context it doesn't seem that bad?
>"You are promising America tonight you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?" Hannity asked.
>"Except for Day One," Trump said.
>When asked to clarify, Trump said he would use the presidency to close the border and increase oil drilling in the U.S.
>"That is not retribution," Hannity said.
>"I love this guy. He says, 'You're not going to be a dictator, are you?' I said, 'No, no, no. Other than Day One.' We're closing the border, and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator," Trump said.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-sean-hannity-dicta...
I agree that it's not a great thing to say as a presidential candidate, but it's tenuous to go from that to "he's going to go full dictator like Xi Jinping/Putin/Maduro/Orban".
1) he is clearly authoritarian (adjective) and
2) there are several answers other than self-control or lack of willpower/desire that could explain the fact he didn’t successfully “become a dictator” in his first term, and some of those components have changed dramatically between then and now
I'm also not going to waste my time indulging in it, but it's worth pointing out for passers-by that that's exactly what this is. It's a low-effort rhetorical gambit designed to waste time demonstrating from first principles something that the questioner isn't going to change their mind about anyway just because somebody more clued-in than said questioner sighed and pulled up EO 13769 to cite chapter-and-verse.
The word "racist" has been so over-used by activists to silence dissenting voices pointing out how brain-dead their ideas really are, that the word has lost all meaning. Just imagine if the word "dumb" had the same effect. How long would it take before it's meaning is completely eroded away to protect indefensible positions? That's is where we are.
I'm convinced there is no legitimate rationale here other than "orange man bad". This is very easy to falsify, but the fact there's a continued refusal to engage in the argument presented speaks for itself.
For all that's been written about Trump, you'd think this should be easy to retrieve. I've personally looked and found nothing, but maybe my methodology was flawed which is why I asked.
If no evidence is provided, it's reasonable to conclude the claims are false.
>These seem like pretty concretely bad and racist things
Nothing about them seems concrete at all? Like, if there was any context and a quote, maybe?
Coinbase is a HN unicorn, created in the US, where the names of all the executives are known. While SBF was running a ponzi.
It's dishonest writing.
The examples are one-sided claims without evidence, and there are many ways they could be "an inaccurate picture". The first case most likely is an inappropriate jocular interjection during casual mutual banter on clothing, music, or a story. The second case could well be a common misinterpretation of meaning during a discussion about affirmative action or DEI policies.