Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
19 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

I don't know why, but the visual of some Trumpkin hearing that hundreds of thousands of people have signed up for a rally in a 19k capacity stadium and then deciding they they too need to sign up for tickets is hilarious to me.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I’m so certain one *million* people are trying to get tickets for a 19,000 seat arena in Tulsa Oklahoma in the middle of a pandemic. 

19,000 rounds up to million ya stupid libtard

Edited by Bevo14
Posted

hottaek: i totally believe that 1,000,000 in a ruby red boring ass state surrounded by ruby red boring ass states during the boring ass coronavirus lockdown would respond to some email saying 'reply today for your chance to win 2 tickets plus transportation plus hotel!' which would be close enough for the dotard to claim 1MM+ requested tickets

  • Like 1
Posted

Supreme Court just banned employers from discriminating against gay & transgender employees.  6-3 ruling, authored by Gorsuch, also joined by John Roberts + the left-leaning judges.

Donald Trump is not going to be happy.

Does this effectively make gay & transgendered Americans protected classes?

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, brown water said:

I was honestly lukewarm on Biden but nonetheless 100% voting for him. As this shit plays out I increasingly believe Biden’s DC tenure may be his biggest asset. A knowledge about properly functioning government and a Rolodex to capably refill positions will be critical to unfucking trump’s damage. 

Take it from Lindsey.

 

Edited by WhatTheBuck
  • Like 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Supreme Court just banned employers from discriminating against gay & transgender employees.  6-3 ruling, authored by Gorsuch, also joined by John Roberts + the left-leaning judges.

Donald Trump is not going to be happy.

Does this effectively make gay & transgendered Americans protected classes?

Executive Order coming up making it illegal to be gay or transgender?

Posted
5 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

because of how his ads are going to say the next election is important to ensure a soooper conservative court

Well, this case is done.  I suppose the Civil Rights Act could be overturned in the future, but as far as it stands right now, the Supreme Court has nothing more to do with it.

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Supreme Court just banned employers from discriminating against gay & transgender employees.  6-3 ruling, authored by Gorsuch, also joined by John Roberts + the left-leaning judges.

Donald Trump is not going to be happy.

Does this effectively make gay & transgendered Americans protected classes?

The language of the statute technically provides the protected classes, and they are:

race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,

"sex" now includes gay and tg, or, more broadly, sexuality and gender.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted

So how does that work...you buy a ticket to a 19,000 seat stadium, and if they’re available you get one. Then, when they aren’t available for the other 6 million, what happens? 
 

side note: I somehow ended up on a republican phone list and am getting absolutely hammered by donation solicitations, all of which end by saying “5x MATCH TODAY ONLY!” I’m assuming there is a 0x chance of said match...could someone sue and seek discovery on that 5x match?

Posted
9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The language of the statute technically provides the protected classes, and they are:

race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,

"sex" now includes gay and tg, or, more broadly, sexuality and gender.

Right, that was my take on it.  I'm surprised they went that way, but there you have it.

Posted (edited)

completely redefines 42 USC §1983...it's a huge, historic ruling.

Quote

“An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions.  That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating  against that individual based on sex.”

 

Edited by Kyrie Eleison
  • Like 1
Posted
50 minutes ago, Bevo14 said:

19,000 rounds up to million ya stupid libtard

That's how Trump does his books as well.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Who dissented?  Our boy Kavanaugh of course.

Yes and Alito and Thomas. The asshole wing of the court. 

Posted
16 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

So how does that work...you buy a ticket to a 19,000 seat stadium, and if they’re available you get one. Then, when they aren’t available for the other 6 million, what happens? 
 

side note: I somehow ended up on a republican phone list and am getting absolutely hammered by donation solicitations, all of which end by saying “5x MATCH TODAY ONLY!” I’m assuming there is a 0x chance of said match...could someone sue and seek discovery on that 5x match?

If you're a non-profit and do one of those challenge grants/challenge fundraisers where your donation can be matched 2:1 or 5:1 or whatever...and it ends up not being true, you can lose your 501c3/c4 status in a heartbeat.  Not just getting a bad charity rating, it means the Feds turn off your status and your books become a nightmare.  Now if the person or foundation that put up the challenge money suddenly is in a bad financial situation and you both can demonstrate that materially affected the campaign, you can call off the challenge and return the money to any donor who felt misled (we've had to do this once at a very large Texas foundation, 95% of the donors told us to just keep the money and understood the larger party hit a big roadblock financially on their end and couldn't follow through). 

Anyway, the rules for political campaigns and PACs to this effect do not yet exist.  It's wild wild west.  If that many Trump donors believe sending in $500 to the church because the prosperity gospel says it will bring them thousands of dollars in return, do you really think it's that hard to convince them that their $50 donation will be met 5:1 by some mystery MAGA donor.  Shit, I give them credit for restraining themselves to 5:1.  Prosperity gospel usually runs at a 10-20x multiple.  

Posted
9 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Probably not the best idea to delegitimize the purpose behind the protests and compare it to a fucking campaign rally

Well it makes sense through the lens of fomenting civil war.  Us vs them.

