# Ruth Bader Ginsburg....RIP......and the battle begins



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The passing of Supreme Court judge RBG is going to cause an epic confrontation in the US.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

It will probably change the election landscape too. The election will not be all about COVID or Russia anymore; the supreme court confirmations will be front and centre in the next few weeks.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> The passing of Supreme Court judge RBG is going to cause an epic confrontation in the US.


The left is already promising more violence.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

It's too late to do anything before the election. The new supreme court justice will be chosen by the new President and Congress after the election. If Trump is smart he won't even mention it. Biden has probably already forgotten it. Expect the MSM to harp on it ad nauseum even though there is nothing to report.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)




----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Obama once said appointing a justice was crucial:

"The need for a ninth justice is undeniably clear. Already this past June we saw a deadlock Supreme court with no tie-breaking vote, unable to reach a majority on a major immigration issue - leaving our nation's immigrants in limbo."


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> It's too late to do anything before the election. The new supreme court justice will be chosen by the new President and Congress after the election. If Trump is smart he won't even mention it. Biden has probably already forgotten it. Expect the MSM to harp on it ad nauseum even though there is nothing to report.


McConnell signaled his intent to confirm ASAP (hypocrite). Even if Trump loses, he could nominate during the lame duck session and have it confirmed before Biden is inaugurated. Riots probably aren't the right response, but Biden should probably just pack the court with 5 30-something justices as long as there are not conventions Congress is respecting.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> View attachment 20644


So who is wrong, Biden, or McConnell?

Maybe we'll have a 15 justice SCOTUS before too long. Anything goes when it comes to SCOTUS.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Obama once said appointing a justice was crucial:
> 
> "The need for a ninth justice is undeniably clear. Already this past June we saw a deadlock Supreme court with no tie-breaking vote, unable to reach a majority on a major immigration issue - leaving our nation's immigrants in limbo."


And McConnell set the precedent that SCOTUS nominations are not to be heard or confirmed in an election year. Which is true?

When you have more people voting Democrat than Republican consistently, yet GOP controls all three branches disproportionately, you are inviting revolution.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think the GOP will proceed with all haste as it involves all the issues that matter to their base. This appointment will affect so many rights......gun ownership, abortion and the Republicans kept packing the judicial benches every chance they had. The Democrats fell asleep at the wheel with Obama leaving hundreds of vacancies in the Federal Court system. Trump was gloating about it the other day at a rally.

The Democrats all held the same misguided conviction that RBG had when asked to consider retiring so Obama could make an appointment.

She said......no need, Hillary is going to win. She was wrong and now she leaves a letter saying she wants the next President to choose the judge ?

Was she really that naive ? The Republicans just waved their hand at that idea and said......tough luck.

I think this will be bare knuckle political brawling and Trump is much better at that than Biden. Maybe Biden should let Kamala handle it from here.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

McConnell has the power to set a precedent that will be followed until the end of time?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> The Democrats all held the same misguided conviction that RBG had when asked to consider retiring so Obama could make an appointment.
> 
> She said......no need, Hillary is going to win. She was wrong and now she leaves a letter saying she wants the next President to choose the judge ?
> 
> Was she really that naive ? The Republicans just waved their hand at that idea and said......tough luck.


Not naïve...she probably really thinks she really has a say in the matter. Yes, she had could have resigned when Obama was in office but thought that staying on the court was more important. If the Democrats don't like the next person appointed then it's her fault.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> McConnell has the power to set a precedent that will be followed until the end of time?


You would hope the precedent would at least last for the person who set it! 

Regardless, this is going to come to a head. GOP will take control of SCOTUS. Abortion bans will be allowed to stand, money will be allowed to buy politics even more than present, tens of millions will lose access to healthcare. The GOP won't be able to help themselves. The backlash is going to be enormous. You think summer 2020 was bad? You haven't seen anything yet.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Many (religious) conservatives will support Republicans no matter how crazy or incompetent the president is, because they want conservative values at the top court.

The hypocrisy by the Republicans about the appointment shouldn't be a surprise. They are extremely strategic about bending rules and norms to achieve their ends... they've been doing that in countless ways in politics, always "gaming" the system to win.

As an example, Republicans are trying to steal the election by sabotaging the postal system, plus the usual voter suppression where minorities live. Completely unacceptable corruptions of elections. For a long time now, they've also been using gerrymandering to manipulate results in their favour.

This is a _very_ dirty party which uses endless tricks to manipulate "wins".


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The results of this 2020 election could be fought until the 2024 election.

The good news........it is good entertainment for us Canadians while COVID is still around.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

sags said:


> Unfortunately, the US politicians on both sides have worked themselves into a situation where people are going to reject the legitimacy of the election regardless of who wins.
> 
> Shame on the GOP for supporting Trump all this time. They know what he is and treated him like a useful fool.
> 
> Shame on the Democrats for electing an old white man with a questionable background of achievements, who doesn't have the forceful temperament to take on Trump.


Good summary. This is what happens when you have wealthy interests, corporate money and the super wealthy, controlling your politics. All of this is happening because the parties are run by wealthy elites.

The Republicans do whatever is needed, sell out all their values, harm the country, and run a charismatic lunatic as a candidate.

The Democrats throw away all the good candidates (who don't support corporate interests) and end up with an unimpressive old white man.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> The Democrats throw away all the good candidates (who don't support corporate interests) and end up with an unimpressive old white man.


Since you singled out that he was white, I guess you feel it would better to field _"an unimpressive old black man" ?_

Otherwise, why would bring that up?

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> Since you singled out that he was white, I guess you feel it would better to field _"an unimpressive old black man" ?_
> 
> Otherwise, why would bring that up?


You really have to ask this? Should be obvious. There's something special about "old white men". Here's the image: this character has always been in charge of America, going back centuries, and tends to not look out for the interests of women, non-whites, or even young people. The "old white man" has a reputation, justifiably so, for looking out for the interests of wealthy, older people -- traditionally, overwhelmingly white/European.

Trump certainly fits that image, and Biden isn't far off either. That's the problem.

There is no such problem with old black men
There is no such problem with young white men
There is no such problem with old white women

The problem is specifically the image of the "old white man" in the eyes of the voters.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> The problem is specifically the image of the "old white man".


Myself, I'm an "old white man", and you have painted me with your image of old white men.

Is this not the very definition of racism?

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

James is quoting my post.........which isn't there anymore ?.......I must have screwed it up.

Biden IS an old white man, and that IS a problem for the Democrats because it gives the Republicans the opportunity to say....."see, the Democrats pick another old white establishment nominee, first Hillary Clinton and now Joe Biden. They don't care about you black voters".

It is also a problem for the Democrats when black voters, don't see an "old white man" representing their interests.

The disinterest of black voters allowed Trump to win in battleground States like Michigan where Clinton received far less black votes than Obama.

I have no doubt Conservatives are quite happy with an "old white man" as nominee for the Democrats. It gives them ammunition to use against him.

I am waiting to see some attacks against Kamala Harris that have any zing to them. Trump rarely even mentions her name. What is he afraid of ?

Has he come up with a nickname for her yet ?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> Myself, I'm an "old white man", and you have painted me with your image of old white men.
> 
> Is this not the very definition of racism?


It's not racism. You are not in a disadvantaged group, and I made an observation. I did not say anything disparaging about the group.

I am describing the perception of the US candidates. Their race and age does matter ... it gives a certain appearance and as I said in my earlier post, there is something very special about the "old white man". It is the the picture of the traditional American power structure.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> It's not racism. You are not in a disadvantaged group.


So this allows you to portray me negatively without knowing a thing about me - sounds like racism to me by any other name.

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> So this allows you to portray me negatively without knowing a thing about me - sounds like racism to me by any other name.


This is classic conservative outrage, when someone points out that old white men rule the country. Hilarious. Nobody portrayed you negatively. You have no clue what racism is.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Racism against old white men ? How does that work ?

People don't hire you because you are white ?

You can't rent an apartment because you are white ?

You get hassled by the police because they want to know why a white man is in an upscale neighborhood ?

People don't hire you, or rent to you, because you are old........whoops, that is ageism, not racism.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Racism against old white men ? How does that work ?
> 
> People don't hire you because you are white ?
> 
> ...


