US Democrats upset that the Supreme Court has voted, by majority, that racism isn't ok anymore
- Thread starter Caracus2k
- Start date
Last edited:
Soldato
It probably has had its time but it was put in place for very good reasons. This is a country where 57 years ago Jim Crow was the law in many states. That didn't suddenly end with the Civil Rights Act, attitudes like that take generations to eliminate. Clarence Thomas of course benefited from it when he got into Yale, as did Ketanji Brown Jackson. It does seem at least that educational institutions have moved past that dark part of American history even if many parts of the country haven't. I doubt the ruling will make much difference moving forward.
I did see an interesting thread on Twitter. Someone suggesting that Congress should pass a law banning any federal funds going to universities that allow for lobbying or legalised bribes for students to attend. People should be admitted on merits alone and not on who they know or how much their family can donate.
I did see an interesting thread on Twitter. Someone suggesting that Congress should pass a law banning any federal funds going to universities that allow for lobbying or legalised bribes for students to attend. People should be admitted on merits alone and not on who they know or how much their family can donate.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,563
Sounds like 40 million voters upset with a conservative majority supreme court to me...
Soldato
Lets not kid ourselves that has anything to do with LGBTQ rights. Its just about Christian fanatics rights and them using their religion to object to how others live their lives. If this was a Muslim objecting on their religious grounds it would have been laughed out of the SC.
Just spent 10 minutes trying to find a tweet from yesterday where a journalist tracked down the person who is claimed to have asked for the website for the gay marriage. Turned out he was straight, already married and is a designer so would never have asked for a website or anything else to be designed.
It would have been a throughly immoral policy if enacted.
The Democrats have been slapped down with three of their trash policies blocked over the past few days now
1) an attempt to maintain actual systemic, institutional racism in the United States - blocked
2) an attempt of transferring debt from some of the richer and actually more privileged in society to some of the less fortunate and poorer members - blocked
3) the same old nonsence or trying to compel creative enterprises to create products that go against their personal beliefs /values. - blocked
Last edited:
Permabanned
Has Sleepy Joe worked out where all the money that's haemorrhaging out of the US is going to or does he still think it's the Iraq war again today? God save the Queen, man.
Soldato
So who's left holding the can once the debt has been 'forgiven'?
Yep, that seems sensible. The dumber commentary has been along the lines of "herp derp but but why didn't the court do anything about legacy admissions" as if that had anything to do with the case or the US Constitution.
Legacy admissions for the kids of alumni and Dean's list for the kids of wealthy donors don't break anything constitutional re: discrimination on the grounds of race AFAIK but it is an unfairness that could be dealt with politically by Congress.
On one hand, they're private institutions so can choose to give special advantages to people who pay them money, on the other hand, the Federal Government pays them plenty of money and perhaps would like some fairer treatment for all the kids of US taxpayers in return... and these private institutions can then decide if they wish to forgo receiving federal funding and see it go to their rivals or if they'd like to rethink the whole legacy thing.
And yet it's their constitutional right to refuse someone's business regardless, all this does is re-enforce that.
You would think that though
Gather you couldn't find it then..
it's my understanding that legacy admissions fall in line with the racial demographic of the US anyway.
Someones almost inevitably going to bring up PPP 'loans' so best to address that stupid talking point now....
Its a ridiculously stupid comparison to contrast loan forgiveness which was the the *EXPLICIT/ STATED BEFOREHAND* intention of the CARES act, ***WHICH WAS AUTHORISED BY CONGRESS ACTUALLY IN A TIME OF EMERGENCY***
with an act ***NOT AUTHORISED BY CONGRESS***, not timed to coincide with a time of relevant emergency and which was not part of the intention under which student loans were given!
Here's the CARES act, which has a whole section on the circumstances in which loan forgiveness would be provided.
PPP loans were given to all sorts of businesses, including those were Democrats had a finical interest in/ or ownership of and the Democrats pushed for the whole process of applying for loan forgiveness to be simplified!
Some Democrat whoose firms benefited from Loans:
- Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), net worth $77 million, received a $135,800 loan for his Geniecast, LLC.
- T.J. Cox (D-Calif.), net worth $11.8 million, received $609,825 for two of his 26 businesses.
- Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), net worth $10.9 million, is tied to a loan of $1,100,000.00 that went to a law firm where her husband is chairman emeritus, Lowey Dannenberg P.C.
- Earl Blumenaeur (D-Ore.), net worth $4.5 million, received $432,734 for his two companies.
- Paul Pelosi, the husband to House Speaker Nanci Pelosi (D-CA) is linked to a company that say millions in loan forgiveness. Two loans given to EDI Associates, a restaurant based company totalled $711.708 and $996.392 respectively, both forgiven
Biden's actions in attempting to have student load forgiveness were so contrary to what was deemed acceptable that he had even gone against the stated prior views of one of the most senior members of his own party
Basically Congress authorised a bill, with bi partisan support, which had the expressed intention from the outset that any money provided would not be paid back if it was used as the bill intended it.
The transfer was only called a loan so as to reinforce the principle that money could be recovered if not used as intended.
This is nothing like student loans.
Last edited:
What a bizarre claim.... of course exactly the same sort of provisions/protections would apply to a Muslim business
Just spent 2 weeks in the Good Ol US of A.
One thing that struck me watching the various news channels is that there seems to be quite a strong backlash going on against all things "woke".
Many quite senior people being interviewed and openly opposed to anything trans for instance. Then there is the whole anti-Gay Florida thing going on which again is being driven by front line politicians. If any of ours said the sort of stuff I heard last week they would be well and truly cancelled.
One thing that struck me watching the various news channels is that there seems to be quite a strong backlash going on against all things "woke".
Many quite senior people being interviewed and openly opposed to anything trans for instance. Then there is the whole anti-Gay Florida thing going on which again is being driven by front line politicians. If any of ours said the sort of stuff I heard last week they would be well and truly cancelled.
Soldato
Gays should simply create a religion and that being gay is part of their religion. At that point these cases which are only being bought by Christians on religious grounds would be moot and they'd be protected, the court has said you can't be discriminated against on religious grounds. At some point people will catch on and use their tactics against them.
Suspended
OMG the melt down in here today from all the lefties is off the scale.
Assume you haven't seen the usuals on twitter and Reddit wishing death on those that voted in favour of the 3 decisions?
Permabanned
The poor old gentleman has all but gone gaga, he isn't fit to be out alone, let alone be president of the United States
