"how often Democrat politicians choose appointments and promotions based on race, sex, and sexuality, knowing full well that it is illegal to do that."
As opposed to Republicans doing the same thing? You don't recall Trump choosing Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS because she was a woman and George Bush I choosing Clarence Thomas because he was black?
"how often Democrat politicians choose appointments and promotions based on race, sex, and sexuality, knowing full well that it is illegal to do that."
As opposed to Republicans doing the same thing? You don't recall Trump choosing Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS because she was a woman and George Bush I choosing Clarence Thomas because he was black?
Yeah you can blame Republicans for occasionally doing that also OR, if you arenтАЩt a fundamentally dishonest person, you can blame the totalitarian Democrat retard assholes holding an identity politics pistol to the side of their head.
What youтАЩre doing is the exact same as standing next to a looted building thatтАЩs on fire and saying
тАЬLook this conservative also has a BLM sign in his window so itтАЩs both sides!!!тАЭ
Dammit. Did I forget to add "Oh, and fuck off, Kevin," just to prevent this sort of banshee bandsaw attack against my perfectly worded statement? My bad, bro :-)
So now you are just going to lie about how you tried to bothsides identity politics even though people can just scroll up 2.5 inches and see you doing it??
Yes, and I explained quite clearly, including a colorful analogy, how it is both reprehensibly dishonest, and also flat-out retarded, to pretend that these two things are the same, which is *precisely* what you are doing.
I 100% would never expect shame from someone who is willing to equate the people operating within the constraints of a diabolically evil and perverted society, with the Nazi pieces of shit who created the conditions of said society through psychopathic manipulation and extortionate tactics.
Republican and Democratic leaders are the same "Nazi pieces of shit who create the conditions of said society blah blah belch," they just wage their battles on different fronts of the Culture Wars. Democrats weaponize DEI and cancel-culture. Republicans weaponize abortion bans and drag queen story hours.
If you don't know that you're an idiot. If you do and won't admit it, then you're evil.
Shit, son, I thought that's what we were discussing. The OP suggested that ONLY Democrats appoint people on basis of sex and race. I responded by pointing out it's not unique to Democrats because Republicans do it too. Which is correct; they do.
If you're referring more specifically to which party currently has more assholes per square inch roaming the halls of power, then it's Democrats hands-down. So we might be in agreement after all. Which, as you know, I hate.
My TED talk on abortion would electrify and delight the world, though.
Well, THANK GOD you posted that, because I was beginning to fear that I actually HAD to hire people because they were black or female, regardless of their qualifications. You know. Diversity and inclusion, and all.
For the record, I could care less WHO or WHY they hire who them do, as long as they prove qualified. Like the two examples you offer.
Huh. I must have missed something. As a lawyer who practiced constitutional law for 35 years and taught it at a law school I always found Thomas's opinions well-reasoned even when I disagreed with them. And having rich friends who are generous to you is neither criminal nor unethical unless you allow such generosity to influence your legal opinions. There is no evidence of that at all, and I'm in a position to know that no one on the Court or who actually knows Thomas believes that for a second. Perhaps you can explain "stain."
1. Taking bribes wins the gold medal for judicial bad conduct.
2. Appearing to take bribes even when you haven't wins silver.
3. See Nos. 1 and 2.
I happen to agree with some of Clarence Thomas's opinions and disagree with others, so I'm not judging his judicial ability. Everyone is going to agree and disagree with any judge, no matter who that judge might be.
But his gift-taking smells as bad as perch in a Dumpster. "Having rich friends who are generous to you is neither criminal nor unethical unless you allow such generosity to influence your legal opinions." That is not what the public believes about judges who accept vast amounts of money from "friends." The public is right--the optics are poisonous to public trust, and justices work for us, not the other way around.
Your statement may be technically true--I'm not a lawyer--but accepting as many gifts and trips as he has from Harlan Crow and others is ghastly for someone on the single highest court on the land. Same with Samuel Alito; such gifting should be forbidden. Why? Because this court must not only BE wise and ethical, it must be seen as wise and ethical. Taking dough from rich "friends" sends precisely the opposite message.
SCOTUS positions are unelected and lifetime. Their rulings cannot be challenged. They are as close to royals as America gets. Because of that, justices need a strong ethics code that disallows taking gifts from anyone other than immediately family, and even then only up to X amount, with every single gift value-assessed and reported.
If a SCOTI can't abide by that ethical conduct, then he or she can decline a spot on that bench. They need to choose what's more important to them: a Supreme Court position or the ability to take money from friends. With all the lawyers in this land who'd kill for that job, we can afford to be insist on the former.