Racism is when you discriminate on race.

When companies implement race based quotas, that's racism.
when companies prioritize certain candidates because they're "not white", that's racism.
When being a "visible minority" gives benefits of priviledges, that's racism.
When you get tax or other benefits because of your race, like Trudeaus "black business" funding, that's racism.


If you don't see how discriminating based on race is racism, you're the racist.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

I guess Republicans will get their Supreme Court justice. 

I still think Biden is on track to win the election. But that could change. Trump now has a lifeline he did not have before. He could energize his base and rally them around this issue. Biden could do the same on his side, but I doubt the level of enthusiasm is the same.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> This is classic conservative outrage, when someone points out that old white men rule the country. Hilarious. Nobody portrayed you negatively. You have no clue what racism is.


Maybe not, but I hate when I read that comment about old white men as it is the exact demographic I am in. Do you not understand that?

You paint everyone with the same brush which is exactly the definition of racism whether you like it or not. 

It's no different than saying "All black people are criminals". Is that true?

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Oops, I left out a key word. I should have said: *rich *old white men.

In the US, there is an image that the "rich old white man" is always in power. That means president, congress, heads of govt departments, senators, judges ... they're full of rich old white men. They are in charge of everything.

So now American voters look at their options, and see two rich old white men. It's not ideal for many voters.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Oops, I left out a key word. I should have said: *rich *old white men.


I am a rich old white man, so I'll live with your racism against me. You've revealed yourself.

ltr


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> Oops, I left out a key word. I should have said: *rich *old white men.
> 
> In the US, there is an image that the "rich old white man" is always in power. That means president, congress, heads of govt departments, senators, judges ... they're full of rich old white men. They are in charge of everything.
> 
> So now American voters look at their options, and see two rich old white men. It's not ideal for many voters.


Because those voters are racist and sexist.

But don't worry, they're going to try and sneak in President Harris to make the racists happy.


I've voted for men, I've voted for women, I've voted for whites, asians and blacks, I've voted for married people and single people.
I honestly don't see what race and gender have to do with ones ability to do the job.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> It's not racism. You are not in a disadvantaged group, and I made an observation. I did not say anything disparaging about the group.
> 
> I am describing the perception of the US candidates. Their race and age does matter ... it gives a certain appearance and as I said in my earlier post, there is something very special about the "old white man". It is the the picture of the traditional American power structure.


There are different definitions of racism. Let us say that the 'less accepted' definition of racism is that only white people can be racist. I know some like to promulgate this definition to dodge any nuance. What do you call it when the Chinese lady cutting my hair tells me about her daughter's college project partner being lazy because he's black? She's not white so she can't be racist?

If black people in America can't be racist because they are disadvantaged, can they be racist in Zimbabwe? Or Chinese people in China?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> There are different definitions of racism. Let us say that the 'less accepted' definition of racism is that only white people can be racist. I know some like to promulgate this definition to dodge any nuance. What do you call it when the Chinese lady cutting my hair tells me about her daughter's college project partner being lazy because he's black? She's not white so she can't be racist?


It has nothing to do with who's saying it.

Racism involves disparaging or belittling comments about broad groups which are over generalizations, or unfair generalizations. I made an observation on reality, something that is easily verifiable: *most* presidents of recent times are rich old white men. So are most judges and other politicians in power, like leaders of major federal departments. The power structure of America is overwhelming made of rich old white men.

This is a verifiable observation of truth. Let's review:


Trump, 74 year old white man (president)
Pence, 61 year old white man (VP)
Barr, 70 year old white man (US AG, head of DOJ)
Mnuchin, 57 year old white man (Treasury head)
Biden, 77 year old white man (possible incoming president)
*There is nothing racist about pointing out the reality: the most powerful roles in the US govt are held by rich old white men.*

_Similarly, it's not racist to point out another reality: there are high rates of diabetes among African Americans._

Then look at what @like_to_retire came back with as his counter example: "All black people are criminals". First of all, absolutely not true, so it's an unfair generalization. Second, it's disparaging. This is a racist statement.

My statement is not racist, it's a statement of fact, and is not disparaging. I'll say it again: there are many American voters who are getting tired of seeing rich old white men running the government.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Racism involves disparaging or belittling comments about broad groups which are over generalizations, or unfair generalizations..............
> *There is nothing racist about pointing out the reality: the most powerful roles in the US govt are held by rich old white men.*


I see your point, but I am just making an observation about racism in what they call _microaggression_ today. Personally, I'm of the camp that sees microaggression as situations in which people are being too sensitive. It encourages us to not speak to others as they might say the wrong thing, so why bother talking at all. It seems divisive to me.

I've read that racism in the form of microaggression described as: _the kinds of remarks, questions, or actions that are painful because they have to do with a person's membership in a group that's discriminated against or *subject to stereotypes*. And a key part of what makes them so disconcerting is that they happen casually, frequently, and often without any harm intended, in everyday life._

There are a lot of examples where I don't "disparage or belittling", but could "point out the reality" of a situation and it would infer the same meaning in an underhanded way, so I challenge that you may be on a knife edge of a definition in your argument, but yeah, I see the difference.

ltr


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

I think that young people (especially women) are going to go out and vote to protect Roe v. Wade.

All this chatter about the supreme court is great consolation towards the "Rule of Law". But, when I look back 50 years and review the present "System" and predictment, it was the supreme court that made it all legal.

The constitution is only 16 pages long and yet there are warehouses of law books.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

BREAKING: An accuser has already stepped forward with an allegation against the Trump nominee. Sources familiar with the matter say they are just waiting to know who they are accusing before releasing more details.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Because those voters are racist and sexist.
> 
> But don't worry, they're going to try and sneak in President Harris.





james4beach said:


> It has nothing to do with who's saying it.
> 
> Racism involves disparaging or belittling comments about broad groups which are over generalizations, or unfair generalizations. I made an observation on reality, something that is easily verifiable: *most* presidents of recent times are rich old white men. So are most judges and other politicians in power, like leaders of major federal departments. The power structure of America is overwhelming made of rich old white men.
> 
> ...


Okay.
1 Lets assume they are old white men. 
Many others aren't old white men, Ivanka is arguably one of Trumps closest advisors, and she's a young female jew. 
Harris isn't an old white man, interesting that you listed the current VP, but not the like new VP (actually new President, Joe won't last).
Additionally, though I believe you are correct, you haven't confirmed that any of those people identify as white, or male, maybe they're transracial, like some BLM advocates.

2. Who cares what race or gender someone is? You know who cares? Racists and sexists.
That's the part that I don't understand, why does the race or gender of a person matter?
You complain about "old white guys" running things, but fail to explain why "old", "white" or "guys" is problematic.

Sure there are some people who vote by gender, or race. But Obama didn't win because he was black, he won because he inspired people, he convinced people he cared. He brought a positive view for the future that people wanted. Sure some racists voted for/against him because of his race, just as people voted for/against Hilary because of her gender. The reality is that while there are fringe elements who care about that stuff, most people care if they can do the job.


----------



## Topo (Aug 31, 2019)

The best gambit to help Trump's re-election would be to nominate someone and have them go through the committee, but delay the vote for after the election. That way he can claim that the appointment would only happen if he is re-elected in order to bring out his base. It could backfire, but at this stage it is Trump who needs the Hail Mary.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Anyone who promotes the "white privilege" status quo is a racist by those very actions.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> BREAKING: An accuser has already stepped forward with an allegation against the Trump nominee. Sources familiar with the matter say they are just waiting to know who they are accusing before releasing more details.


It was me. I thought Trump was going to pick Ted Cruz and accused him of having no backbone or morals. Cruz didn't even defend his wife and father.

But, it sounds like Trump is not picking him. It sounds like his pick might be Ivanka.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

Generally speaking ..... Trump supporters are Christian Zionists and other God Fearing Folks. (60-70 percent of American's are atheist.)
These people are very well organized.
In small cities, the Christian Right "Own" city council elections.
They are like soldiers on a mission.
They meet every Sunday at least. 
Many Christian Zionists meet on Saturday instead.
They own buses for Sunday School and are used to transport voters to the polling booth and city council meetings..
The Christian Zionists obtain power and influence through Electoral College strategies.
Biden's largest threat is the Christian Right. (Christian Fascists)
I am thinking that this supreme court story is going to motivate young people and especially women get organized and get out and vote.

