Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

I'm just so confused as to the lack of backlash of a President basing his picks (VP/SCOTUS) on race and gender.   Wouldn't it have more of an impact anyway if he just did it and not telegraphed it?  Are people really this stupid/gullible?   Rhetorical question BTW. 


There’s no backlash because the ruling class defines the state religion’s tenets such as “racism” and “sexism” and can therefore change their definitions without meaningful pushback. 

Posted

For Christ’s sake we even have Tibs wishing for a nominee based on race and gender.  Sure we can consider the source but I’d rather humiliate it. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
On 1/26/2022 at 2:00 PM, BillStime said:

 

She was right, Kamala is an unmitigated disaster. Someone needs to sue the President for discrimination, this is clear. It came right out of the horses (arses) mouth. The POTUS himself said he is going to hire someone based on skin color and sex? Un-freaking believable! 

Edited by HamSandwhich
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

She was right, Kamala is an unmitigated disaster. Someone needs to sue the President for discrimination, this is clear. It came right out of the horses (arses) mouth. The POTUS himself said he is going to hire someone based on skin color and sex? Un-freaking believable! 


Are you serious 

 

 

Posted (edited)

Also, black women only represent about 8 percent of the country, by definition if you are reducing the search to 9% you’re reducing the talent pool so much you would absolutely keep a person more deserving and more talented from being considered. Why would be narrow it down to that and also say he was? The very definition of discrimination! 

Edited by HamSandwhich
  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

Sad thing about all of this is Breyer still has his faculties and is being forced out of his job by Demented Biden.  What a mess. 

Posted
8 hours ago, HamSandwhich said:

Also, black women only represent about 8 percent of the country, by definition if you are reducing the search to 9% you’re reducing the talent pool so much you would absolutely keep a person more deserving and more talented from being considered. Why would be narrow it down to that and also say he was? The very definition of discrimination! 

 

What percent of the population is Clarence Thomas  ?

Posted
49 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

Why do you ask? 

 

I'm saying appointing a black woman to the SC would be the right thing to do.

×
×
  • Create New...