Taking tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and "forgetting" to report them? The public considers that bribery, regardless of what statutes say. If the President of the United States cannot legally accept gifts, neither should anyone on the Supreme Court.
Accepting gifts from someone who has business before the Court in exchange for allowing your legal opinion in his case to be influenced is unethical and illegal.
Accepting gifts from a friend who has business before the Court can, depending on the facts and circumstances, create the appearance of impropriety even if such gifts are not intended to and do not in fact influence any opinion.
Accepting gifts from a friend who has no business before the Court whatsoever is not improper at all no matter how generous the friend or lavish the gifts. It is the appearance of impropriety only to those who cannot think very clearly.
My thinking is exceptionally clear, counselor. Any justice who accepts gifts as large as Clarence Thomas did should remain in private practice, not on the Supreme Court.
To think otherwise is to be blind as to how much accepting those gifts tarnishes the image of SCOTUS as being an impartial arbiter of facts.
Perhaps your own thinking is muddied by being part of that institution for most of your life. Gift-taking of such magnitude looks bad to the public, period, which is why presidents are forbidden to accept them.
To dismiss the publicтАЩs suspicion of ulterior motives as тАЬonly to those cannot think very clearlyтАЭ is the arrogance that makes the public write off our institutions as тАЬto hell with them all, theyтАЩre all corrupt.тАЭ
The notion that a judge should be prohibited from benefiting from the generosity of a close friend when neither such friend nor his generosity has any reasonable or discernable connection with the judge's duties is grounded not in reason but in envy. I also believe you are mistaken about the rules for US Presidents, at least as they pertain to domestic gifts.
By arrogant I donтАЩt mean you personally. You seem quite thoughtful to me given our conversation. But the public is less and less trusting of SCOTUS, and wide-open gift-taking makes it worse. The practice should end now.
Unless a private company has been found guilty of discrimination in race or gender hiring practices, or has federal contracts with DEI clauses built into them, government can't dictate who private companies hire and can't mandate DEI training.
It appears that your company swallowed the DEI Kool-Aid all on its own, and it is regurgitating that poison onto you. My condolences, and I'm serious--you shouldn't have to sit through that stuff when there's real work to be done.
Shane, you are a fool. I think I was very specific. There is no DEI at my company (my company, no Kook-aid]. My mistake for [satirically] responding to your rediculous post. Racial-based hiring is wrong, even if you have DEI contracts. Please. No more replies. I won't make the mistake again.
No, Rich, I'm not a fool. If you want a more intelligent exchange, then say what you mean clearly so I don't misread it. Your "satire" was anything but, so I assumed you wanted a serious reply, which is how this exchange went into the Dumpster.
It's fair to say it's the Ivy League graduates on both sides pushing identitarian bigotry and moral revolution. But looking outside of political leadership, I'm also referring to businesses and other institutions, and I find it ridiculous to suggest that Republican leaders are as identitarian in their judgements as Democrats are. But I am definitely opposed to any and all forms of ethnic social engineering by political leadership, regardless of the party doing it.
I say this on the day that my company announced a new mandatory DEI training course along with a suggested series of additional supplemental material. I already know these trainings explicitly support hiring and promotion on the basis of sex and race. I'm required to be "educated" on why this is moral truth.
Don't tell me Democrats aren't abusing my rights. I work in a politically hostile environment that explicitly tells me that Marxism and identitarian bigotry are morally superior.
"I find it ridiculous to suggest that Republican leaders are as identitarian in their judgements as Democrats are."
It's not ridiculous--Republicans are just as vicious as Democrats in using identity politics to get ahead. They're only in different areas of the Culture Wars.
That's a massively broad change of subject and ignoring the fundamental point about ethnic and sexual discrimination being inherently wrong.
Republicans are not discriminating to anywhere near the same extent as institutional Democrat leadership. This newsletter has reported extensively on the specific mechanisms of who, how, and why. I view your denial and deflection as a form of support for the abuse.
If you work for a private company, "Democrats" aren't abusing you. Your bosses are. As for "rights," you have none unless you're in a union.
That's not to say that DEI isn't a steaming bowl of crap. It is. But in a private workplace, you have to eat it with a smile or find a new job. Sad commentary on the American way of work.
Not true, Shane! Our Plastic Injection Molding Co. (not Union, with very satisfied employees!) placed an add for a machine operator, no experience required, weтАЩd train.
A Black man applied, but after a tour of our Plant, said he didnтАЩt want to run a machine, but heтАЩd work in the office. The Plant had no AC and the small office did.