I could be wrong. I remember just how disappointed and surprised I was when George W. Bush won his second term. I thought the guy was so far behind in the polls.
----
"Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people who were oppressing them." 
--Assata Shakur-- 
----
"The Conspiracy of Law - Constitutionalism and Democracy.
In transitioning the deliverance of authority from the "rule of men" to the "rule of law," the power brokers have not only created their own sets of "Natural law," but have also made such laws nearly impossible to question."
--Howard Zinn--
----
"Consider Paul Allen, 55, a former mortgage CEO who defrauded lenders of over $3 billion. This week, prosecutors celebrated the fact they got him a 40-month prison sentence. Consider Roy Brown, 54, a hungry homeless man who robbed a Louisiana bank of $100 - the teller gave him more but he handed the rest back. He felt bad the next day and surrendered to police. He got 15 years. Justice in America has a ways to go."
--Abby Zimet, June 24, 2011--
----
"So, how do you restore trust?
.... the choir has assembled to chant the mantra: "we are not supposed to know anything of her judicial predispositions." Questions designed to elicit indications of how she might rule on given cases are not to be asked. Lawyers, legal scholars, and judges – along with media lickspittles – will croon the liturgy.
I have always regarded this proposition as so absurd on its face as to be unworthy of respect from intelligent, rational men and women. It takes an Ivy League college graduate to vigorously defend the idea. Think of the implications of this doctrine were it to be applied to advice you might seek from others in your daily life. If you were suffering from appendicitis and sought the help of a medical practitioner, would it be any of your concern whether that person engaged in established medical analysis and remedies, astrology, chiropractic techniques, crystal healing, prayer, or New Age methods? Whatever you might think of any of these approaches to health, would you consider it beyond your right to inquire? If your financial advisor regularly consulted tarot cards, dream analysis, Ouija boards, or Ben Bernanke to inform his judgments, would you want to know of this fact prior to his making investment decisions on your behalf?"
The Myth That Justice Is Blind!
--Butler Shaffer, The Myth That Justice Is Blind!, May 12, 2010--


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Anyone who promotes the "white privilege" status quo is a racist by those very actions.


So in your world, you're either racist because you do discriminate based on race, or racist because you don't discriminate on race.

Lets say you have Candidate A, and Candidate B. 
Both named Kelly Smith, with identifical qualifications, except Candidate A had a slightly higher GPA in their final year of school.

You choose Candidate A because while effectively the same, they had a higher grade.

1. Is that racist or not?

Situation 2. One of them is male, one is a female, one is black, one is white.
Do you pick Candidate A or B?
What is the correct not-racist decision?


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy sponsored the study to discover whether more money being funneled into state supreme court elections is placing fair and impartial courts at risk.
The report focused on business contributions and their impact on state supreme court decisions because when direct and indirect contributions are taken into account, business interests dominate spending on judicial elections. Thus, while business interests and other groups contributed roughly equal amounts to candidates in state supreme court races from 2000-2009, business organizations dominated independent expenditures in those races, accounting for more than 90 percent of paid television advertising.
By Joanna Shepherd
June 10, 2013




__





Institute Reports & Blog - FollowTheMoney.org







www.followthemoney.org


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If nothing else, Trump's 4 years in office prove one thing.

It is the Senate where the real power lies. A Republican Senate blocked Obama's pick and a Republican Senate will approve Trump's pick.

So, the solution may well be to make DC and Puerto Rico US. States.....with electoral votes to balance the power of the sparsely populated rural areas.

Rule by the minority doesn't have a future. The US political system will have to evolve, just as China's has over more than 2,000 years. 

In the grand scheme of things, the US is still an infant.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> So in your world, you're either racist because you do discriminate based on race, or racist because you don't discriminate on race.
> 
> Lets say you have Candidate A, and Candidate B.
> Both named Kelly Smith, with identifical qualifications, except Candidate A had a slightly higher GPA in their final year of school.
> ...


Pick the best candidate for the job, regardless of other factors. Your question assumes black people and women are by definition less qualified.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ We do know who actually gets picked in the "real" world ... ideally should be dependent on type of employer/employment. Example, burger flipper or a paper-pusher. And in MrMatt's case, for the latter position ... that would be Candidate B, white female.

Also, it appears the practice of being "an equal opportunity" employer is no longer in vogue these days and possibly for the years to come.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

sags said:


> It was me. I thought Trump was going to pick Ted Cruz and accused him of having no backbone or morals. Cruz didn't even defend his wife and father.
> 
> But, it sounds like Trump is not picking him. It sounds like his pick might be Ivanka.


 ... I wouldn't be surprised with the female Ivan.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Pick the best candidate for the job, regardless of other factors. Your question assumes black people and women are by definition less qualified.


How does my question assume any of that?

My point, which you clearly missed, is that race and gender are irrelevant to the decision. 
Nowhere in my example did I link those characteristics to the candidates, YOU did that.

Interesting that even when the example is explicitly set up to have no relation between race/sex & performance, you still manage to find it.

@Beaver101 
Equal opportunity employer, the idea is good.
However when major employers are implementing race and gender quotas, it's blantant discrimination.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> ...
> 
> @Beaver101
> Equal opportunity employer, the idea is good.
> However when major employers are implementing race and gender quotas, it's blantant discrimination.


 ... has it ever occurred to you why is it that? ... employers are implementing race & gender quotas?

Side note: All the functions ... bold, italized keys are grey-out / not available ATM.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> If nothing else, Trump's 4 years in office prove one thing.
> 
> It is the Senate where the real power lies. A Republican Senate blocked Obama's pick and a Republican Senate will approve Trump's pick.
> 
> So, the solution may well be to make DC and Puerto Rico US. States.....with electoral votes to balance the power of the sparsely populated rural areas.


Changing the rules because the party some prefer did not win isn't a solution, it's gaming the system. The Democrats changed the filibuster rule and now it doesn't work how they want. So now they want to change more rules or add non-states to gain an advantage?

Maybe they could have put forth a more qualified candidate that isn't suffering from dementia if they wanted to win the election.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... has it ever occurred to you why is it that? ... employers are implementing race & gender quotas?
> 
> Side note: All the functions ... bold, italized keys are grey-out / not available ATM.


Yes, because they don't believe some races are capable of competing on merit.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Yes, because they don't believe some races are capable of competing on merit.


 ... WOW, that's like saying Canada is going backwards. Or some people just can't see trends or refuses to see them by replacing with their own narratives.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... WOW, that's like saying Canada is going backwards. Or some people just can't see trends or refuses to see them by replacing with their own narratives.


We literally are going backwards.
We used to discriminate based on race, we decided it was bad, and have been working to purge racial discrimination from our society and culture.

Now we have companies proudly promoting racial quotas. it ABSOLUTELY is going backwards.

Yes it's a dangerous trend, I don't want to go back to an era of racism and discrimination. 

It's bad. I don't see how you can think a world of racism and discrimination is a good thing. We found wars against this!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ You can twist this anyway you want with the "Now we have companies proudly promoting racial quotas. it ABSOLUTELY is going backwards." 

But real (or the traditional type) racial discrimination has never gone away or even diminished for that matter. So in effect, I agree with your "Yes it's a dangerous trend, I don't want to go back to an era of racism and discrimination." and not your twisted version of "It's bad. I don't see how you can think a world of racism and discrimination is a good thing. We found wars against this!" Kind of contradicting statements ...or talking from 2 sides of the mouth.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Changing the rules because the party some prefer did not win isn't a solution, it's gaming the system. The Democrats changed the filibuster rule and now it doesn't work how they want. So now they want to change more rules or add non-states to gain an advantage?
> 
> Maybe they could have put forth a more qualified candidate that isn't suffering from dementia if they wanted to win the election.


The problem is the structure of the Senate. It is a poorly considered concept.

The State with the least population 578,759 (2019) has 2 Senators.

The State with the largest population 39,937,500 (2020) has 2 Senators.

