Bye-bye Sally Yates!

[Ibanez]

Affirmative Action?

Wrong. White Men are still getting jobs. Look at the current unemployment rate of White men compared to Black men. Not even close.

Unemployment has nothing to do it. White people are denied positions and promotions because of AA. You're giving preferences to people based on their race and not their quality (are they good employees, do that have good grades, etc...) The law tries to legislate fairness, which isn't easy. I won't deny that there is racial discrimination and inequality in college admissions, the workplace, pay, etc... But there have been plenty of people that were passed over for promotions or a job simply b/c they weren't a minority. Was it needed after Jim Crow and desegregation? Yes. Is it necessary now? I'm not so sure.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

On most supreme court rulings, as long as there has been supreme ct cases, some people suffer and some benefit. And those are people of all races & genders, many of whom who happen to be white males.

Could you give me an example...
I'm not suggesting you're wrong but I would like to see an example
I'd like some information on how I'm suffering

First thing I would do If I was you would be to go look in a mirror, maybe dim the lights first but what you see in that mirror has to imply some kind of suffering.

[mrklean]

Wrong. White Men are still getting jobs. Look at the current unemployment rate of White men compared to Black men. Not even close.

Unemployment has nothing to do it. White people are denied positions and promotions because of AA. You're giving preferences to people based on their race and not their quality (are they good employees, do that have good grades, etc...) The law tries to legislate fairness, which isn't easy. I won't deny that there is racial discrimination and inequality in college admissions, the workplace, pay, etc... But there have been plenty of people that were passed over for promotions or a job simply b/c they weren't a minority. Was it needed after Jim Crow and desegregation? Yes. Is it necessary now? I'm not so sure.

Where the hell is this? Name me one place where minorities have a advantage against white people? Please name this place.

[GannonFan]

Unemployment has nothing to do it. White people are denied positions and promotions because of AA. You're giving preferences to people based on their race and not their quality (are they good employees, do that have good grades, etc...) The law tries to legislate fairness, which isn't easy. I won't deny that there is racial discrimination and inequality in college admissions, the workplace, pay, etc... But there have been plenty of people that were passed over for promotions or a job simply b/c they weren't a minority. Was it needed after Jim Crow and desegregation? Yes. Is it necessary now? I'm not so sure.

Where the hell is this? Name me one place where minorities have a advantage against white people? Please name this place.

United Negro College Fund.

[93henfan]

Unemployment has nothing to do it. White people are denied positions and promotions because of AA. You're giving preferences to people based on their race and not their quality (are they good employees, do that have good grades, etc...) The law tries to legislate fairness, which isn't easy. I won't deny that there is racial discrimination and inequality in college admissions, the workplace, pay, etc... But there have been plenty of people that were passed over for promotions or a job simply b/c they weren't a minority. Was it needed after Jim Crow and desegregation? Yes. Is it necessary now? I'm not so sure.

Where the hell is this? Name me one place where minorities have a advantage against white people? Please name this place.

The awarding of federal contracts

College admissions and scholarships

Induction, promotion, and retention in the armed forces, particularly in the commissioned officer ranks

Those are just three easy ones I've seen first-hand

[AshevilleApp]

Poor white men. I feel so sad for us. Preach it boys.

[93henfan]

My smug detector just spiked.

[AshevilleApp]

You in San Francisco or South Park?

[Gil Dobie]

[YoUDeeMan]

You have to hand it to kkklean...he keeps coming back beating.

The dude is as dumb as a brick.

[kalm]

Poor white men. I feel so sad for us. Preach it boys.

This...

[YoUDeeMan]

Poor white men. I feel so sad for us. Preach it boys.

This...

Why do people think it is important to lump people together?

[Chizzang]

This...

Why do people think it is important to lump people together?

Because Islam..?
I lump all them fuckers together



It's what human beings do
We generalize

And I'm enjoying all the white angst...
We're White / we're disadvantaged / We're angry / and we're not going to take it anymore !!!
I just wish it was easier for a white guy to succeed in America

[YoUDeeMan]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/ ... l-ban.html

"I'm a Democrat but there's something great about Trump's travel ban.

