(10-27-2022, 08:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-26-2022, 11:29 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ]I've said it before in various topics, and I'll say it again here. The only person who has a legitimate claim of 'sex/gender dysphoria' is a biological hermaphrodite. Anyone else claiming this, as L2L said above, has a mental disorder.
Right. And society has an obligation to help people with mental disorders, give them hope, and prevent suicide.
I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, but why does an effort to help less than 1% require the involuntary participation of the remaining 99%?
It's funny. This has been making the rounds. You know what the plan is? To get people more involved at the local level and make sure that there is integrity to the voting process. SO evil.
The NPCs of the left will buy into the idea that people shouldn't be able to govern themselves, though, so this narrative will have its intended effect. I'm sure Mikey already thinks there's massive voter disenfranchisement, even though there's no data to support that. I'm gonna let you guys in on a little secret... this is how they are cheating.
(10-27-2022, 01:05 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2022, 08:39 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Right. And society has an obligation to help people with mental disorders, give them hope, and prevent suicide.
I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, but why does an effort to help less than 1% require the involuntary participation of the remaining 99%?
It doesn't.
It just requires the cooperation of the affected families, medical professional boards, government health administrators, and lawmakers. If you're not in any of those groups, no one is asking you to involuntarily participate. In fact they're asking you not to.
(10-27-2022, 01:34 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Hillary says the right wing has a plan to steal the election. Her and Donald should get a room.
https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-w...19796.html
https://twitter.com/IndivisibleTeam/stat...CsXkznT5vg
Suppose a lawmaker in Tallahassee proposed that from now on Florida's legislature would pick Florida's Presidential electors. There would be no input from the voters in Florida. Your ballot would no longer have Presidential candidates on it. Would you be in favor of that or no?
(10-27-2022, 02:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2022, 01:05 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think anyone here disagrees with that, but why does an effort to help less than 1% require the involuntary participation of the remaining 99%?
It doesn't.
It just requires the cooperation of the affected families, medical professional boards, government health administrators, and lawmakers. If you're not in any of those groups, no one is asking you to involuntarily participate. In fact they're asking you not to.
So a person can say that trans should use the restrooms of their original sex or use the wrong pronouns?
(10-27-2022, 02:31 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2022, 02:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't.
It just requires the cooperation of the affected families, medical professional boards, government health administrators, and lawmakers. If you're not in any of those groups, no one is asking you to involuntarily participate. In fact they're asking you not to.
Suppose a lawmaker in Tallahassee proposed that from now on Florida's legislature would pick Florida's Presidential electors. There would be no input from the voters in Florida. Your ballot would no longer have Presidential candidates on it. Would you be in favor of that or no?
https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-p...57575.html
OK fine, you want to get technical.
In 2015 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that Florida's congressional districts needed to be redrawn. Governor Scott and the Legislature complied. Did the Florida Supreme Court have that authority? In 2022, Governor DeSantis vetoed districts and called a special session for them to be redrawn. Did he have that authority? Does a state legislature have the power to draw districts as it sees fit without any oversight from any other state official?
Given your answer to that, note that the power to appoint predidential electors is also granted to "the legislature" of each state. So if we decided that means "the state legislature only with no other state level oversight", it means the same thing in Article 2 as in Article 1. As for federal oversight, that is larger for congressional elections than that for presidential elections. US congress may regulate the "time and manner" of congressional elections. But only the "time" of Presidential elections. This may seem far fetched to you. The author of the article says it would be "suicidal" for a state legislature to make such a decision. But would it? Look at Wisconsin. They have a Democrat as Governor, but their state legislature has nearly enough republican members to override his veto. Obviously the democrats are packed into fewer districts. Would it actually be "suicidal" for Wisconsin's state legislature to declare for the republican presidential candidate in 2024? Would enough Republicans be upset at such a thing to actually hold them accountable? Would you?
(10-27-2022, 03:23 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2022, 02:31 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-p...57575.html
OK fine, you want to get technical.
In 2015 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that Florida's congressional districts needed to be redrawn. Governor Scott and the Legislature complied. Did the Florida Supreme Court have that authority? In 2022, Governor DeSantis vetoed districts and called a special session for them to be redrawn. Did he have that authority? Does a state legislature have the power to draw districts as it sees fit without any oversight from any other state official?