That is like saying our city should have as many MPs as the rest of Canada combined.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ You can twist this anyway you want with the "Now we have companies proudly promoting racial quotas. it ABSOLUTELY is going backwards."
> 
> But real (or the traditional type) racial discrimination has never gone away or even diminished for that matter. So in effect, I agree with your "Yes it's a dangerous trend, I don't want to go back to an era of racism and discrimination." and not your twisted version of "It's bad. I don't see how you can think a world of racism and discrimination is a good thing. We found wars against this!" Kind of contradicting statements ...or talking from 2 sides of the mouth.


Actually real legal discrimination was effectively done away with.
There used to be laws that discriminated against races and genders, for the most part they're gone.

?
Yes the trend to more discrimination is bad, and I don't want to go back to a world were it is legal.
We fought wars against racism and discrimination.

Know how far we've come against racism, and how hard it's been to get even here.
Why would anyone want to turn back the clock and have more racism?


To argue that racial discrimination has never gone away, or even diminished is categorically ridiculous. 
Canada had a history of denying certain races the right to vote, prohibitions which are now gone. That is a very clear reduction in legal racism at a national scale.

I think part of the problem is that too many people aren't educated or aware of the history.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

Biden @ CNN town hall on Thursday regarding corna
"And if The president done his job, done his job from the beginning all the people would still be alive. All the people I am not making this stuff up just look @ the data look @ the data"
When Trump closed the boarder to China Biden called him a racist.

His lack of mental capacity has clouded his judgement. The real question is who will be running the country under Biden ?

Biden wants to make wearing masks mandatory even outside. Gates has been kicked out of countries for the damage he has done to people with his vaccines. Trump is standing in the way of the great reset lets hope he can stay in there. Biden will go along with the digital tracking & currency. The election will be corrupt against Trump


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Actually real legal discrimination was effectively done away with.
> There used to be laws that discriminated against races and genders, for the most part they're gone.
> 
> ...


 ... ???? The discrimination laws have gone away??? DUH. Are you a living fossil?

Here's a transcript copied from the page of "Human Rights 101 Part A - About Human Rights" right off the Ontario Human Rights Commission website today (Monday September 21st, 2020): 

"hr101-A00-about

Unit A “About Human Rights” has two sections. “Foundations of the Code” and “What is Discrimination.”


Where the Code Comes From

“Foundations of the Code” discusses the international, national, and provincial foundations of the Ontario Human Rights Code. Under international law, we all have human rights, and so the Code’s Preamble refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Code also looks to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees people the people of Canada certain political and civil rights.


History Background

After World War II, Ontario politicians and citizens lobbied for legislation to protect human rights, and it was one of the first provinces to introduce: The Racial Discrimination Act (1944), The Fair Employment Practices Act (1951), and The Fair Accommodation Practices Act (1954). In 1962, these Acts were brought together under the Ontario Human Rights Code.


Discrimination

What is discrimination? Discrimination is treating somebody badly because of their race, disability, sex or other personal characteristics. Discrimination has many forms. Discrimination can target one person, or a group. It can be hard to see or be part of a system.


Direct

Direct discrimination means discriminating against someone because you think they are different from you. It includes practices or behaviours that have a negative effect of a person or a group of people who belong to a ground listed under the Code. It doesn't matter that you didn't intend to treat them differently. What matters is whether your actions or what you said results in discrimination.


Indirect

Constructive discrimination may happen when certain demands or requirements that seem to be fair actually keep groups listed in the Code out, or gives them special treatment over others.


Systemic

Discrimination may be part of a system, like how decisions are made, and the practices and policies, or the culture of the organization. For example, the head of the company likes golf, and only wants to promote managers who play golf. Think about who gets invited to the golf game.


Reprisal

Reprisal means taking action, or threatening to take action against someone who has a human rights complaint, or who is a witness to the discrimination, and is not allowed under the code. You cannot be punished or threatened with punishment for trying to make a complaint, filing a human rights application, filing a human rights grievance, or acting as a witness at a human rights hearing.


Poisoned Environment

A poisoned environment is created when comments or actions based on grounds listed in the code make you feel unwelcomed or uncomfortable at work. It poisons the workplace. Sometimes all it takes is one comment to poison the environment.


Harassment

Harassment under the code means "a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonable to be known to be unwelcome." Harassment usually meets the following requirements: What was said or the behaviour usually happened more than once. The person responsible for the comment or conduct should have known that it is not welcome. Sometimes it’s hard to tell someone to stop, so if you don’t or can’t, the code doesn’t require you to do so.


Racial Profiling

Racial profiling happens when you take action because you're worried about safety, for security reasons, or for the public's protection, and your decision is based on stereotypes about a person's race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion or place of origin.


Review

Discrimination happens it many ways. It can be direct, indirect (sometimes called constructive), or systemic. Discrimination can also be things like reprisal, a poisoned environment, harassment, or racial profiling."


Side note: Once the function keys are back, I'll "emphasize" your BSs.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... ???? The discrimination laws have gone away??? DUH. Are you a living fossil?
> 
> 
> Side note: Once the function keys are back, I'll "emphasize" your BSs.


Well, if I was living in a fossil I'd still think that there are laws prohibiting the equal treatment of people based on race.

Can you identify one law on the books in Canada that discriminates against a race?
Something like restrictions or taxes on what a particular race is not permitted to do?

I agree there has been a resurgence of racist laws, but they're generally promoted as "anti racist". I'd like them gone too.

I do not think racial discrimination belongs in our justice system, or society at large.


But if there is a racist law on the books today, let me know, and I'll email my MP or MPP today to get it repealed.
I'll even post the letter here so others can copy it.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

The unelected UN with their great reset are using BLM to divide & conquer. They want a quota system where politicians must be allocated by gender & race rather then policies. This is to seek that no government will buck the UN agenda.

They will most likely adopt forced implants to regulate birth control already developed by Gates. Of course paper money will be gone & everyone will have a bank account where taxes will automatically be drawn.

The UN seeks to impose Marxism on all countries, They seek to control the press & restrict social media like we have seen on You tube & Facebook anything that is contrary to the UN agenda will be removed this will be applied to everyone & all platforms.

They began their bid to become the New World order back in 2012 when they began to argue an international tax to save the world.

Their entire agenda hinges on getting rid of Trump because he is not about to surrender the sovereignty of the United States to the United Nations.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I do not care what they do with the nomination. No impact on me.

Certainly this entire four years of left and right has demonstrated at least one thing. Politics and religion are a toxic mix.

As they used to say in my former province...when religion and politics get into bed together it is the voters who get screwed (loosely translated). There is a replay of this stateside. My heart goes out to our great friends and neighbours to the south.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Well, if I was living in a fossil I'd still think that there are laws prohibiting the equal treatment of people based on race.


 ... then why don't you consider moving to Russia or China or North Korea for that matter? No need for laws (democracy) there.



> Can you identify one law on the books in Canada that discriminates against a race?
> Something like restrictions or taxes on what a particular race is not permitted to do?


 ... no as I ain't no lawyer but thought you were / know. But then no need for you to cite such text as I would be sorely embarassed for you if I was a lawyer.



> I agree there has been a resurgence of racist laws, but they're generally promoted as "anti racist". I'd like them gone too.
> 
> I do not think racial discrimination belongs in our justice system, or society at large.


 ... I guess you're delusional and think you're living elsewhere other than Canada.



> But if there is a racist law on the books today, let me know, and I'll email my MP or MPP today to get it repealed.
> I'll even post the letter here so others can copy it.


... I let you do that since you seem so you're so stucked on the idea of "resurgence of racist laws that're promoted as anti-racist" ... which in your little beady head is racist against your kind (white people) as if Canada belongs to you.

Hate to remind you but the true Natives were on this land first and they been discriminated ever since Europeans settled here.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> The problem is the structure of the Senate. It is a poorly considered concept.
> 
> The State with the least population 578,759 (2019) has 2 Senators.
> 
> ...


Different country, different rules. 

But that has absolutely nothing to do with fact that the Democrats are threatening to change the rules because they can't win. They're a bunch of crybabies who can handle losing an election. Their only solutions to losing are violence and changing the rules. 