We employed Black, Mexican (legal!) and women, with no concern about who they slept with!
He turned us in to OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health AdministrationтАЭ and the IRS! It was a nightmare but after about 6 months resolved in our favor.
This isn't the same thing, Honey. I was talking about DEI training in a non-union environment. If your company's management ordered its workers to attend mandatory DEI training, your workers would have to do it or risk being terminated.
But this case wasn't about DEI; it was about a jackass of an applicant trying to extort you. The government ruled in your favor and against the jackass. Good for government for sticking up for your rights.
Shane, I stand corrected. My point was just that even without DEI or Unions (which, BTW, our employees voted against organizing, bc they are paid & treated VERY well!) Companies arenтАЩt always just free to discriminate. Does that happen, surely, but I donтАЩt think everyone understands the employer/ company owner doesnтАЩt have free rein - at least not if they want to run a successful business.
YouтАЩre welcome, Honey, a pleasure chatting with you. Yes, companies walk a fine line in hiringтАФ-they donтАЩt have to do DEI training, but if they donтАЩt, they might be accused of discrimination. ItтАЩs tough running a business these days. IтАЩm glad mine is a one-man shop: me. IтАЩm a swell boss and employee:-)
They get away with the illegal behavior because they know Democrat schools, politicians, lawyers and judges will back them up and defend them, as we have seen countless times.
Every one of the layers of corporate ownership in my business stack is from a city that represents a Democrat powerhouse. It's not mutually exclusive to say "it's your bosses" and also "it's the Democrats".
"how often Democrat politicians choose appointments and promotions based on race, sex, and sexuality, knowing full well that it is illegal to do that."
As opposed to Republicans doing the same thing? You don't recall Trump choosing Amy Coney Barrett for SCOTUS because she was a woman and George Bush I choosing Clarence Thomas because he was black?
Yeah you can blame Republicans for occasionally doing that also OR, if you arenтАЩt a fundamentally dishonest person, you can blame the totalitarian Democrat retard assholes holding an identity politics pistol to the side of their head.
What youтАЩre doing is the exact same as standing next to a looted building thatтАЩs on fire and saying
тАЬLook this conservative also has a BLM sign in his window so itтАЩs both sides!!!тАЭ
ЁЯдбЁЯдбЁЯдбЁЯдб
Dammit. Did I forget to add "Oh, and fuck off, Kevin," just to prevent this sort of banshee bandsaw attack against my perfectly worded statement? My bad, bro :-)
So now you are just going to lie about how you tried to bothsides identity politics even though people can just scroll up 2.5 inches and see you doing it??
ЁЯджтАНтЩВя╕ПЁЯджтАНтЩВя╕ПЁЯджтАНтЩВя╕ПтЬКЁЯП╜тЬКЁЯП╜
I have no need to lie, since both sides engage in identity politics.
Yes, and I explained quite clearly, including a colorful analogy, how it is both reprehensibly dishonest, and also flat-out retarded, to pretend that these two things are the same, which is *precisely* what you are doing.
Oh, dear, you're right and I'm wrong and I'm ashamed at being retarded and thus drawing the ire of The Mighty Kevin? . . .
. . . said me never.
I 100% would never expect shame from someone who is willing to equate the people operating within the constraints of a diabolically evil and perverted society, with the Nazi pieces of shit who created the conditions of said society through psychopathic manipulation and extortionate tactics.
Republican and Democratic leaders are the same "Nazi pieces of shit who create the conditions of said society blah blah belch," they just wage their battles on different fronts of the Culture Wars. Democrats weaponize DEI and cancel-culture. Republicans weaponize abortion bans and drag queen story hours.
If you don't know that you're an idiot. If you do and won't admit it, then you're evil.
You are now changing the subject to тАШboth sides are bad generallyтАЩ which is not what we were discussing.
IтАЩm sure your abortion Ted Talk will be great. IтАЩll watch it later.
Shit, son, I thought that's what we were discussing. The OP suggested that ONLY Democrats appoint people on basis of sex and race. I responded by pointing out it's not unique to Democrats because Republicans do it too. Which is correct; they do.
If you're referring more specifically to which party currently has more assholes per square inch roaming the halls of power, then it's Democrats hands-down. So we might be in agreement after all. Which, as you know, I hate.
My TED talk on abortion would electrify and delight the world, though.
Well, THANK GOD you posted that, because I was beginning to fear that I actually HAD to hire people because they were black or female, regardless of their qualifications. You know. Diversity and inclusion, and all.
For the record, I could care less WHO or WHY they hire who them do, as long as they prove qualified. Like the two examples you offer.
