LOL, no joke. Those types believe the ignorant maliciously spread BS coming from the lips of a pathological lying psychopath/sociopath, so go figure. The facts are simple.... Trump's a pathological liar. Trump's a con and grifting felon. Trump will say anything to get a vote, then do what he wants after he gets their vote. It's a con game. Trump's plan is simple. It really has nothing to do with making America great. He's made that clear in conversations and comments over time. He wants 3 things.... Unlimited Power Unlimited Wealth and Living Like a King Unlimited Terms as President Immunity From Prosecution for Life
Thanks, but this is pretty generic. Can you point to any specific statements of mine which would be proof of "being woefully ignorant of American history and how laws and government policies have evolved leading to today"? (full disclosure, I am from Europe, but I do have Master of Law degree from the US (which included lectures in comparative constitutional law) and got admitted to the New York Bar (although a long time ago and I never practiced))
Give me a few days to post search. Apologies for the ask, but I will. Off the top of my head, I think you started the DEI must die thread. I'm far from the biggest fan of DEI, but I think a good discussion about it has been overrun by partisan preferences. There's a good quality discussion to be had about the idea and how much structures that have been influenced by past policies have impact on today. And to he fair, I did not read that whole thread, but I generally eye roll at statements in threads like that. I don't know if you commented on the Baltimore bridge collapse, but I remember reading people and commentators blaming the "DEI mayor" of Baltimore and I was just mind blown. Like, I couldn't even understand the logic.
I do think - for various reasons - that DEI - despite the positive-sounding name - has turned into something VERY bad. Happy to discuss that. Not sure how that would be grounds for your sweeping statement. Sure - please take as much time as you want to post search. I surely make provocative posts, am genuinely curious how you would substantiate your statement. I did comment - I had not made a single political comment on what happened when "dipshit moron" fan @astros123 blamed me as "anti-black" because some random tweeter had made a "DEI mayor" comment - which I oppose, and I in fact posted to oppose it.
I agree that DEI in many cases have gone too far, but I do think there is a nuanced discussion to be had about it with a worthwhile backdrop not of racism, but the pervasive influence of racial policies. Similar things been be said for Voting Rights debate vs Voter ID debate. I probably shouldn't have written woefully as that was hyperbole. I'll get to it later.
I will take you up on that sometime. My profession is architecture but I’m history and philosophy nerd.
What's wrong with having voter ID? Lets get back to meritocracy instead of DEI Also if the government did to illegals what they did to women and children in Waco there would be no immigration issues.
Unlike ATW, who I think trolls partially and is serious partially, I don't think you're trolling at all. So I'm going to be straight forward here. I'm actually fine with Voter ID laws as long as free options are afforded to the poor. It took the most conservative appellate court (5th circuit) striking down Texas' voter ID laws twice as a violation of the VRA before it was changed enough to be compliant with national law. As stated, I do think many DEI initiatives went too far, but the programs that made sense were not about disregarding merit. Having diversity as important in itself in preparing for the real world in certain studies has value (the justice O'Connor opinion). That applies not only to the education system, but also in representational government. The more important reason, imo, is to help remedy the decades of governmental racial oppression via Jim Crow laws, gerrymandering, racial restrictive covenants, redlining, and other programs with long-term impacts. Perhaps a more refined way of enacting programs in higher education (as suggested by by some of the conservative Supreme Court Justices) to help descendants of slaves and those who suffered under Jim Crow is a better way of implementing diversity programs that are more constitutionally sound. I would be in favor of that. As for the Waco comment, I get the idea, but wonder if you're trolling. Our immigration laws are outdated for sure, but no law passed by Congress authorizes DHS to shoot illegal crossers who are mostly looking to surrender and declare asylum. Maybe the laws will change under Trump and a new Congress, but until then, you're basically saying shooting and burning illegal immigrants will solve the immigration issue, and you know, there are a lot of problems with that thought. And it wouldn't solve all things either, imo.