And you want people like that in charge?


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Prairie Guy said:


> But that has absolutely nothing to do with fact that the Democrats are threatening to change the rules because they can't win. They're a bunch of crybabies who can handle losing an election.


I think the Democrats are more upset about constantly having elections stolen from them:

*Bush vs Gore in 2000*. Al Gore would have actually won the election (because he won Florida). He certainly won the popular vote. But more importantly, Gore actually did win Florida and was the legitimate winner of this election. Gore demanded a Florida recount, but the Bush campaign sued to stop it. Meanwhile, the Republicans carried out a powerful PR campaign to paint Gore as the loser, and it affected the media's reporting. In the end, seeing that public sentiment and the media was against him, Gore _prematurely_ conceded the election.

^ this one was a blatantly stolen election

*Clinton vs Trump in 2016*. Clinton won the popular vote. Due to very effective Republican gerrymandering, which is the strategic method of impacting elections by shifting borders, and the oddities of the Electoral College system, Trump won. It was a very close election and those little tricks of the Republicans really paid off.

*Voter suppression*. A long-time trick of the Republicans, an explicit way to manipulate election results especially by suppressing black and latino voters. And they're still up to it today, most recently by trying to suppress voting by mail by sabotaging the postal service, since significantly more Democrat voters plan to vote by mail.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Different country, different rules.
> 
> But that has absolutely nothing to do with fact that the Democrats are threatening to change the rules because they can't win. They're a bunch of crybabies who can handle losing an election. Their only solutions to losing are violence and changing the rules.
> 
> And you want people like that in charge?


They're not talking about changing the rules. Everything they are talking about is perfectly legal and constitutional.

You're complaining about changing norms. Norms went out the window with the Merrick Garland stunt.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> They're not talking about changing the rules. Everything they are talking about is perfectly legal and constitutional.


It might be time to impeach Trump. There are countless reasons to. Interfering with the DOJ to help his crooked friends, explicitly inviting foreign interference in the elections, failure and unwillingness to protect the American people in a health catastrophe, failure to obey subpoenas from Congress, to name a few.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

@Beaver101

Great non response. Very trolly
The reality is we are less racist than we've ever been, and we have to fight the resurgence of racism.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

The angry left are the only ones making this a battle. Everyone else is content to follow and respect the rules of the constitution where it clearly states the POTUS has the power only to appoint SC judges, election year or not. This is the worst thing that could happen to Dems is to lose the liberal hand of the SC and another branch of govt and they are handling it very poorly.

Another example of how they try through anarchy , insurrection, weaponizing of the deep state law agencies and hoaxes to try to delegitimize and overturn a democratic ,fair election, the actions and office of the POTUS and undermine the will of the people. They simply don't believe in democracy when they lose.

The constitution is quite clear the POTUS alone has the power to appoint an SC judge not the Democrat led house , some Dem committee, RBG's last wishes or any other nonsense and stalling the Dems are demanding. It is also disgraceful they would suggest to stuff the SC just to keep control.

Past judges have been have been appointed in election years so that is no excuse either. Already the radical Dems and their media and celebrity pals are crying for more violence and insurrection again if they don't get what the want if it even disregards the constitution.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Jimmy said:


> They simply don't believe in democracy when they lose.


yup, and I hope they get a good judge in there, ideally someone who can read.

The biggest travesties in legal rulings are from ignoring the actual words on the paper, and instead "reading into" all sorts of other stuff.

The job of a judge is to apply the law to the case. If a law needs to be changed to account for more modern times, that's what the legislature is for.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

james4beach said:


> I think the Democrats are more upset about constantly having elections stolen from them:
> 
> *Bush vs Gore in 2000*. Al Gore would have actually won the election (because he won Florida). He certainly won the popular vote. But more importantly, Gore actually did win Florida and was the legitimate winner of this election. Gore demanded a Florida recount, but the Bush campaign sued to stop it. Meanwhile, the Republicans carried out a powerful PR campaign to paint Gore as the loser, and it affected the media's reporting. In the end, seeing that public sentiment and the media was against him, Gore _prematurely_ conceded the election.
> 
> ...


All three of your claims are wrong. No reason to respond with well known facts.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

james4beach said:


> I think the Democrats are more upset about constantly having elections stolen from them:
> 
> *Bush vs Gore in 2000*. Gore _prematurely_ conceded the election.


Okay, so you want a quitter who makes bad decisions in charge?


> *Clinton vs Trump in 2016*. "*the oddities of the Electoral College system"*,


Yeah, the "oddities" of the electoral system.
That's like blaming FPTP for Trudeau, as opposed to the CPC simply not running a good campaign.

I'm sure that if the Election format was different, the strategies and candidates would be different
Everyone knows the rules, Hilary simply lost.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

MrMatt said:


> Everyone knows the rules, Hilary simply lost.


But rather than put forth a better candidate and/or run a better campaign they just want to change the rules.

In other words, it doesn't matter how the people voted. The Democrat elite just want power, the people be damned.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Biden is leading Trump by 10% points currently. He is also leading in the electoral race.

Trump will rally his troops because of the SCOTUS appointment, but lose independent voters in the process.

It will be interesting to see if the Trump SCOTUS nomination helps or hurts him and the Republicans.

I think Biden will defeat Trump easily, and the interesting events to watch will be the Senate races.

The Senate is where the real power lies, especially with SCOTUS and other appointments.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> Biden is leading Trump by 10% points currently. He is also leading in the electoral race.
> 
> Trump will rally his troops because of the SCOTUS appointment, but lose independent voters in the process.
> 
> ...


I think that the election will be a nailbitter to the end.
Biden is a horrible candidate, roughly on par with Trump.

If Trump really wants to help the US, he could push for a nice young judge who will have decades of influence on SCOTUS. Though I don't think Trump is willing to make that kind of sacrifice.

To me I'm honestly shocked how anyone can actually get worked up for either of these candidates, they're both just awful.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Jimmy said:


> The angry left are the only ones making this a battle. Everyone else is content to follow and respect the rules of the constitution where it clearly states the POTUS has the power only to appoint SC judges, election year or not. This is the worst thing that could happen to Dems is to lose the liberal hand of the SC and another branch of govt and they are handling it very poorly.
> 
> Another example of how they try through anarchy , insurrection, weaponizing of the deep state law agencies and hoaxes to try to delegitimize and overturn a democratic ,fair election, the actions and office of the POTUS and undermine the will of the people. They simply don't believe in democracy when they lose.
> 
> ...


Are you familiar with Merrick Garland? Lindsay Graham swore up and down that SCOTUS justices shouldn't be confirmed period in election years, even in the exact scenario we are in now with a Republican president.

The problem is one rule for thee and another for me. Based on blocking Merrick Garland in 2016, Dems ought to do anything within their procedural power to prevent this justice from being confirmed. It is just a matter of consistency. If that means Pelosi jamming the Senate docket with priority business to prevent the confirmation hearing, then so be it. That is what Americans elected the DNC House majority to do.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> But rather than put forth a better candidate and/or run a better campaign they just want to change the rules.
> 
> In other words, it doesn't matter how the people voted. The Democrat elite just want power, the people be damned.


The people voted, and elected a Dem majority in the House. They elected them to do what they can to hold Trump to account, including jamming up his SCOTUS appointments to the degree possible. Mitch McConnell can't argue with that logic.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> yup, and I hope they get a good judge in there, ideally someone who can read.
> 
> The biggest travesties in legal rulings are from ignoring the actual words on the paper, and instead "reading into" all sorts of other stuff.
> 
> The job of a judge is to apply the law to the case. If a law needs to be changed to account for more modern times, that's what the legislature is for.


Kind of like reading the 2nd Amendment protecting the right to bear arms specifically to form 'well regulation [state] militias', not for people to have unfettered private arsenals.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Kind of like reading the 2nd Amendment protecting the right to bear arms specifically to form 'well regulation [state] militias', not for people to have unfettered private arsenals.


Wow, do you realize what you did there?
You literally misread and added words to the 2nd Amendment to change the meaning.