Amid the anger and political sniping, reasonable people are engaged in a quiet debate about one element of the executive order that’s not been widely discussed: Trump seeks a new policy that ferrets out “those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred” and “those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”

For those of us who are progressively minded, the order creates an unexpected dilemma. While we reject a ban based on religion, we agree – in principle – that we don’t want to accept bigoted immigrants.

In short, we’re taking a new look at an old question: What kind of immigrants does America want?

As a former CIA officer, I understand that having Muslim colleagues allowed the nation to better prevent wars, thwart terrorist attacks, and stop the spread of dangerous weapons.

Yet in my nearly 10 years of service, I also came to understand that there’s a branch of Islam – the Saudi Arabia-backed Salafi sect – that’s terribly sick. Even in peace, these Muslims reject democracy. They abuse women. They harass gay people. They destroy art and ban music.

Polite politics would prefer we not discuss these men and women. Instead, it’s easier and more politically correct to wrap ourselves in posters proclaiming, “We’re All Muslims.” But smart citizens will not shy away from the fact that while most Muslims are peaceful, millions of religious fanatics embrace an ideology that would have the world live under Sharia law – by force or persuasion.

And so I ask my fellow Americans: Does your embrace of immigrants extend to those who reject your values?"

[JohnStOnge]

Obviously Yates knew what was going to happen when she did what she did. She will be fine.

Whether Trump's Executive Order is held to be legal or not remains to be seen. If I had to bet I'd bet that it will be just because I think the Courts will be reluctant to hold otherwise. But it remains to be seen.

The biggest thing it that the whole thing was badly mishandled by the Trump Administration. Shocker. I mean, it's not like we should expect that from a mentally ill imbecile who is totally unqualified for the job.

[YoUDeeMan]

Obviously Yates knew what was going to happen when she did what she did. She will be fine.

Whether Trump's Executive Order is held to be legal or not remains to be seen. If I had to bet I'd bet that it will be just because I think the Courts will be reluctant to hold otherwise. But it remains to be seen.

The biggest thing it that the whole thing was badly mishandled by the Trump Administration. Shocker. I mean, it's not like we should expect that from a mentally ill imbecile who is totally unqualified for the job.

Trump makes the right call, and you quibble about small details that impacted .000000001% (a very small margin of error, BTW) of people.

[houndawg]

Could you give me an example...
I'm not suggesting you're wrong but I would like to see an example
I'd like some information on how I'm suffering

No American White Male has ever suffered from something (anything) handed down from the supreme court.

Now you move the goal post from any white male to name a case that personally negatively effects YOU.

Back to your original statement of any white male who has suffered, from a SCOTUS rulings(s)
-Cid mentioned the numerous rulings that have upheld the vast expansion of the interstate commerce clause, which since the New Deal has been used as a primary source for the regulatory expansion of the national government, granting virtually unlimited regulatory power over the economy to the federal government. Obviously has negatively effected just about everyone, including white males, including you.

-Anyone who has suffered negatively from any aspect of Obamacare and is a white male. My gf's brother (white male, self employed) due to Obamacare (which was upheld twice by SCOTUS) was kicked off his high deductible catastrophic plan and forced to purchase a far more expensive, more comprehensive plan than forced him to pay for things he didn't want & didn't need, among other things pregnancy coverage

-SCOTUS has upheld affirmative action (numerous cases). Any white male who has not gotten a job/position/promotion/admittance that otherwise would have gotten had there not been affirmative action has suffered.

