mclumber1

12 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Hi, it’s me, the structural inequality baked into our political economy. You may remember me from classic hits such as “redlining”, “segregation”, and “generational poverty”. Now, my roles may seem antiquated, but nothing has been done to alleviate these issues since they’ve been legally abolished, so I’m still surviving on my residuals. 

Hello!  None of what you said changes the fact that if a person applies themselves, builds up their skillset, knowledge, and/or experience, they should be passed up for a job or other opportunity because of some historical injustice that they personally didn't take part in.  

13 minutes ago, ort said:

My understanding is that many pro athletes are hardcore right wingers. Come for the tax breaks & hardline meritocratic ideology... and stay for the culture war garbage!

There is nothing wrong meritocracy. 

The US House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a bill that would effectively ban TikTok from America unless the current owners can sell their stake in the app within the next 6 months.  The bill will now go over to the Senate.  And if it's passed by the Senate, President Biden has promised that he would sign the bill into law. 

Isn't Rodgers some kind of chud?  If so, this is great news for Biden, as a Kennedy/Rodgers ticket would potentially siphon votes from Trump to a greater degree than from Biden.

3 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

The anti therapy tone here y’all 

Therapy is helpful.  Our own daughter goes to therapy and it's been really good for her.  I do think that our niece's particular therapist was a poor fit.

2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

And under no proposed or existing solution would she have had surgery or taken puberty blockers in that timeframe.

I'm not well versed on the laws or policies concerning these things, I'll admit.  Quickly looking into it, the state where our niece lives, gender affirming care (including hormone treatments) are available to minors with parental consent.  I was just offering an anecdote about a family experience.

My niece was convinced she was a boy after going to therapy, and went as far as legally changing her name to a boy's name.  She changed her mind and wanted to be a girl again about a year later, and thankfully didn't take any type of hormones or have any surgeries during that time period.   

Aren't most people who live on Crimea ethnic/linguistically Russian?  I thought that was one of the reasons why the 2014 invasion of the island was such a cakewalk for Russia. 

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

All the policy did was move algebra 1 from 8th grade optional to a 9th grade class. The results were mixed in terms of meeting its goals. Yall are boomering the topic 

 

San Francisco Insisted on Algebra in 9th Grade. Did It Improve Equity?

WWW.EDWEEK.ORG

---

The policy change improved access to some courses. But racial inequities at the most advanced levels of math remain largely unchanged.

 

But how does lowering the bar help anyone?  I still think it was shortsighted for us as society to replace equality with equity.

2 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

There is definitely some sort of thing between the Mexicans that are already here, and the people coming across the border in 2024. Some of the worst shit I’ve ever heard about migrants came from my 2nd generation Mexican friend Sergio.

But this isn't a new thing.  Fully integrated Americans generally have a negative view of those coming here (illegally or not).  100 years ago, the sentiment towards Italian immigrants was pretty dim, and those new comers were called some pretty vulgar things.  100 years later, the descendants of those Italian immigrants don't want new people coming here, because in their minds, they are undesirable.

Today's immigrants from Latin America were yesterday's immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and Russia, among other places. 

Nothing wrong with calling someone here illegally, an illegal in my opinion.  Especially someone who allegedly murdered someone.

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

Probably the same person that taught you english.

 

 

I was raised in the streets

Oh my vapors! A centrist!

Who's bright idea was it that getting rid of algebra would help with equity?  lmao

I'll keep my 4% Las Vegas humidity, thank you.

ArticleV.gif

Who knew that another liberal justice would have the balls to outdo Ginsberg in hubris?

This is potentially good for the Democratic candidate though. 

15 minutes ago, Jason said:

The part about "creating a chaotic state-by-state patchwork" is total BS because that's an inherent part of saying states get to decide how to run their elections. Off the top of my head, individual state rules for federal office elections include:

 

• New York has fusion voting.
• California has jungle primaries.
• Alaska has ranked choice voting (which was explicitly implemented for the express purpose of trying to fuck over Murkowski).

 

How many signatures you need to get on the ballot depends on what state you're in. Most states do primaries, but some do caucuses. Some states allow mail-in and/or early voting, some only allow in-person day-of voting for the vast majority of voters. Etc etc etc.

Congress has the Constitutional authority to completely takeover federal elections.  But they won't, because reasons. 

3 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

So if States can't enforce the requirements for Federal Office does this mean those who don't qualify (not over 35 years old for example) get ballot access? 

 

Trump wins 2024 -> States unable to block him from the ballot in 2024 for a 3rd term-> Trump wins -> is SCOTUS or Congress at certification going to "overthrow the will of the people"? 

A person doing that would screw over the party they represent.  Hypothetically, if they won the election, they would be unable to serve. 

I'm not surprised and I'm not even upset.  This was the only tenable decision, even if I really wanted him to be ineligible because he is an insurrectionist. 

One of the arguments that Trump has put forward is that a President cannot be prosecuted criminally UNLESS they are first impeached and removed from office.  

Quote

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The problem with this argument presented by Trump is that it would apply to ALL officers of the United States, not just the President.  That would mean that every single person who is subject to the impeachment process would be immune from criminal prosecution unless they were first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate.  There have been numerous instances of Executive branch officers and judges who have been arrested, tried, and convicted in criminal court.  

1 hour ago, Firewithin said:

he should step 6ft under instead 

Turtles hibernate though.  Do you want him to emerge from his turtle hole 20 years from and take his leadership position again??

39 minutes ago, best3444 said:

 

Of course. It's not good but I'll stop commenting any further because I know ow what I'm dealing with here. Even the interviews you linked are not good. He's staring info space and barely remembering what he rehearsed. But I won't comment any further. So if you comment back I'll just ignore it. 

We don't need this place to turn into (more of) a circle jerk.  I'd encourage you to keep commenting, even if it means you encounter resistance.  

Seriously, this ruling truly is a gift for the Democrats com November.