These are the actual words

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Is the first part of it completely irrelevant exposition? The historical context was one where the states (not the State) formed militias to maintain security and defense, which is what the 2A sought to preserve. It has been warped to mean that any yahoo can keep arms. The current interpretation is that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," ignoring the preamble.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Is the first part of it completely irrelevant exposition? The historical context was one where the states (not the State) formed militias to maintain security and defense, which is what the 2A sought to preserve. It has been warped to mean that any yahoo can keep arms. The current interpretation is that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," ignoring the preamble.


It should also be noted that the militias are currently sometimes used for offensive (not defensive) purposes, for example, incursions into a city with guns in a show of force. Another example would be the militias + Rittenhouse who went into a city as as an organized assault on their enemies. These are incursions and attacks on other jurisdictions.

There are Canadian equivalents as well, like Sons of Odin and similar gangs, which aim to intimidate populations they are ideologically opposed to. The intent is offensive, not defensive.

I do understand the intention of the militias to defend themselves. But there are at least some of them, today, which are not positioned that way. Also keep in mind that militias are often staffed with ex (or current) police and military, meaning that they benefit from heavy weapons and explosives training. It's a reason why so many far-right extremists are being found in the Canadian military as well. The militias are trained and armed.

On top of that you have ex Iraq and Afghanistan vets in the US, people who are now accustomed to urban warfare in very long deployments. These people have come back to the US and have brought their skills and enthusiasm into militia activities. *Their minds are also primed to go looking for a battle or a war.*

IMO there is a strong probability of a significant massacre in which offensive militias of this type kill many American civilians. Many of them are itching for battle and urban warfare, and they are NOT intending to keep any peace. American intelligence and the FBI knows this as well, it's a very volatile and dangerous situation. At the same time, Trump explicitly fuels the militias by encouraging their behaviour, which only increases the probability of a significant massacre.

The idea of a "radical left" with any similar potential for violence is laughable. There is absolutely nothing among the radical leftists that comes close to competing with the training, organization, firepower, plus military skill set ... the armed right wing extremists are incredibly potent and dangerous. The typical armed left wing radical is some kid with a handgun or firecracker. He's up against military-trained right wing extremists who have a life time of heavy weapons training, practice drills in the woods, and _are trained_ by real military people.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

andrewf said:


> Are you familiar with Merrick Garland? Lindsay Graham swore up and down that SCOTUS justices shouldn't be confirmed period in election years, even in the exact scenario we are in now with a Republican president.
> 
> The problem is one rule for thee and another for me. Based on blocking Merrick Garland in 2016, Dems ought to do anything within their procedural power to prevent this justice from being confirmed. It is just a matter of consistency. If that means Pelosi jamming the Senate docket with priority business to prevent the confirmation hearing, then so be it. That is what Americans elected the DNC House majority to do.


Dems already did everything to block the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. That is the reason Graham changed his tune. Their behavior and their phony witness were disgraceful. Pelosi is the House speaker btw and can't do anything as nominations go through the senate who will pass this swiftly and democracy will be maintained to the dismay of the left.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Is the first part of it completely irrelevant exposition? The historical context was one where the states (not the State) formed militias to maintain security and defense, which is what the 2A sought to preserve. It has been warped to mean that any yahoo can keep arms. The current interpretation is that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," ignoring the preamble.


Yes, it was intended so that the state could form a militia, and that the people should be ready to answer the call.
As such they need guns to answer the call, and their right to have them shall not be infringed.
The "preamble" is the context and justification, not a limitation on the actual right.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

So grab your musket and join the ranks..........LOL.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Jimmy said:


> Dems already did everything to block the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. That is the reason Graham changed his tune. Their behavior and their phony witness were disgraceful. Pelosi is the House speaker btw and can't do anything as nominations go through the senate who will pass this swiftly and democracy will be maintained to the dismay of the left.


Pelosi can tie up the Senate until after the election by sending business that takes priority, for instance.

The dismay might come when Biden appoints several judges once he wins and the Dems take the Senate.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> @Beaver101
> 
> Great non response. Very trolly


 ... same trolly as you but I admit you're better at it .. with your twistings and spinning BS.



> The reality is we are less racist than we've ever been, and we have to fight the resurgence of racism.


 ... no, the reality is we are just as racist as we've ever been, and we are not giving up our fight to suppress the continuous, if not more, racism.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

andrewf said:


> Pelosi can tie up the Senate until after the election by sending business that takes priority, for instance.
> 
> The dismay might come when Biden appoints several judges once he wins and the Dems take the Senate.


She has nothing more urgent than this. She is a fool if she tries impeachment or any of their other tricks. They will lose the election for sure. Going to lose anyway.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... same trolly as you but I admit you're better at it .. with your twistings and spinning BS.
> 
> ... no, the reality is we are just as racist as we've ever been, and we are not giving up our fight to suppress the continuous, if not more, racism.


The reality is that we're less racist as we've ever been. Not perfect, but better.
The racist laws have bee mostly removed from the books.

It's only recently that the lefties have been pushing for more discrimination and segregation.


----------



## :) lonewolf (Feb 9, 2020)

andrewf said:


> The dismay might come when Biden appoints several judges once he wins and the Dems take the Senate.


 Biden is not smart enough to do his own thing any more. The New World Order wants someone dumb so they can control them


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

:) lonewolf said:


> Biden is not smart enough to do his own thing any more. The New World Order wants someone dumb so they can control them


A new world order would be a good thing. The old one is broken down and falling apart.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> A new world order would be a good thing. The old one is broken down and falling apart.


Generally those calling for a revolution don't end up getting the result they were hoping for.

Looking around the world, throughout history, todays lead modern societies are pretty good.
Lets work on fixing the problems.


I don't think people realize that if you tear it all down, it will be really bad for everyone.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The German, Denmark, Norway, Finland models of democratic socialist capitalism (DSC) are more attractive to Canadians than the failed US model of naked capitalism. The US is still an infant among developed societies and will morph through the titanic changes other countries have already experienced.

Those countries lead the world in healthcare, education, justice reform, and quality of life. They have centuries of experience to achieve a better balance.

Trudeau, Freeland and the Liberals clearly understand this, while Erin O'Toole and the Conservatives still cling to the US as an example to follow.

I suspect the Throne Speech and future election platforms from the Liberals will move us closer to the better economic and societal models.

We should work to live.... not live to work.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> The German, Denmark, Norway, Finland models of democratic socialist capitalism (DSC) are more attractive to Canadians than the failed US model of naked capitalism. The US is still an infant among developed societies and will morph through the titanic changes other countries have already experienced.
> 
> Those countries lead the world in healthcare, education, justice reform, and quality of life. They have centuries of experience to achieve a better balance.
> 
> ...


I worked for a large German company.
They, like many large multinationals, send excutive track staff around the world to manage departments for a few years in different countries.
Interesting thing is that nearly half the Germans who were posted to the US for a year or two, stayed in the US.

There are a lot of great things about Germany, but there is reason that so many Germans emigrate to North America.

The German US thing is actually very interesting, there is an observation that many have made.
US is concerned with Government going too far.
Germany is concerned with Corporations going to far.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Maybe US is great, as long as you are an executive/1% income earner. Maybe Germany is better if you are in the 99%. Both can be true. Of course, wealthier people are more mobile.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Maybe US is great, as long as you are an executive/1% income earner. Maybe Germany is better if you are in the 99%. Both can be true. Of course, wealthier people are more mobile.


Well to be fair the managers are typically at least in the 5% or 10%

As far as being better, many Germans were also locating to Canada, but typically to the US as that's where the more senior positions were.

In any case it's important to note German top marginal tax rates are lower than Canadian rates on personal income.
Maybe we should cut taxes.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Germany has significantly higher VAT and other taxes. I am generally supportive of VAT taxes as opposed to income taxes. Unfortunately, a previous Conservative government decided to lower VAT rather than income taxes (or, rather than continue to reduce our debt burden).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> Germany has significantly higher VAT and other taxes. I am generally supportive of VAT taxes as opposed to income taxes. Unfortunately, a previous Conservative government decided to lower VAT rather than income taxes (or, rather than continue to reduce our debt burden).


Intersting, I'm more for income taxes, you know that "rich pay more" thing


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

You have to look at taxes and transfers overall to worry about progressive taxation. VAT is already progressive when considered along with GST rebate (a proto-UBI).