I didn't say a thing about private sector hiring. The issue was "politicians choosing appointments based on race, sex, and sexuality."
I might agree with you that Barrett is doing a good job. Thomas, though, is an stain on the court that no amount of Comet can scrub away.
Huh. I must have missed something. As a lawyer who practiced constitutional law for 35 years and taught it at a law school I always found Thomas's opinions well-reasoned even when I disagreed with them. And having rich friends who are generous to you is neither criminal nor unethical unless you allow such generosity to influence your legal opinions. There is no evidence of that at all, and I'm in a position to know that no one on the Court or who actually knows Thomas believes that for a second. Perhaps you can explain "stain."
I'm happy to "stain" myself:
1. Taking bribes wins the gold medal for judicial bad conduct.
2. Appearing to take bribes even when you haven't wins silver.
3. See Nos. 1 and 2.
I happen to agree with some of Clarence Thomas's opinions and disagree with others, so I'm not judging his judicial ability. Everyone is going to agree and disagree with any judge, no matter who that judge might be.
But his gift-taking smells as bad as perch in a Dumpster. "Having rich friends who are generous to you is neither criminal nor unethical unless you allow such generosity to influence your legal opinions." That is not what the public believes about judges who accept vast amounts of money from "friends." The public is right--the optics are poisonous to public trust, and justices work for us, not the other way around.
Your statement may be technically true--I'm not a lawyer--but accepting as many gifts and trips as he has from Harlan Crow and others is ghastly for someone on the single highest court on the land. Same with Samuel Alito; such gifting should be forbidden. Why? Because this court must not only BE wise and ethical, it must be seen as wise and ethical. Taking dough from rich "friends" sends precisely the opposite message.
SCOTUS positions are unelected and lifetime. Their rulings cannot be challenged. They are as close to royals as America gets. Because of that, justices need a strong ethics code that disallows taking gifts from anyone other than immediately family, and even then only up to X amount, with every single gift value-assessed and reported.
If a SCOTI can't abide by that ethical conduct, then he or she can decline a spot on that bench. They need to choose what's more important to them: a Supreme Court position or the ability to take money from friends. With all the lawyers in this land who'd kill for that job, we can afford to be insist on the former.
Taking tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and "forgetting" to report them? The public considers that bribery, regardless of what statutes say. If the President of the United States cannot legally accept gifts, neither should anyone on the Supreme Court.
Accepting gifts from someone who has business before the Court in exchange for allowing your legal opinion in his case to be influenced is unethical and illegal.
Accepting gifts from a friend who has business before the Court can, depending on the facts and circumstances, create the appearance of impropriety even if such gifts are not intended to and do not in fact influence any opinion.
Accepting gifts from a friend who has no business before the Court whatsoever is not improper at all no matter how generous the friend or lavish the gifts. It is the appearance of impropriety only to those who cannot think very clearly.
My thinking is exceptionally clear, counselor. Any justice who accepts gifts as large as Clarence Thomas did should remain in private practice, not on the Supreme Court.
To think otherwise is to be blind as to how much accepting those gifts tarnishes the image of SCOTUS as being an impartial arbiter of facts.
Perhaps your own thinking is muddied by being part of that institution for most of your life. Gift-taking of such magnitude looks bad to the public, period, which is why presidents are forbidden to accept them.
To dismiss the publicтАЩs suspicion of ulterior motives as тАЬonly to those cannot think very clearlyтАЭ is the arrogance that makes the public write off our institutions as тАЬto hell with them all, theyтАЩre all corrupt.тАЭ
The notion that a judge should be prohibited from benefiting from the generosity of a close friend when neither such friend nor his generosity has any reasonable or discernable connection with the judge's duties is grounded not in reason but in envy. I also believe you are mistaken about the rules for US Presidents, at least as they pertain to domestic gifts.
Envy. Of course. Why didn't I think of that? There couldn't possibly be an ethical concern over this level of gift-giving to the Supremes.
By arrogant I donтАЩt mean you personally. You seem quite thoughtful to me given our conversation. But the public is less and less trusting of SCOTUS, and wide-open gift-taking makes it worse. The practice should end now.
Is there a difference? A different standard for racial-based hiring in government vs the private sector?
Unless a private company has been found guilty of discrimination in race or gender hiring practices, or has federal contracts with DEI clauses built into them, government can't dictate who private companies hire and can't mandate DEI training.
It appears that your company swallowed the DEI Kool-Aid all on its own, and it is regurgitating that poison onto you. My condolences, and I'm serious--you shouldn't have to sit through that stuff when there's real work to be done.