Given your answer to that, note that the power to appoint predidential electors is also granted to "the legislature" of each state. So if we decided that means "the state legislature only with no other state level oversight", it means the same thing in Article 2 as in Article 1. As for federal oversight, that is larger for congressional elections than that for presidential elections. US congress may regulate the "time and manner" of congressional elections. But only the "time" of Presidential elections. This may seem far fetched to you. The author of the article says it would be "suicidal" for a state legislature to make such a decision. But would it? Look at Wisconsin. They have a Democrat as Governor, but their state legislature has nearly enough republican members to override his veto. Obviously the democrats are packed into fewer districts. Would it actually be "suicidal" for Wisconsin's state legislature to declare for the republican presidential candidate in 2024? Would enough Republicans be upset at such a thing to actually hold them accountable? Would you?
You do know you aren’t obligated to justify everything Hillary pulls out of her [BLEEP] to whip up the masses. She’s a bitter election denier who knows her entitlement is fading fast so she’s slinging mud against the wall to see what sticks. It’s a far fetched conspiracy theory that would get her banned from Twitter if her political affiliation were not democrat.
(10-27-2022, 04:17 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2022, 03:23 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]OK fine, you want to get technical.
In 2015 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that Florida's congressional districts needed to be redrawn. Governor Scott and the Legislature complied. Did the Florida Supreme Court have that authority? In 2022, Governor DeSantis vetoed districts and called a special session for them to be redrawn. Did he have that authority? Does a state legislature have the power to draw districts as it sees fit without any oversight from any other state official?
Given your answer to that, note that the power to appoint predidential electors is also granted to "the legislature" of each state. So if we decided that means "the state legislature only with no other state level oversight", it means the same thing in Article 2 as in Article 1. As for federal oversight, that is larger for congressional elections than that for presidential elections. US congress may regulate the "time and manner" of congressional elections. But only the "time" of Presidential elections. This may seem far fetched to you. The author of the article says it would be "suicidal" for a state legislature to make such a decision. But would it? Look at Wisconsin. They have a Democrat as Governor, but their state legislature has nearly enough republican members to override his veto. Obviously the democrats are packed into fewer districts. Would it actually be "suicidal" for Wisconsin's state legislature to declare for the republican presidential candidate in 2024? Would enough Republicans be upset at such a thing to actually hold them accountable? Would you?
You do know you aren’t obligated to justify everything Hillary pulls out of her [BLEEP] to whip up the masses. She’s a bitter election denier who knows her entitlement is fading fast so she’s slinging mud against the wall to see what sticks. It’s a far fetched conspiracy theory that would get her banned from Twitter if her political affiliation were not democrat.
Broken clocks are still right twice a day. And even if she's exagerrating, there is something to this. Refer to the Moore v Harper case before Scotus.
1) Did the FL Supreme Court have the authority to issue the orders they issued in 2015?
2) Did Governor DeSantis have the authority to veto districts this year?
3) Does the Wisconsin state legislature have the authority to simply declare, today, that the republican presidential candidate will get their electoral votes in 2024? Would they be able to do that without their governor's signature? Refer to your answers to (1) and (2).
4) if they did, is there any realistic chance that the voters would punish them, given how the districts are drawn, wouldn't they keep their majority in any plausible scenario?
(10-27-2022, 02:30 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (10-27-2022, 02:08 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It doesn't.
It just requires the cooperation of the affected families, medical professional boards, government health administrators, and lawmakers. If you're not in any of those groups, no one is asking you to involuntarily participate. In fact they're asking you not to.
So a person can say that trans should use the restrooms of their original sex or use the wrong pronouns?
I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that the Biden Admin is proposing gender affirmation surgery on the taxpayers dime. If this ever becomes reality, then this would no longer be true. And you can bet this proposal is coming, if it hasn't already taken place.
So has everyone got their Halloween costumes yet? lolol
![[Image: 20221029-001844.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/J0j4RCFS/20221029-001844.jpg)
(10-29-2022, 12:22 AM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]So has everyone got their Halloween costumes yet? lolol
The new one comes with 2 hammers, drugs, etc
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
You've got to love the media. The SCOTUS is hearing arguments to end affirmative action on college admissions, specifically from Yale and a college here in NC. A TV station in Tampa says, "Supreme Court takes up race-concious college admissions."
Call it what it is. It's affirmative action. Does calling it race-concious make it sound more user friendly to these people? Maybe less feelings are hurt. I despise this thing of trying to change things to make them seem less....real.
As for the actual issue, 74% of Americans believe race should not be a factor in college admissions. Most colleges and universities swear by it and say it's needed to maintain diversity. For some, like the upper crust, they probably do still need it because they have a long history of turning away POC but there has to be a standard across the board.
