you are having a freudian slip with your disdain for Trump of which I have never figured out what he did against your desires. He never said to break the law at all. He said to find 11,000 votes which may have legally been obtained.
Proof? The proof is the process of them changing the voting laws after the 2008, 2012, and mostly the 2020 election because they di not like the results. All because of the lie that the 2020 election, in particular was stolen. Turnouts have been greater because for one it backfired. During that time, black radio pushed for folks to get out and vote. The democrats in general amongst different platforms did the same. But when you have a jacked up, evil, narcissistic individual as president that is divisive in all turns, that in of itself motivated millions of folks to vote the man out of office. I believe if the republicans has a normal, non-cult president instead of Chump, that republican would have beaten Biden in 2020. Even now I believe that a normal, non-cult republican candidate would have been further ahead in the polls over Harris than Chump is now which is close.
Maybe on whatever planet you reside but that’s not even close to accurate. Join reality and let’s chat.
Uncle, it is not that hard to figure out no matter what urban radio tells you (sorry to interrupt your joy over Kam's VP pick):
apnews.com
May be it came out wrong. I never meant that Chump ask them to break the law and "find" 11,000 votes. I guess I meant to say that Chump ask them to "find" the 11,000 votes. If But if they did "find" those votes they would have been breaking the law because they would be cheating because their ain't no 11,000 votes to "find".
how can anyone be so detached from reality to not see the desire to have cheating going on in this election. Technically, isn't it treason?
...and so a reasonable person would ponder why? It is well established that people in many everyday endeavors provide the information that would be requested to vote. Only a Jim Jones disciple cloned democrat voter would want to be told what to think rather than actually do it. I doubt it is the bigotry of low expectations for many on the dem voting lists So any reasonable person that was honest and cared about voter integrity would know there are some HUGE problems that allow and encourage cheating. It isn't "suppression or the bigotry of low expectations" when documents of interest are provided to vote and even if the typical responses are made like they can't get there or can't get there on the same day as almost all people have done for decades. It also isn't the cost since we know as recently shown by Rand Paul the government wasteful spending doesn't bothers dems. It is entirely about cheating for this power hungry group willing to sell out the country to enrich themselves and have enough power to do as they please. What is amazing is that people are willing to go along and I know they all can't be that stupid. Any progress on the attempt on Trump's life? Anyone know how many casings were found or explained the two different shooting sounds or the triangulation of the entry of the bullets as a possible explanation to one or more shooters? It will probably die off, like the cocaine found in the white house, Hunter's lap top, the Big Guy's cut, Epsteins killer, the leak from the SCOTUS they can't find either, the money going to Ukraine, the money and equipment left for the Taliban and the beat goes on...
do we not think cheating went on inside states? Of course there was cheating there as well and that cheating could lead to presidential cheating as well. We don't know the magnitude of the cheating, but why do we want any? Certainly the cost to make cheating very difficult pales in comparison to studying the sex lives of monkeys or other less important things
I'm in the real world. Are you????
Or perhaps you should have clarified what you meant with your post? Just a suggestion.
Oh they know it's accurate enough. They just have to sew any seed of doubt so their followers will have an argument. No matter how weak it is.
That's not proof they want to suppress votes. That is actually in fact evidence that they want to clean up voting methods to prevent fraud. The Democrats have been the biggest fraudsters over time. Yes some Republicans have, but nothing like the Democrats.
Actually the real number is closer to 44,000. That is reality as I demonstrated before.
Why is it that you continue your disrespect of Trump by name calling (Chump) when you get upset if one refers to Harris with a derogatory moniker or referring to her as a DEI hire ?
Oh, they've been trying to get illegals signed up to vote by the hundreds of thousands.
Harris was a DEI hire as was the SCOTUS. The characteristics were announced before in what the appointer wanted. I don't understand the problem in admitting such. Their actions suggest that DEI is the way to go and if so...why not support it and be proud of it instead of what appears to be embarrassed by it. Not everybody is smart enough to understand the difference.
Since when is diversity a bad thing? It’s not like the folks you referenced weren’t qualified. If I said Tim Scott was DEI, what would you say to that? Nikki Haley? Ben Carsen ? They aren’t stupid. Are they DEI? Diversity is a good thing because it’s more representative of the population as a whole. Your statement just reads that if someone isn’t white then it must be some kind of handout. Folks like to use DEI like it’s a bad thing. It’s not. It helps level the playing field against people who don’t want to see anyone who doesn’t look or think exactly like them succeed.
It never levels anything. If that person (male or female) isn't the best, it weakens the system.
Well the counter to that is that there are a lot of white people who aren’t the best who get hired as well, thereby “weakening the system” as well, right? So what’s your point?
