***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[gry60]

If this ain’t a wake up call for dude for that dude...son got that mindset from the people he associate with

This is the danger of accepting to be held up as the good negro. Then, they teach their kids that they have to work twice as hard as non-black folks to get the same awards and they end up internalizing inferiority wrt their peers. **** that ****.

 

[aepps20]

That kid lost already. In 20 years he gonna be completely denying his blackness and claiming he got Taino blood.

Will he also be posting on a sneaker message board saying that the 2040 census will prove him right?

 

[AEA18]

 

[aepps20]

Is that JFK'S killer in that gif?

 

[Belgium]

I didn't read the full majority opinion but Gorsuch actually made a really good argument in the majority opinion of the LGBT workplace protections ruling.

The text of the law indeed doesn't refer to sexuality at all, nor did it intend to. To bridge that gap, Gorsuch provided a great example.
I don't recall the exact details but it basically goes like this:

Employee A is a good employee who is married to a man. If the employer is intent on discriminating based on sexuality, then what changes the scenario in this example is whether Employee A is a man or a woman. Thus sex is the defining factor in this hypothetical, because there would be no issue to the employer if Employee A, married to a man, was a woman.
It's a fantastic and simple argument that bypasses the counter-argument that the letter of law strictly refers to sex-based discrimination.

Very smart thinking from Gorsuch.

 

[whywesteppin]

I didn't read the full majority opinion but Gorsuch actually made a really good argument in the majority opinion of the LGBT workplace protections ruling.

The text of the law indeed doesn't refer to sexuality at all, nor did it intend to. To bridge that gap, Gorsuch provided a great example.
I don't recall the exact details but it basically goes like this:

Employee A is a good employee who is married to a man. If the employer is intent on discriminating based on sexuality, then what changes the scenario in this example is whether Employee A is a man or a woman. Thus sex is the defining factor in this hypothetical, because there would be no issue to the employer if Employee A, married to a man, was a woman.
It's a fantastic and simple argument that bypasses the counter-argument that the letter of law strictly refers to sex-based discrimination.

Very smart thinking from Gorsuch.

You know the hilarious thing though? MAGAs are criticizing Gorsuch, not because of his position on this issue, but they thought his justification was too simplistic and not serious enough.

Like their side comes through with a logical argument finally, and they're like, "what the **** are you doing."

 

[whywesteppin]

I always knew 2pac was a big fan of Trump! The hip hop intellegensia has spoken.

 

[harlemtothebronx]

I didn't read the full majority opinion but Gorsuch actually made a really good argument in the majority opinion of the LGBT workplace protections ruling.

The text of the law indeed doesn't refer to sexuality at all, nor did it intend to. To bridge that gap, Gorsuch provided a great example.
I don't recall the exact details but it basically goes like this:

Employee A is a good employee who is married to a man. If the employer is intent on discriminating based on sexuality, then what changes the scenario in this example is whether Employee A is a man or a woman. Thus sex is the defining factor in this hypothetical, because there would be no issue to the employer if Employee A, married to a man, was a woman.
It's a fantastic and simple argument that bypasses the counter-argument that the letter of law strictly refers to sex-based discrimination.

Very smart thinking from Gorsuch.

Very interesting way to look at it and almost impossible to debate.

Meant to read the full decision. Thanks for reminding me.

 

[NickFolarin]

Beautiful speech Trump. You Biden Batches can't say nothing negative about the Donald this time

THIS GIF

 

[Bronson]

.

 

[NickFolarin]

Is that JFK'S killer in that gif?

No that's the Zodiac killer

 

[IATT]

the vid

 

[Belgium]

That can't be right, president Trump suggested he was an Antifa operative who set up the police

 

[aepps20]

the vid

NO LIES DETECTED

 

[junglejim]

I wonder what started the decline

 

[rolaholic]

Jesus christ

Both countries have been getting into border skirmishes for decades now after they last fought a war over it but this is the first time I've heard of one of this scale and casualty count like that since I can remember.

Really hope cooler heads and de-escalation efforts prevail as they usually tend to but the nationalist hawks in both countries are probably gonna be asking for more blood to be spilled

 

[aepps20]

I wonder what started the decline

Obummer and racism against our President ELECT for being orange.

 

[IATT]

 

[aepps20]

 

[junglejim]

You gotta change that Avy. I don't need that ***** in my nightmares

 

[whywesteppin]

You gotta change that Avy. I don't need that ***** in my nightmares

where is that Karen from?

 

[dwalk31]

Trump signs executive order on police reform

Trump signs order on police reform, doesn't mention racism

WASHINGTON (AP) — Following weeks of national protests since the death of George Floyd, President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday that he said would encourage better police practices.

apnews.com

 

[NickFolarin]

where is that Karen from?

Hell

 

[nerw32]

Trump signs executive order on police reform, appeasing police and Toms alike.

Trump signs order on police reform, doesn't mention racism

WASHINGTON (AP) — Following weeks of national protests since the death of George Floyd, President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday that he said would encourage better police practices.

apnews.com

Don't worry I fixed that headline for you.

 

[junglejim]

where is that Karen from?