US US Politics General - Discussion of President Biden and other politicians

Status
Not open for further replies.
BidenGIF.gif
 
Last edited:
I've been doing a bit of digging into a CEO of a DEI non profit and put her name into the FEC database just to see what would come up. Naturally, she's made a bunch of donations to Actblue/Biden/Harris, but I saw quite a few repeats of $180 or $18, which seemed oddly specific.
The reason:

View attachment 6843492
New early life check, imo.
(Is there a thread for posting info about the officers of various non-profits? Especially DEI/politically based ones?)
Aces and eights is the calling card of the elites they commonly use it along with 33 and the (stolen) 108. They use this sequence to signal to each other and also to “stick it” to god.
 
I really hope trump

What would the consequences to saying no be?
Joseph Nacchio, former Qwest CEO, said "no" to letting the feds illegally wiretap Qwest customers and ended up getting convicted of insider trading, lost $52 million and was sentenced to 6 years in Club Fed.
 
On the one hand It's nice and I'm happy all these companies are seeing the light but on the other hand I know these scumbags will knife you in the back the SECOND the winds blow a different way.
Here's hoping that they learn the painful lesson of not bending to every wind and trying to take a neutral stance or just keeping the fuck out of politics.
 
They've actually realized they're very likely to lose anti-discrimination lawsuits. There's a tiny bit of gray area in the Civil Rights Act when it comes to affirmative action, but they have blown way way past that into full-on instructing hiring managers not to hire white males, which is outright illegal.
IBM's Jeet CEO was caught on a zoom call literally bragging about paying bonuses to his HR teams and Managers to discriminate against straight white men. Illegal as fuck, of course, but that's what's going on everywhere, especially where Jeets have any form of hold on the company. (They have a hold on every major Tech company in the West now.) They're just usually not stupid enough to say it on camera.

The Civil Rights Act is actually what forbids these anti-white hiring practices. The law forbids discrimination on the basis of race or sex, full stop. There are no exceptions for "privilege and power."
This is why the wokies now define racism as "Power + Prejudice." It's not discrimination, because women or blacks can't discriminate, they don't have the power to do so, only Straight White Men have any power in society. Thus choosing not to hire Straight White Men, or to choose to give preferential treatment to NonStraight NonWhite NonMen is a PREFERENCE, and in the pants on head retardland these people live in those aren't illegal.

This sounds stupid as fuck but realize at least 3, possibly 4 if Trump's token Retarded Female agrees with them, SCOTUS justices would absolutely agree with this stupid shit -- and Roberts would join them so he wouldn't get yelled at at his country club.
 
Last edited:

Cmon Joe, nows your chance, one final gaffe to end it all, one final chance to go down in history. You gotta say every slur that is hiding in you dementia addled brain. Make every last fucker who screwed you over in the end wail, cry, and gnash their teeth in impotent rage as you bring their whole narrative crashing to the ground.

Do it Joe, be a great president for once. :semperfidelis:
 
This is why the wokies now define racism as "Power + Prejudice." It's not discrimination, because women or blacks can't discriminate, they don't have the power to do so, only Straight White Men have any power in society. Thus choosing not to hire Straight White Men, or to choose to give preferential treatment to NonStraight NonWhite NonMen is a PREFERENCE, and in the pants on head retardland these people live in those aren't illegal.

This word game has consistently gotten nowhere in federal court because the Civil RIghts Act is unambiguous on this point:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;

Did you refuse to hire somebody because of his race? Then you broke the law. Full stop. There is no wiggle room for "the race in power," and there's already case law for this (but I forget which case off the top of my head).

The reason the wokies have gotten away with it for roughly 30 years is the libs who run the EEOC basically don't give a shit if you discriminate against white males and aren't going to levy fines or bring lawsuits themselves. The only way anything happens is if a legal team files a class action suit themselves. Since nearly the entirty of civil rights law infrastructure in America is hard left, there has not until recently been any law firms interested in the cases. However, there are now a couple firms, and they're starting to win cases.

So don't blackpill on this, the good guys are only just now starting to fight, and they're consistently winning.
 
Fires happen every year in California. Unless they manage to get their power lines and forests under control it'll be a constant thorn in his side. Presidential candidate being put on blast for his level of corruption sounds like great entertainment.
Like I said if they really want Gavin Newsom, they'll get Gavin Newsom. But I don't think they want Gavin Newsom. I think they'll go for someone completely new. Maybe they'll give Newsom a Senator seat or a place in Congress but my bet is he gets placed on some committee for the DNC and that's the last we ever hear of him. Nobody wants him. They want someone with no baggage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back