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

andrewf said:


> You have to look at taxes and transfers overall to worry about progressive taxation. VAT is already progressive when considered along with GST rebate (a proto-UBI).


Nope.
VAT isn't progressive, it's a flat tax.

Creating an offset system, calling it a GST rebate, or UBI or income tested benefit doesn't impact the inherent "fairness" of a single tax rate for all people.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> Nope.
> VAT isn't progressive, it's a flat tax.
> 
> Creating an offset system, calling it a GST rebate, or UBI or income tested benefit doesn't impact the inherent "fairness" of a single tax rate for all people.


You have to look at things holistically. The GST rebate was introduced to offset the regressivity of a flat consumption tax, particularly one that was applied to a broader base than the sales tax it replaced. Our current progressive income tax system is mathematically equivalent to a flat tax system with non-refundable income tax credits for income below certain thresholds.

A family of 4 with low income (each partner earns less than $24k) in Ontario pays net $0 HST for HST-applicable spending under $9600 per year as a consequence of the HST + HST rebate. If they choose to consume less than $9600 worth of HSTable goods, then they come out ahead due to the policy.

It is also possible to design a VAT system that is progressive, but it would require a fair amount of administration. Essentially, you could claim back some portion of VAT below a certain spend per year. But this would require tracking taxable transactions lest you lose the rebate (similar to businesses). So a less onerous solution was the rebate, and just assuming that every individual pays $313 in HST per year, with a clawback on higher incomes.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Beaver101 said:


> ... then why don't you consider moving to Russia or China or North Korea for that matter? No need for laws (democracy) there.
> 
> ... no as I ain't no lawyer but thought you were / know. But then no need for you to cite such text as I would be sorely embarassed for you if I was a lawyer.
> 
> ...


 ... according to some especially proud people here denying racism doesn't exists in this country. No, it doesn't just only exists, it's rampant:

Joyce Echaquan’s widower blames *systemic racism* in Quebec hospital for wife’s death



> The bereaved widower of Joyce Echaquan, the Indigenous woman verbally abused by Quebec hospital staff as she lay dying, made a distress call for justice on Friday, *asking his country’s leaders to recognize systemic racism and do something about it.*
> 
> Carol Dubé, Ms. Echaquan’s husband, spoke through tears while one of her sons wrapped his arms around his shoulders: “I am here to claim justice, for my wife and for her seven children who will never see her again. They are the ones who have lost the most in this senseless death.
> 
> ...


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

For those who proudly do not believe "RACISM" exist in this country, an up-to-date "FACT" that it is PERVASIVE (everywhere, like a cancer) in this country:

*Death of Indigenous woman in Que. hospital highlights racist barriers to care: experts*



> People take part in a protest called ‘Justice for Joyce’ in Montreal, Saturday, October 3, 2020, where they demanded Justice for Joyce Echaquan and an end to all systemic racism.
> 
> Morgan Lowrie and Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Beaver101 said:


> For those who proudly do not believe "RACISM" exist in this country, an up-to-date "FACT" that it is PERVASIVE (everywhere, like a cancer) in this country:


When I was in highschool, it was common knowledge that police went around beating up indigenous youths for sport. One of our classmates told us he'd seen police use phone books to beat up kids because it didn't leave bruises.

Other kids at school had a never ending repertoire of indecent jokes about black people and natives. It was 10+ years later by the time I pieced things together and figured out that the kids learned these jokes from their parents (cops, business people).

That's how it's pervasive. This kind of disgusting behaviour is rampant throughout the power structures. The police make decisions on who to arrest and pick on; the business people make decisions on who to hire and who to exclude from circles.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The police are a reflection of society.

I can remember a time when the N word was used extensively and teenagers used to drive around the "ghetto" areas for entertainment.

It was a different time, and I don't think people should be held accountable for racist or sexist views they had way back then.

Times changed and most people change with them.

I grew up, played sports and worked with people of all races and never really thought about it much.

I used to say I didn't see their color, but now know that is part of the problem.

I didn't stand up for them if I didn't recognize their struggles.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> ... Times changed and most people change with them.


 ... except for those deniers trying to cloak themselves in the closet whilst self-declaring as having good rotten genes on social media. I think their genes are not just "good" but superiorly rotten.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

CDC Says White Men Aren’t Washing Their Hands | Eat This Not That

*CDC Says White Men Aren't Washing Their Hands*
A new study claims that white men are less likely to practice hand hygiene than other groups.

BYLEAH GROTH OCTOBER 8, 2020

*



White Men Can't Jump…or Wash Hands

Click to expand...

*


> According to the CDC study, based on data collected from Porter Novelli Public Services, *white people, men and young adults between the ages of 18 and 24 are less likely to wash their hands. *
> 
> The data involved 3,600 people pre-pandemic in October 2019 and then 4,000 in June 2020, as the virus was surging in many parts of the country. Researchers reported "statistically significant increases in reported handwashing" during the time period, finding that in general, people were about twice as likely to wash hands in certain situations, including after coughing or sneezing and before eating. ....


It just gets better and better ... the proof in the pudding. Now I'm waiting to hear the outcries from white men claiming that the CDC themselves is a racist institution too ... LOL.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Boys’ club on Bay Street? Former RBC employee speaks out against a culture of sexism and silence
*



Boys’ club on Bay Street? Former RBC employee speaks out against a culture of sexism and silence

Click to expand...

*


> _
> By Rosa SabaBusiness Reporter
> Sat., Oct. 10, 2020timer9 min. read
> 
> ...


Well well well ... Mount Everest is going to erupt soon.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

Beaver101 said:


> Boys’ club on Bay Street? Former RBC employee speaks out against a culture of sexism and silence
> 
> 
> Well well well ... Mount Everest is going to erupt soon.


Yep, I believe her, but there will be a quiet settlement out of court, a few reprimands, maybe some 'sensitivity' training. And things will gradually go back to the way they were. Maybe a bit more subtle.
I am not sure if you remember the headlines a few years ago about the hooker sex worker in t he RBCDS offices in Calgary a few years ago. The s**t the fan - one broker was fired - promptly moved his book to Scotia Macleod. and life went on - hookers and blow. Not as bad now but likely attributable more to the economy.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Joe Biden said people don't deserve to know if he will pack the Supreme Court.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

As GOP leader Mitch McConnell has often said..........elections have consequences.

It is good the Republicans are making the SCOTUS an election issue. The people will decide.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

twa2w said:


> Yep, I believe her, but there will be a quiet settlement out of court, a few reprimands, maybe some 'sensitivity' training. And things will gradually go back to the way they were. Maybe a bit more subtle.


 ... most likely as "changes" will be more or less the same. Or the proverbial "changes are constant". Just nothing "improves".

But we'll see on the after-effects with this newspiece since it's happened at Canada' Biggest bank with juicy details blown up on the front page of a major newspaper in the city.



> I am not sure if you remember the headlines a few years ago about the hooker sex worker in t he RBCDS offices in Calgary a few years ago. The s**t the fan - one broker was fired - promptly moved his book to Scotia Macleod. and life went on - hookers and blow. Not as bad now but likely attributable more to the economy.


 ... no, didn't hear about that as I'm more in tune with news happening locally (TO). 

But then I wouldn't be surprised at all since some companies ( I was in one of them) allow "consensual" hanky pankies to go on behind their doors. Reporting to HR about the unsavory unprofessional acts happening during business hours only met with eyes blind, ears deaf ... not even a reprimand for the violators. I wouldn't be the least surprised that HR don't take action as they don't want to know as it makes their job so much easier, if not being complicits. So much for having a Code of Conduct bible.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I think people have the misapprehension that HR is meant to be their shoulder to cry on. HR has one role: protect the company from liability. They are not your friend.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> As GOP leader Mitch McConnell has often said..........elections have consequences.
> 
> It is good the Republicans are making the SCOTUS an election issue. The people will decide.


The people already decided when they voted Trump as president. It is the sworn duty of the president to appoint people to the Supreme Court when a vacancy arises.

Biden says the people don't deserve to know what he will do.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

andrewf said:


> I think people have the misapprehension that HR is meant to be their shoulder to cry on. HR has one role: protect the company from liability. They are not your friend.


