People are avoiding him because to do otherwise is to feed the troll.

No one who uses the argument that there are more covid deaths under Biden than Trump is arguing in good faith. If you don't understand the reason for that you are not capable of a discussion.

If you are arguing that Biden made Covid policy decisions for the economy over safety and somehow believe Trump would not, you are not arguing in good faith. The difference is Biden has advisors and weighs the nuanced effects, like any rational intelligent human being, whereas Trump would do Trump things.

There is no need to dissect the policy for this guy.

Obamacare is still there, last i checked.

It's almost like you can't fix everything in 4 years, especially with midterms.

If it was so easy to undo things, Obamacare would have been dismantled in the first trump term.

But since things weren't fixed fast enough, let's let the people who broke everything back in power again.

The entire premise is BS because Biden has a list of accomplishments from infrastructure to debt forgiveness, progressive drug guidance, progress in gender/race equality, departments like the ftc and irs being competently run again with actual resources, to judge appointments. Hmm I wonder to who's benefit it is to ignore all that and label him "not Trump"?

She did not indicate anything of the sort, just that she did not want to take part in it. Beyond that is speculation. She is asking for documentation proving they did not use her voice without permission to train the AI. That's perfectly fair.

You're hired! - Valve

Definitely reads like an early April fool's

The article is confusing but it sounds like the union wants both C and G at the table, but C and G both agree that C should be the employer and G doesn't need to join the talks. So C is saying, if you really want G to join, you'll have to wait until the appeals are finished.

I'm guessing the union doesn't want to negotiate with C, have C go to G with the terms and G refuse and just causing endless delays in a game of telephone bargaining.

Paying for commute expense is already a solved problem.

Some examples, a fixed amount based on data provided every month for commute. (200 dollars a month or whatever)

Or if a company wants to be both stingy and generous at the same time, make you expense your gas or public transportation every month up to a certain limit.

It doesn't matter if you move to a different part of town. The cost is negligible to a business.

A third party isn't them though. I get what you are saying because LMG writes the check, but realistically that's the best anyone can do. Why would the government get involved? Specifically why would taxpayers pay to help rehabilitate a private company's reputation?

Private independent auditors are in every industry and a standard practice.

Oh, and as long as we're being cynical, let's say you got your wish and a government entity does the investigation. Odds are they would just contract it out to these same people. Same results, only everyone gets to charge more for their services.

Aside from ordering a third party investigator, how else can a company prove to itself and everyone that they are serious about corrective action?

You're essentially saying they are guilty of everything and no matter the findings which haven't even begun, there is a conspiracy. I don't see how that cynicism is productive.

To further this thought, it makes it really easy for any motivated party to profile accounts.

Create an account that posts intentionally politically motivated news or comments.

Rinse and repeat a few times and now you the data you want.