Trump Will Claim Election "Illegitimate" if Dems Win

You only have to be eternally vigilant about gun rights.
Cuz reasons.
Straight, cis, white, man reasons.

...and still waiting for proof that this is happening. Whats the matter? Your talking points memo doesn't cover this? And it's the U.S Constitution, which last time I checked was the law of the land. Show me where that's being weakened and IllI join you in the outrage. Until then you're just blowing dog whistles .

Also, don't even try and compare this to sitting in the back of the bus or whites only drinking fountains. Youre only showing your ignorance of history when you do so.

Gee, you sound just like the gun crowd who claimed that Obama was going to take away their second amendment rights. No evidence of any kind to prove it, but it was a good sound bite that the base wanted to believe. Substitute conservatives and guns with liberals and civil rights and you have the same argument. It's bullshit.

So you didn't know about legislation where gay people can be denied housing? Where transgender people are being denied their identity? You don't see abortion clinics being closed for the purpose of making it extremely difficult for women to get the care they need? Muslims being denied entry into the country? Legal citizens, and immigrants, being deported? Where the fuck have you been?

Surely you know about these things. I mean, if you cared one iota about women, transgender people, Muslims, or immigrants, you wouldn't have had to ask me that question. It's like when oldfella says he hasn't seen any signs of racism or some shit.

Talking points, he says. Holy fuck, he thinks I'm a democrat.

sorry but I never said there wasn't any racism - but not everything involves racism. See the difference? Oh who am I kidding. But regardless I would like to see actual...ya know....facts and numbers about how many muslims were denied (not delayed) entry based only on being a muslim. And deportation under Trump versus under Obama. And how many gays are involved in lawsuits (I assume they are, a young lawyer could really make a name for themselves) for being denied housing only on the basis of being gay. I'm sure it's epidemic under Trump, right?

What I'm talking about is your incredible ability to remain utterly oblivious to everything going on around you. Right now you're doing what you always do, which is asking for evidence that, once provided, will mean absolutely nothing at all to you. You'll go back to being unaware again in a few weeks, maybe a month, when the topic will start up again and you'll wonder what the big deal is, and that you don't see anything wrong in that anecdotal way that absolves you of it all while reinforcing your own perceptions. Everything you just asked? It has been provided by so many here, over and over and over again, ad nauseam. It's as surprising as Dayton demanding to know how gay people are being discriminated against, and people just roll their eyes or throw their hands up in frustration.

It isn't at all difficult to see the slight changes in your reply, the "only on being a muslim," and "only on the basis of being gay," as if there's a form where a bigot just stamps it with:

"Official Bigot Reasons, Check One:"

[ ] Gay
[ ] Muslim
[ ] Black.

It's what lets you remain oblivious, because no matter my answer, you can point to "only," or "solely," or some other qualifier that says but how do you know?

The response will probably be that those things aren't formal rights and therefore they can't be lost.

Yeah, there's always a reason where it doesn't count, and then it's forgotten so it can be asked again later. Poor @Nova has gone on at length about the shit being thrown her way by this administration, and they still ask "hurhurhur proof?".

The only way they'll believe it is if it happens to them directly.

Bing?

Internet Explorer lives!

Do you know what really sucks? That dems keep failing this badly.

I love it though...

Amaris - putting "only" on only gay means this: if somebody loses a job (or doesn't get hired) and they happen to be gay/muslim/etc. that is not the same as because they are gay etc.
I don't know why so many people can't understand this. Perhaps because that is their agenda and they fit the situation to match their expectations? Something to think about.

What do you think is more likely?
An employer firing someone because they're gay, and saying "you're fired because you're gay"?
OR
An employer firing someone because they're gay, but making it about them stealing office supplies when they let everyone steal office supplies?

And if you answer the latter, then why do you always default to buying every bigot's fucking excuse?

I have actually had a friend pulled in to his boss' office and told that if he is seen hanging around with a drag queen again they will make up a reason and fire him. They told it right to his face. They can be really happy that he did not give me their names. I would have ruined their families lives, made sure they knew why their lives were fucked, and then I would have gotten violent. I had been to jail at that point and was willing to do time to distribute some hurt. But he never did give me their names. They are probably still in power.

As others have pointed out, it's obviously going to be a rare and exceptional case where an employer openly identifies that as the cause, I can't speak for labour relations over there, but here protected classes generally aren't questioned as a legitimate legal concept. It's just accepted without saying.