 ... that misapprehension you allude is so yesteryear. 

I think there's no need for an HR department in the company or their supposedly role of "protect the company from liability" because they have failed miserably as with the RBC front page news piece.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

That is an HR department that failed in their duty. Heads will roll.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

School in Pickering investigates 'hurtful and racist' comments published in yearbook

Another example of racism that's well and alive EVERYWHERE in this country. Surprising (or maybe not) this runs through the school system, only it's a Catholic one in this instance. Sounds like its attendees are pretty barbaric there.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

I thought that this guy showed just how corrupt the American justice system is.

Hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., did not pose any questions to Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Using poster board displays, Whitehouse argued that Barrett's nomination reflects a pattern by conservative special interest groups of using "dark money" to influence who sits on the court. 
----
PBS - NewsHour
By Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
October 13, 2020
(YouTube Video)


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

What he didn't mention is that the Democrats get far more dark money than the Republicans:









Documents reveal massive 'dark-money' group boosted Democrats in 2018


A little-known nonprofit called The Sixteen Thirty Fund pumped $140 million into Democratic and left-leaning causes.




www.politico.com


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

What I did not mention is that obviously the scales of justice are not blind.
It is the selection process where the power really lies.
A few members of the upper class control the selection process.
A few U.S. Capitalists control the Supreme Court.
I have never viewed a video which details the corruption in such a forceful way.
I found it shocking that the corruption is so blatant and so deep.

It is not Republican or Democrat ...... The justice system is corrupt.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

calm said:


> What I did not mention is that obviously the scales of justice are not blind.
> It is the selection process where the power really lies.
> A few members of the upper class control the selection process.
> A few U.S. Capitalists control the Supreme Court.
> ...


His job yesterday was to vet the credentials of a Supreme Court nominee...not to grandstand for his entire allotted time. He didn't do his job. If he wants to complain about dark money he could have called a press conference. He's a Democrat and the media would have rolled out the red carpet for him.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

Were the facts which the senator mentioned true or false? And I do realize that the Republican Party does the same trip as the Democrats do.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> What he didn't mention is that the Democrats get far more dark money than the Republicans:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Given that both sides are moaning about it, you'd think there could be some bipartisan support for getting money out of politics. Seems like there is only support for this on the left.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> His job yesterday was to vet the credentials of a Supreme Court nominee...not to grandstand for his entire allotted time. He didn't do his job. If he wants to complain about dark money he could have called a press conference. He's a Democrat and the media would have rolled out the red carpet for him.


As the GOP said, they have the votes (and they had it without knowing who the nominee was). Grandstanding is just how this goes.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

At the end of the day, President Biden will have to suppress his own personal feelings about packing the court and go ahead and appoint 4 new judges.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> At the end of the day, President Biden will have to suppress his own personal feelings about packing the court and go ahead and appoint 4 new judges.


Maybe Trump should appoint 12 more judges. That's legal and fair, isn't it?


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

andrewf said:


> As the GOP said, they have the votes (and they had it without knowing who the nominee was). Grandstanding is just how this goes.


Luckily the Democrats were above that 🤣


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Maybe Trump should appoint 12 more judges. That's legal and fair, isn't it?


He has a few weeks to do so.


----------



## Jimmy (May 19, 2017)

Biden can't answer whether he will pack the court or not. Can't even be honest now of his policies. You are supposed to support a candidate based on the policies they represent. How could anyone vote for sleepy , dishonest and now Burisma corrupt Biden? They just found some emails from Hunter confirming his influence peddling in the Ukraine and corruption that big tech liberals took down in a hurry on Twitter and Facebook to protect sleepy creepy Joe.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

Big Tech is openly committing election tampering. They have also publicly stated that they will suppress any unverified reports of early results...basically, if Trump wins they will block anyone who posts that until after the Democrats can magically "find" enough votes to cheat the election.

Do the Republicans have enough balls to do something about it or will Mark Zuckerberg be the one who decides who wins the election?


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

I don't think that Biden is going to do anything about the packing the court.
Biden has a history of voting for conservative judges.
--------
Clarence Thomas became the Court’s most extreme conservative. (1991)
Robert Bork dedicated his career to opposing civil rights and women’s rights. (1987)


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

^Melodramatic.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The Democrats can impeach Kavanaugh and Barrett for lying to the Senate. They can replace those two Judges. So, the number of Judges wouldn't change.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Interesting that we rarely hear anything about the Supreme Court of Canada.

I follow some of the proceedings on public television, and they aren't even covered in the main media.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> The Democrats can impeach Kavanaugh and Barrett for lying to the Senate. They can replace those two Judges. So, the number of Judges wouldn't change.


Neither one of them lied.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> The Democrats can impeach Kavanaugh and Barrett for lying to the Senate. They can replace those two Judges. So, the number of Judges wouldn't change.


It is exceedingly unlikely that they will be impeached.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> The Democrats can impeach Kavanaugh and Barrett for lying to the Senate. They can replace those two Judges. So, the number of Judges wouldn't change.


Just like most of your comments...you never proved proof for your non-stop lies.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Prairie Guy said:


> Neither one of them lied.


Kavanaugh definitely lied. Leaving aside the allegations against him (which are not very credible), he lied about what some of the immature things he wrote as a teen/young adult meant. They were embarrassing questions, but someone with character would cop to it and say it was from a different point in his life. He instead chose to lie about what some of those things meant to save face. It would have been better for him to refuse to answer the questions that to lie about it.

I have watched a decent amount of the ACB hearings (having on in the background and running at 2x speed). I think she seems qualified and worthy of the office. Some of the attacks against her are pretty gross (attacking her as a 'colonizer' for adopting children of colour). Honestly, if they had her on the bench, I don't know why the GOP didn't discard Kavanaugh and appoint her instead at the time. As I said then, it is not a right to be appointed to SCOTUS, and Kavanaugh did not comport himself well or show the kind of character and disposition to be elevated to SCOTUS and surely the GOP could find another more qualified judge to appoint in his place.

These things are inherently frustrating. Senators often grandstand, but that is because the nominees refuse to answer any questions of substance (unless it is irrelevant to their appointment) in keeping with their professional code of conduct. So the GOP senators fawn and the Democratic senators use the time to campaign or grandstand.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Both Kavanaugh and Barrett omitted to submit all relevant speeches, appearances, and memberships at special interest groups, such as pro-life groups.

The Senate requires that all material relevant to "advise and consent" to the President's nomination is presented for consideration.

Presenting the additional materials as an addendum after the Committee hearings are over is an unacceptable political ploy.

The Democrats can legally impeach the Judges just as they did President Trump. The unknown is if Biden wants to go down that road.

There will be a lot of progressive Democrat politicians who aren't going to sit back and accept the results of the Republican's political machinations.

Biden is going to have to either increase the number of SCOTUS bench (pack the court) or take another approach.

The status quo for generations will not be tolerated by the liberal left of the Democratic Party.


----------



## Prairie Guy (Oct 30, 2018)

sags said:


> Both Kavanaugh and Barrett omitted to submit all relevant speeches, appearances, and memberships at special interest groups, such as pro-life groups.
> 
> The Senate requires that all material relevant to "advise and consent" to the President's nomination is presented for consideration.
> 
> ...


In other words, the Democrats won't accept someone who promises to uphold the Constitution and law as it is written. They want power at any cost and the only way to achieve their goal is to take away people's rights. To do that they need to stack the court with communist judges that will ignore the law do their bidding.

Do you support the communist takeover of the US?


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

They are not being removed from SCOTUS. The House can impeach, but then it goes to the Senate for trial and you need a 66 senator supermajority to vote to remove. In no world do we get 66 Democratic senators, and even if we did, I doubt you would get them to vote to remove a SCOTUS justice for anything that has been revealed so far (barring some serious scandal or criminal activity).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If the Dems win all three branches of government...........the fur is going to fly and the SCOTUS is in the bullseye.


----------



## calm (May 26, 2020)

MSNBC ...... "Mitch McConnell is laughing at the Poor People while refusing to approve 3 trillion stimulous ..... Let Them Eat SCOTUS"


----------