If you seek diversity you are the racist or sexist or another ist yet to be developed by doing such. Diversity sought is not a good thing, because of what I said. Diversity not sought, but obtained in some group of people may be fine, but is not automatically a good thing either. Diversity is never applied or recognized in reasoned thought held inside a relevant domain for the betterment of a better outcome and certainly "diversity" without that relevant knowledge by seeking a demographic is wrong. It is in essence applying the racist and sexist or whatever demographic in question in a different manner. THAT is a bad thing. It also flies in the face of MLKs dream.
My counterpoint without needing a chapter to try to explain it: racism was real and is real. Groups of people are held back from all sorts of jobs and roles even though they’re beyond qualified because of something like their ethnicity.
sources of variation is not a concept of understanding is it? It reminds me of those unfamiliar with the 23% pay gap between sexes. Don't feel bad, there are a lot of people that have never worked with sources of variation and actual analysis of what they prescribe. Your response was not only shallow, but illogical as well but I'll mark that up to not being familiar with what you write. It's okay there are a LOT of people on both sides confused. That certainly doesn't make you a bad person, just not as informed as desired in some topics and probably very informed in other things...as are all people. The government schools seek egalitarianism. It is the sacred thought in ed skool. However, it is easy to see the academic gaps in races and this isn't my data. However, there are "individuals" in poor performing races that do well...just not a group and we know education is typically ties to better jobs. Are you unfamiliar with this educational gap? It is there for all to see and there are LOT of data points to back that up.
No need for the condescending snark, tj. I wasn’t talking about YOU in my reply. But if that’s how you took it then I guess I don’t need three paragraphs to explain how you’re part of the problem.
It actually is Not condescending. It is stating an obvious thing that few understand. I've worked with college people all my life and there is a lot of things they cannot see in data sometimes. Hell, I've had supt's try to show me what they thought was a study on teacher aids years ago in reference to hiring another teacher. My son in law used to be flown into Lilly the last three days of the month to describe his research before he was able to get away from Lilly. In the early days of his marriage I asked him if the doctors and such understood what he was telling them and he smiled and said probably not. You would be surprised at the number of people that believe using percentages of the population demographic is indicative of some kind equal outcome and yet as I said...we know education is tied to better jobs and some demographics don't do very well. I differentiated "diversity" seeking and having as different things and NONE automatically a good thing.
I think you fail to understand what DEI means. No, Tim Scott, NIkki Haley nor Ben Carsen are DEI. They made it where they are on their own merit. DEI literally means you're hiring someone based on race or sex first and foremost. That doesn't mean that someone isn't qualified, but it does mean that there could have been someone else more qualified that got passed over because they weren't black or female.
We are all well aware that racism was and still is real. However, the idea that it is still holding people back today doesn't hold water. We've had a black president and a black vice president. There are tons of very rich black, Hispanic and Asian people. In fact, the wealthiest, most successful group are Asians. This whole idea that we need DEI because a certain group of people are being held back is what is actually holding people back. As my buddy and I discussed the other day (black male), he's trying as hard as he can to keep that kind of mentality away from his daughters because (in his words) "it's a cancer."
This isn't what's happening though. They are literally announcing that it's going to be someone black or female before anything else. Unless you look at everyone at the same time, you cannot say you are hiring the best.
Cool story bro.
Diversity isn't a bad thing. But, when someone says "i'm only hiring a black female", that's not longer diversity, it's outright racism.
Do you think the make up of players in the NBA should be more representative of the general population? Meaning, it should have a lot more white people?
Exactly. For decades and decades unqualified white folks have been hired over qualified blacks and others just because they were white. If that wasn't the case, then we would not have any need for affirmative action, invented by a black republican by the way, or now DEI. Affirmative action/DEI does level the playing field for blacks and other minorities that otherwise would not have. Would Justice Clarence Thomas, Dr. Ben Carson, Dr. Henry Louis Gates and a whole lot of others be where they are today if there weren't and affirmative action programs that got them into Yale? The lawsuit that the Asian students won that claimed that affirmative action kept them from getting into Harvard. In my opinion, what kept them from getting into Harvard and other IVY League schools is the legacy admissions. The conservatives don't like to talk about that. That is the only way Bush the Younger got into Yale. He was a very poor student. Legacy admissions is more detrimental for other folks getting into these schools than affirmative action.
Not sure how a billionaire is a fraudster? Really? Ask Bernie Madoff.
Assuming that your black friend's daughter is K-12 right now, I wonder if by the time she applies for college and she got in because of DEI, would he turn down that offer of admissions. You know because that DEI is so horrible.
If the white girl has a better GPA, higher class rank, took a more rigorous class schedule, etc, and there was only 1 spot left, should she get it or should the black girl?