If you read "How rights went wrong" by Jamal Greene, you get an insider look at how Scotus has really hosed up this problem over the years. Every decision has been full of doublespeak. They strike down specific policies at places like UMich but haven't said "you can't consider race."
Bizarrely, and illogically, they have said you can use race "holistically" but you can't use it in a way that hurts any student's chances. Greene shows that what this has actually done is now the admissions process at certain schools (especially elite schools) is totally underground, where no one knows for sure what grading system they are really using.
Meanwhile, Texas and Florida have both shown that almost all of the social ills that "race conscious" admissions hopes to solve can be equally solved by putting more weight on class rank. This should be a 9-0 decision unequivocally against using race in college admissions from now on.
So I never went to college or a university. Someone please explain to me why race (or ethnicity) should be a factor for admission.
To put it in really simple terms, consider the following hypothetical situation.
A farmer wants to hire a hand. There are two candidates. One is a white man that can run the tractor correctly and safely. He makes straight passes in the field with no problem. The other is a black man who has never driven a tractor, has to have instruction and basically screws up the field.
Which one should be hired? The white man because he has the skill needed? or The black man in the name of "diversity" or whatever?
Whether it is for a job or admission to a school race, color, sex, ethnicity etc. should never be a factor. It should always be about merit/ability/skill.
(10-31-2022, 03:53 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]So I never went to college or a university. Someone please explain to me why race (or ethnicity) should be a factor for admission.
To put it in really simple terms, consider the following hypothetical situation.
A farmer wants to hire a hand. There are two candidates. One is a white man that can run the tractor correctly and safely. He makes straight passes in the field with no problem. The other is a black man who has never driven a tractor, has to have instruction and basically screws up the field.
Which one should be hired? The white man because he has the skill needed? or The black man in the name of "diversity" or whatever?
Whether it is for a job or admission to a school race, color, sex, ethnicity etc. should never be a factor. It should always be about merit/ability/skill.
For a job at a relatively small company, that metaphor works.
For a job at the only company in town, you have to be more socially conscious.
That doesn't mean hiring (or admitting) unqualified people.
That means making sure there are opportunities for everyone to prove themselves and learn.
(10-31-2022, 03:53 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]So I never went to college or a university. Someone please explain to me why race (or ethnicity) should be a factor for admission.
To put it in really simple terms, consider the following hypothetical situation.
A farmer wants to hire a hand. There are two candidates. One is a white man that can run the tractor correctly and safely. He makes straight passes in the field with no problem. The other is a black man who has never driven a tractor, has to have instruction and basically screws up the field.
Which one should be hired? The white man because he has the skill needed? or The black man in the name of "diversity" or whatever?
Whether it is for a job or admission to a school race, color, sex, ethnicity etc. should never be a factor. It should always be about merit/ability/skill.
The counter-argument I always hear is that the black man/woman never had the opportunity to learn how to run the tractor correctly, so to right the wrongs of the past, we must offer that opportunity disproportionately until some 'level of equality' is achieved. Of course, that level is never defined anywhere. Of course, this is not true today. There have been affirmative action programs and college funding for disadvantaged blacks since the late 60's/early 70's. Why it hasn't worked is a topic for discussion, but the opportunities have been there for a while now.
(10-31-2022, 05:33 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (10-31-2022, 03:53 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]So I never went to college or a university. Someone please explain to me why race (or ethnicity) should be a factor for admission.
To put it in really simple terms, consider the following hypothetical situation.
A farmer wants to hire a hand. There are two candidates. One is a white man that can run the tractor correctly and safely. He makes straight passes in the field with no problem. The other is a black man who has never driven a tractor, has to have instruction and basically screws up the field.
Which one should be hired? The white man because he has the skill needed? or The black man in the name of "diversity" or whatever?
Whether it is for a job or admission to a school race, color, sex, ethnicity etc. should never be a factor. It should always be about merit/ability/skill.
The counter-argument I always hear is that the black man/woman never had the opportunity to learn how to run the tractor correctly, so to right the wrongs of the past, we must offer that opportunity disproportionately until some 'level of equality' is achieved. Of course, that level is never defined anywhere. Of course, this is not true today. There have been affirmative action programs and college funding for disadvantaged blacks since the late 60's/early 70's. Why it hasn't worked is a topic for discussion, but the opportunities have been there for a while now.
It has worked. A subset of black people are now firmly in the middle class, even some in the upper class, and black unemployment keeps getting lower.
Of course differences persist, but the differences are now small enough that we should change the tactic for reducing them.
![[Image: Trump.jpg]](https://rlcole.tripod.com/political/Trump.jpg)