- Mar 30, 2007
- 151,234
- 202,672
***Official Political Discussion Thread***
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by rico x hood,
- Start date
- Jan 12, 2013
- 26,843
- 38,464
To be fair, those type of negotiations (if they are happening in this case) generally don't appear in the press. His administration could have been working behind the scenes like in other cases.
It's certainly fair to say that unlike other similar cases, Trump hasn't said a word on this publicly, nor has the WH stated that Trump raised the issue in any of his latest calls with Putin.
- Dec 15, 2012
- 17,264
- 27,199
I wonder how much of Trumps current decline is from taking Hydroxychloroquine.
- Jul 18, 2013
- 32,880
- 81,664
They were probably giving him Hydroxycut
- Feb 24, 2016
- 12,114
- 12,759
Or all that Sudafed catching up with him
- Jul 16, 2017
- 22,590
- 16,313
Trump is the healthiest president of our time
- Jan 11, 2014
- 8,620
- 17,207
thats prob why hes looking so lean and fit lately.
- Mar 27, 2004
- 18,386
- 34,061
1) Gorsuch trying to trick RBG into retiring. 81D chess 
2) Trump has that hydroxyglow. You know, the triad of fatal arrhythmias, right-sided hemiparesis, and a rapist wit.
3)
2) Trump has that hydroxyglow. You know, the triad of fatal arrhythmias, right-sided hemiparesis, and a rapist wit.
3)
- May 25, 2004
- 30,345
- 40,894
How has his fit and dapper self not had a heart attack yet?
addy, Sudafed, hydroxycut, injecting bleach!
omg fittest man on earth! Heart of a lion.
addy, Sudafed, hydroxycut, injecting bleach!
omg fittest man on earth! Heart of a lion.
- Mar 30, 2007
- 151,234
- 202,672
- Jul 16, 2017
- 22,590
- 16,313
Do
dont believe it unless they filmed the test being done and is confirmed by 3 independent doctors. Fake news
dont believe it unless they filmed the test being done and is confirmed by 3 independent doctors. Fake news
aepps20
Supporter
- Feb 8, 2004
- 42,565
- 90,842
Plus you were there to personally witness the test and you got Rona too.
yobyellav
formerly cord15
- Sep 12, 2006
- 12,939
- 9,820
1) Gorsuch trying to trick RBG into retiring. 81D chess
2) Trump has that hydroxyglow. You know, the triad of fatal arrhythmias, right-sided hemiparesis, and a rapist wit.
3)
Freudian slip.....
- Jan 12, 2013
- 26,843
- 38,464
Genius
I'm not sure if he realized this but he just found the cure for cancer. Just never get screened.
I'm not sure if he realized this but he just found the cure for cancer. Just never get screened.
yobyellav
formerly cord15
- Sep 12, 2006
- 12,939
- 9,820
And people think that’s the guy who should lead the nation. That’s scary.
What are your general thoughts on this?Supreme Court rules workers can’t be fired for being gay or transgender
Supreme Court rules workers can't be fired for being gay or transgender
In a landmark ruling for LGBT rights, the Supreme Court said workers cannot be fired for being gay or transgender.www.cnbc.com
- Dec 30, 2006
- 12,011
- 3,294
I think it was the right decision.
The dissenters focused on the fact that the ruling (even if "right") amounts to legislation from the bench. And such decisions should be reserved for Congress.
While this is a valid critique, the public policy arguments outweigh it.
- Mar 30, 2007
- 151,234
- 202,672
- Dec 15, 2012
- 17,264
- 27,199
But if I were to systematically not hire, say lesbians, or discriminate against that group, am I not discriminating on the basis of sex anyways? Like what if my religion says I can only date males? Wouldn't I then be discriminating on religion as well? It seems like the law was intended to be overly broad so people didn't just find a billion different ways to discriminate.
If I systematically decided I wasn't going to hire Karen's because of the negative connotation that has come along with that certain type of people in the last year, wouldn't I then be discriminating on the basis of sex? It just seems redundant to make congress pass a law every time someone finds a new way to be a piece of ****.
- Dec 15, 2012
- 17,264
- 27,199
- Jun 28, 2004
- 6,978
- 17,056
The Supreme Court is political and conservatives see it as even more political than liberals. Gorsuch engaged in smart politics in a few ways:
1.) this helps republicans in the upcoming election. Despite the stereotype of LGBT people all having high incomes and being deeply politically engaged, there are a lot of non or marginally engaged, low income LGBT people. Since the Democrats will mostly be running a negative anti Trump campaign and Democrats lost a particular issue to campaign on. It’s not a huge thing electorally but it’s something.
2.) this is court packing insurance. These people have lifetime appointments and they can look beyond the election cycle. If Biden gets elected and Democrats win the Senate. Trump and McConnell will quickly replace Thomas. Democrats will spend four or eight years just replacing liberal judges with liberal judges. The court will still be 5-4 conservative.
Now if Biden is replaced by Tom Cotton, no problem for the conservatives on the court. If Biden is replaced by AOC and there are big Democratic majorities, there will be progressive legislation which the court will block. Then there will be an intra party fight among Democrats and several years of occasional pro LGBT rulings will act as insurance against court packing. enough moderate Dems will be able to accuse pro court packing progressives of having a class first agenda and not caring about the courts’ role as a protector of LGBT rights.
3.) conservative judges don’t really care about the fate of LGBT people (is except their LGBT relatives) so if the political situation demands it, conservative judges will throw them under the bus. What matters most to the conservative judges are economic issues. There primary task is to finish of what remains of the new deal, labor unions and environmental and labor regulations. If you want to see a class reductionist, look at the right wing of the Supreme Court.
- Oct 28, 2013
- 42,742
- 178,556
- Sep 24, 2015
- 7,613
- 13,093
Please, pretty please, tell me someone asked the delusional press secretary about this? I'd love to hear how she spins this?
I'm trying to read through some of Gorsuch's opinion, but the way I understand what he's saying is in line with your first sentence. One of his examples is that if you have two people that are attracted to men (one is a woman and one is a man), and you fire the man for being attracted to men, you have discriminated based on sex because you would otherwise tolerate a woman being attracted to men.
I don't mean to oversimplify but I think his argument essentially comes down to discriminating against someone who is LGBTQ is discriminating against that individual because of their sex.
- Mar 30, 2007
- 151,234
- 202,672
Similar threads