-After SCOTUS ruled in Berman v. Parker in 1954 that private property could be taken for a public purpose with just compensation, and in Kelo v. City of New London upholding eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development, anyone who subsequently had land/property forcibly taken away from them that they wouldn't have had SCOTUS ruled the other way, and happens to be a white male, has suffered.

affects

[Chizzang]

I still stand by my original assessment...
The US Supreme court selections are meaningless background noise to a white male U.S. citizen

Oh I know we've got folks on this forum that lose sleep over it
But quite sincerely this has zero effect of my daily life

Sure women and undocumented workers and what-not have their hearts invested in the outcomes
But this here white male couldn't give a flying hairy f*ck
it has ZERO effect on my daily thing

[CID1990]

Just following Sessions' advice.



https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4653400/ ... ial-orders

The thing is, her own department said the executive order was lawful before it was issued. So she's disagreeing with her own people that the thing was lawful. Again, it's perfectly fine and well for her to object to the policy based on moral or ethical considerations - clearly it's contestable on those grounds - but for her to say that it's not lawful and refuse to defend it after her department let it pass is where she's on poorer footing. She should've resigned saying that she morally was against the executive order and just couldn't serve in that role then rather than take the dubious, and unfortunately more partisanly political move, and say it was unlawful.

She didn't even disagree with them - she acknowledged that the order had passed legal muster in her address. Instead, she used the "moral and just" claim, which is about as subjective as you can get.

This was a stunt and nothing more. She could have resigned but instead she did the one thing that would have forced any executive to fire her.

[BDKJMU]

I still stand by my original assessment...
The US Supreme court selections are meaningless background noise to a white male U.S. citizen

Oh I know we've got folks on this forum that lose sleep over it
But quite sincerely this has zero effect of my daily life

Sure women and undocumented workers and what-not have their hearts invested in the outcomes
But this here white male couldn't give a flying hairy f*ck
it has ZERO effect on my daily thing

To believe that nearly 230 years of SCOTUS decisions has had zero affect on your life (along with the lives of 100% of Americans) is By all means, continue with your blissful ignorance..

[houndawg]

I still stand by my original assessment...
The US Supreme court selections are meaningless background noise to a white male U.S. citizen

Oh I know we've got folks on this forum that lose sleep over it
But quite sincerely this has zero effect of my daily life

Sure women and undocumented workers and what-not have their hearts invested in the outcomes
But this here white male couldn't give a flying hairy f*ck
it has ZERO effect on my daily thing

Has no effect on my debt-free empty nest ass either, but I worry about the kids.

[houndawg]

The thing is, her own department said the executive order was lawful before it was issued. So she's disagreeing with her own people that the thing was lawful. Again, it's perfectly fine and well for her to object to the policy based on moral or ethical considerations - clearly it's contestable on those grounds - but for her to say that it's not lawful and refuse to defend it after her department let it pass is where she's on poorer footing. She should've resigned saying that she morally was against the executive order and just couldn't serve in that role then rather than take the dubious, and unfortunately more partisanly political move, and say it was unlawful.

She didn't even disagree with them - she acknowledged that the order had passed legal muster in her address. Instead, she used the "moral and just" claim, which is about as subjective as you can get.

This was a stunt and nothing more. She could have resigned but instead she did the one thing that would have forced any executive to fire her.

Not a bad move really. It won't be very long before being fired by the Cheeto will be a cred increaser.

[CID1990]

She didn't even disagree with them - she acknowledged that the order had passed legal muster in her address. Instead, she used the "moral and just" claim, which is about as subjective as you can get.

This was a stunt and nothing more. She could have resigned but instead she did the one thing that would have forced any executive to fire her.

Not a bad move really. It won't be very long before being fired by the Cheeto will be a cred increaser.

Yes, her stock in the eyes of the drama queen set has increased dramatically. Expect her to be an MSNBC contributor within the month

[Chizzang]

I still stand by my original assessment...
The US Supreme court selections are meaningless background noise to a white male U.S. citizen

Oh I know we've got folks on this forum that lose sleep over it
But quite sincerely this has zero effect of my daily life

Sure women and undocumented workers and what-not have their hearts invested in the outcomes
But this here white male couldn't give a flying hairy f*ck
it has ZERO effect on my daily thing

To believe that nearly 230 years of SCOTUS decisions has had zero affect on your life (along with the lives of 100% of Americans) is By all means, continue with your blissful ignorance..

Your reading comprehension is predictably low...
As I stated in my post - I get that women and blacks and undocumented whatever's are all effected
And I also know it's really really important to you (for whatever reason you think it is)

[Wedgebuster]

Swell..