Posted
16 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Damn straight! Stick to your guns Donnie. Show those commie bastards. Jam a million of your supporters in there. Then do it again. And again. And again.

  • Like 3
Posted
18 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

so, that is essentially true.  fair is fair.  There was a lot of coverage on Dallas media about how the church seating was packed together for is rally/police round table.  But I think one important distinction is that 85% of protesters are wearing mask (if not higher) and maybe 10% trumpers are wearing masks to these events.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Thrawn said:

Damn straight! Stick to your guns Donnie. Show those commie bastards. Jam a million of your supporters in there. Then do it again. And again. And again.

Might as well fill the stadiums up to capacity and let God sort it out. Just hold those Covid parties far the fuck away from me.

  • Like 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, gyroprotagonist said:

so, that is essentially true.  fair is fair.  There was a lot of coverage on Dallas media about how the church seating was packed together for is rally/police round table.  But I think one important distinction is that 85% of protesters are wearing mask (if not higher) and maybe 10% trumpers are wearing masks to these events.

A big important distinction is Indoor vs Outdoor.

The Trump campaign could squash the criticism by just holding the rallies outdoors but that would require Trump and Trumpkins being outdoors in the Summer. Death by Covid or Heat stroke and they will definitely choose death by Covid because Fat people.

 

Posted (edited)

Saw this tweet this morning and had a flashback to the "economic anxiety" post-election analysis from the media. Has there ever been a more wrong assessment of a group of voters? 

 

Edited by Bruh Man
Posted
2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Supreme Court has a lot of “Fuck off”s in it today.

 

They're smart enough not to get pulled into the quagmire right now.

Posted
43 minutes ago, Kyrie Eleison said:

completely redefines 42 USC §1983...it's a huge, historic ruling.

 

Yep.  THIS language:

Quote

“An individual’s homosexuality or transgender status is not relevant to employment decisions.  That’s because it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating  against that individual based on sex.”

....is just so big.  It's what my argument in favor of prohibiting bans on same-sex marriage was based on for years, and it's what I WISH Kennedy had written in that decision (Obergefell v Hodges).

If you want to get married to Steve, I cannot deny you that right based on YOUR gender as a male.  So, prohibitions on same-sex marriage were absolutely an equal protection violation, as they denied a fundamental right on the basis of the gender of the participants.

The reasoning here is no different.

I can't make a hiring decision based upon your private, at-home sexual practices.  Say you really love to suck dick and take anal from your significant other.  If your name is Susan*, that's fine.  If your name is Steve, I can refuse to hire you because that makes you gay.  No, it just makes you someone who loves to suck dick and take anal from your significant other -- the hiring decision discriminates because that's okay if you are female, but not okay if you are male.

I haven't read the entire decision, but that quoted language is the gist of the entire issue with any discrimination in any context based on homosexuality.  What's okay if a person is one gender magically becomes not okay, and a valid basis for discrimination, if the person is of another gender.  The SCOTUS just said "NOPE, can't discriminate based on gender, including here."

 

* Please note that the character of Susan is mostly fictitious.  She's a unicorn.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, RPM said:

COVID-19 is only serious if you have underlying health problems like overweight, smoking, diabetes and the like. Trumpkins have nothing to worry about.

The most fucked up part of this is Trump and company leading these people into this situation and how enthusiastically the Trumpkins are following him off of a cliff.

No concern whatsoever being shown for his people. Fuck, hold the damn rallies outdoors and charge an extra $20 that will guarantee a free Trump face mask.

This shit is definitely making the history books.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Yes and Alito and Thomas. The asshole wing of the court. 

Anytime Thomas chooses this side of a discrimination cases I hope someone reminds him that not too long ago his marriage was considered illegal. Until some liberal crazy SCOTUS ruled differently. I guess that same compassion isn't extended to others.

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, F250 said:

The most fucked up part of this is Trump and company leading these people into this situation and how enthusiastically the Trumpkins are following him off of a cliff.

No concern whatsoever being shown for his people. Fuck, hold the damn rallies outdoors and charge an extra $20 that will guarantee a free Trump face mask.

This shit is definitely making the history books.

 

MV5BNThiZTVlNGItNWY3OC00NzAxLTg3MTEtZWRj

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Biff Tannen said:

Who dissented?  Our boy Kavanaugh of course.

Kavanaugh - Let's not make law here.


Kavanaugh on Qualified Immunity Review - I see nothing wrong here.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

"Special Event"....lol let me get my popcorn ready for this.

 

Meh, if there were actual substance to this, we wouldn't be waiting a whole week to hear it.  He had his shot during impeachment.  Fuck that guy.

  • Like 9
Posted

Bolton dropping a bomb on Trump on Father's Day?  Well played, John.  Still, I'm not holding out hope on anything.  All he's gonna do is hint at what he might have said to the Senate had be called to testify.  But Trumpers will point, and validly so, that what he says to ABC news doesn't hold 10% the weight of what he would have testified about because there's no threat of perjury.  Close as he's gonna get is teasing out something Sunday or in his book that gets the House to compel him to testify.  Rubio would also possibly consider bringing him in if Florida wasn't a toss-up right now.  

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...