Well, it's my company and there is no Kool-Aid is sight. You clearly miss the point. Mine AND yours.
Moving on to more intelligent banter.
Intelligent? It's YOUR company. Why on Earth are you making your employees and yourself do the DEI dance?
Shane, you are a fool. I think I was very specific. There is no DEI at my company (my company, no Kook-aid]. My mistake for [satirically] responding to your rediculous post. Racial-based hiring is wrong, even if you have DEI contracts. Please. No more replies. I won't make the mistake again.
No, Rich, I'm not a fool. If you want a more intelligent exchange, then say what you mean clearly so I don't misread it. Your "satire" was anything but, so I assumed you wanted a serious reply, which is how this exchange went into the Dumpster.
Don't worry, though, I won't bug you any more.
Take care. Now, I have Kool-aide to mix.
LOL! We were having two conversations about two separate things and neither of us was aware. I'm sorry that happened, truly.
I'm doubly delighted you don't have to mess with DEI. It's one of the worst things to come down the pike in generations of workplaces.
It's fair to say it's the Ivy League graduates on both sides pushing identitarian bigotry and moral revolution. But looking outside of political leadership, I'm also referring to businesses and other institutions, and I find it ridiculous to suggest that Republican leaders are as identitarian in their judgements as Democrats are. But I am definitely opposed to any and all forms of ethnic social engineering by political leadership, regardless of the party doing it.
I say this on the day that my company announced a new mandatory DEI training course along with a suggested series of additional supplemental material. I already know these trainings explicitly support hiring and promotion on the basis of sex and race. I'm required to be "educated" on why this is moral truth.
Don't tell me Democrats aren't abusing my rights. I work in a politically hostile environment that explicitly tells me that Marxism and identitarian bigotry are morally superior.
"I find it ridiculous to suggest that Republican leaders are as identitarian in their judgements as Democrats are."
It's not ridiculous--Republicans are just as vicious as Democrats in using identity politics to get ahead. They're only in different areas of the Culture Wars.
That's a massively broad change of subject and ignoring the fundamental point about ethnic and sexual discrimination being inherently wrong.
Republicans are not discriminating to anywhere near the same extent as institutional Democrat leadership. This newsletter has reported extensively on the specific mechanisms of who, how, and why. I view your denial and deflection as a form of support for the abuse.
"I view your denial and deflection as a form of support for the abuse."
Enjoy your time in DEI school. I hope they serve snacks.
If you work for a private company, "Democrats" aren't abusing you. Your bosses are. As for "rights," you have none unless you're in a union.
That's not to say that DEI isn't a steaming bowl of crap. It is. But in a private workplace, you have to eat it with a smile or find a new job. Sad commentary on the American way of work.
Not true, Shane! Our Plastic Injection Molding Co. (not Union, with very satisfied employees!) placed an add for a machine operator, no experience required, weтАЩd train.
A Black man applied, but after a tour of our Plant, said he didnтАЩt want to run a machine, but heтАЩd work in the office. The Plant had no AC and the small office did.
We employed Black, Mexican (legal!) and women, with no concern about who they slept with!
He turned us in to OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health AdministrationтАЭ and the IRS! It was a nightmare but after about 6 months resolved in our favor.
This isn't the same thing, Honey. I was talking about DEI training in a non-union environment. If your company's management ordered its workers to attend mandatory DEI training, your workers would have to do it or risk being terminated.
But this case wasn't about DEI; it was about a jackass of an applicant trying to extort you. The government ruled in your favor and against the jackass. Good for government for sticking up for your rights.
Shane, I stand corrected. My point was just that even without DEI or Unions (which, BTW, our employees voted against organizing, bc they are paid & treated VERY well!) Companies arenтАЩt always just free to discriminate. Does that happen, surely, but I donтАЩt think everyone understands the employer/ company owner doesnтАЩt have free rein - at least not if they want to run a successful business.
Thx.!
YouтАЩre welcome, Honey, a pleasure chatting with you. Yes, companies walk a fine line in hiringтАФ-they donтАЩt have to do DEI training, but if they donтАЩt, they might be accused of discrimination. ItтАЩs tough running a business these days. IтАЩm glad mine is a one-man shop: me. IтАЩm a swell boss and employee:-)
They get away with the illegal behavior because they know Democrat schools, politicians, lawyers and judges will back them up and defend them, as we have seen countless times.
Every one of the layers of corporate ownership in my business stack is from a city that represents a Democrat powerhouse. It's not mutually exclusive to say "it's your bosses" and also "it's the Democrats".