What happens in practice is an employer will find another reason to get rid of someone, typically via means of constructive dismissal. It's much harder to make a case in an industrial tribunal there unless the employee is very savvy and saw the situation coming in time to prepare a dossier of evidence. However if a case can be made that someone has been the victim of workplace discrimination God in high heaven could do nothing to help that employer, a decent union rep will destroy them, never mind actual legal representation. It's a very high risk game.

or maybe none of the above! The most likely scenario is an employer not giving a fuck if an employee is gay/muslim/black etc. Maybe because I don't give a fuck if you are gay/muslim/black etc, I assume no employer gives a fuck. I've stated many times that the army should keep the gays and kick out the retards/lazy shit-bags. This applies to any corporation or employer. These days do you think any employer (at a well paying job actually worth having) in 2018 would risk their career by unfairly firing somebody? Knowing what a hot-button topic equal rights & opportunity are? Granted I work for the government where it is very much to your advantage to be gay/muslim/black/etc. Spot261 just mentioned workplace discrimination is very high-risk for an employer.

Not to mention that they obviously had no problem with the gay/Muslim/black/female status when they hired the employee in the first place . Plus as mentioned, there are already laws against discrimination at the local,state and federal level. Add in the knowledge of a media that loves running with the allegation,facts be damned, and you have to ask what company would risk it?

Aren't you against Affirmative Action?

oh he's no fool.

I mean yes there's a lot of shit he doesn't know or think he even needs to know, in terms of fulfilling the responsibility of the office he's an abject moron, in terms of the knowledge necessary to make wise discussions he's an idiot

BUT

In stuff like this - he knows EXACTLY what he is doing. It's his cult followers that are the fools, and we will be damned lucky if we survive his exit from the stage with the nation in one piece.

The state of Mississippi passed a law which says very specifically you can discriminate against LGB/T people in pretty much any sense so long as you say the magic words "Jesus made me do it"

They were sued and the court declined to strike it down on a technical issue of standing.

This is a direct legal affront to rights which had previously been recognized by dozens of courts, the EEOC, and the previous administration.

Hot off the presses...

https://apple.news/AMmqosZhfSG2EvzoxKPqU2w

Forget about can it/can it not happen. The real question is would @Paladin be overjoyed if it did actually happen?

he literally tweeted the set-up this very morning:



Notice "bomb" - in quotes?

The narrative framing here is clear: "Republicans WERE going to win Congress because everyone loves me but then this "bomb" stuff happened and caused an illegitimate outcome so I'ma do what I want anyway because the results have nothing to do with me."

As for "civil war"?
I'll clue you in: He WANTS one.

I can think of innocuous meanings for the quotes. One, it's just his way of referring to the whole situation. Two, it could be a reference to the bombs actually not being bombs at all, but non-functional devices intended to sow fear.

Wow, you read all that into that quote? I would say it's a setup for a "Don't blame me for losing the House. The media played up the bomb story when the GOP was showing signs of countering the blue wave."

Ridiculous.

Sex is distinct from gender expression. There is no federally recognized protected class status for gender expression/identity.

Anyone can. Can you think of any PLAUSIBLE ones?

Honestly?

Pretend you're the actual fucking intelligent human being I think you are and not a fucking prokaryotic waste of oxygen for a goddamn minute.

Because if you're genuine? Fuck you.

If you're trolling? Fuck you. Real people are affected by this bullshit.

If you're actually on his side, fucking explain yourself because real people are affected by this bullshit and I want you to explain WHY you support suffering. Of course, I've asked you half a dozen times to explain WHY having a conservative lock on the Supreme Court is worth Trumpism and you haven't mustered enough calcium to form 1% of the backbone needed to ACTUALLY FUCKING ANSWER ME so I'm not holding out much hope this time.

It's OK, we'll just know to ignore your spineless fucking opinion from now until infinity.

The only pity is you seemed to have some backbone to ya. Guess it was just gristle. *spits it out to the side of the plate*

I gave two.

Not trolling, just not looking for the absolutely most malevolent and far-fetched interpretation of something that's probably fairly innocuous.

Who's suffering because Trump put "bomb" in scare quotes? Have we switched to a bigger topic?

I thought I had. My agenda for SCOTUS is almost entirely negative: to prevent the left from enacting laws that impact my individual freedoms. I'm a libertarian; that is my highest priority for government, period.

You're always free to ignore my opinion if you want.

EVERY Federal court which has ruled on this since 2011 disagrees.

Sorry, but wrong. Gender expression/identity is not a protected class and has never been recognized as such by Congress or SCOTUS.

You aren't a libertarian. You want SCOTUS to protect ONE freedom. Guns. Fuck anyone else's rights.