UNDlaw80

If only Trump supporters felt the same as it pertains to the wall.

Good. I think mask mandates should be a state decision.

Because there's no past precedence for something ('nothing on the books') doesn't mean something is illegal. A legal argument only needs to be made in court if challenged. I mean Trump could issue a mask mandate tomorrow, the Dems would certainly legally agree with such. Boom, instant mask mandate. There you go.

Speaking of QAnon craziness. This Fox interview came to an awkward screeching halt when Newt brought up George Soros.

Quit being difficult. This isn't your cousin telling you to eat PB&J. Government authority is predicated on laws which grant authority. The feds can authorize mask wearing if they have a legal justification for doing a such. But, like I said, we're in new territory here. There's currently nothing on the books saying the feds can or cant mandate face masks. As such they'd need to make the legal argument for doing so because it would certainly be challenged by the opposing party. As it stands now, the PHSA would likely be the best argument for it.

Let's not get 2 things mixed up. Mask mandates are not innately unconstitutional. The 1st Amendment is first and foremost subject to the health and safety of the people. The Supreme Court just validated this in March. That said, does the federal government (unlike the state) have the authority to mandate the wearing of masks? This is where we are in unchartered waters.

Damn, what a steal to pick up a player like that this late. Sounds like a skilled kid with character. Welcome aboard!

Probably. And I'm against a federal mask mandate. That should be a state's decision. That said, that has nothing to do with Trump manipulating the CDC in an attempt to deter citizens from getting tested. That's beyond immoral.

Testing and 'living normally' aren't mutually exclusive.

You can carry Covid despite having no symptoms. It's prudent to be regularly tested if you're in regular contact with 60+ year olds. But, for obvious reasons, this Admin doesn't want this. They want lower Covid numbers.

Remember when Trump said “slow the testing down” and the CDC agreed; then Trump lauded them for it? Controversial CDC Guidelines Discouraging Covid-19 Testing Were Imposed On Agency By HHS And White House https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/09/17/report-controversial-cdc-guidelines-discouraging-covid-19-testing-were-imposed-on-agency-by-hhs-and-white-house/#fd9778831077

What's interesting is that many Trump supporters assert that federal and state institutions are horribly corrupt and the 'deep state' is everywhere, yet the institution of law enforcement remains impeccably clean. The only bad actor is the rare unethical policeman. Hmmm.... In the real world, when a government is corrupt, its dept. of justice and law enforcement agencies are always one of the first entities compromised. This isn't rocket science.

The state's top law enforcement officer under investigation by the highway patrol. I'm sure justice will be served.

Nah, although we've made great strides, America has always been racist. You think a black candidate who acts like Trump would be allowed anywhere near Washington? Riiiight. White people would **** themselves. But of course Trump's antics are acceptable because he 'keeps it real'! Yea, real white. Reminds me of this.

Grrrr. These 'biased snowflake studies' are ruining the entire talking point. Asian job applicants with “whitened” first names received a 7 percent higher callback rate than those with “ethnically Asian” first names. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0001839216639577

What double standard? Because a small sub-section of the black community has wealth/influence and works against the interests of the larger population it means white privilege doesn't exist? Get real. Going by your rationale, the Jews had no right to complain because the Association of German National Jews supported Hitler, right? "But, but, but, double standard! Wahhhh!!! " Please use your head before posting.

When the topic of diversity comes up, the first thing that pops into everyone's head is a Trump rally, right? . White as a polar bear in a snowstorm. Low minority (especially black) turnout was a big reason why Trump won in 2016. Trump even admitted as such. If blacks turn-out like they did for Obama, Trump will have a rough going of it. Same for Latinos. The highest % of Latino votes in recent elections were for Obama and B. Clinton.

Quit being obtuse. It just means minorities in a position of power are propagating white privilege in some ways.

White on black crime receives more attention because of demographics. Racism negatively affects blacks more than it does whites. Tyranny of the majority. I mean, in the larger picture, we're not far removed from Jim Crow. But this will likely subside in the next 20+ years when demographics shift. We're seeing this with the Generation Z kids growing up in a more welcoming multi-cultural environment. But old habits die hard. The future America is what many Trumpsters are fighting against. The cultural implications of what a future America will look like isn't gonna resemble 'traditional cultural America' in the way many Rep's see it.

I already answered that in an above post. But regardless, it's good to see you acknowledging that white privilege exists, because you're now justifying the reasons for it. So let me get this straight. Because whites are, on average, more educated and the perception exists that we're harder workers, whites therefore are entitled to white privilege? Sounds more like you're describing white power. But whatever.

Quit being difficult. Show me where I said that. Everybody should be judged on their own individual merit. Blacks frequently aren't. They are judged on the stereotype of the whole. Hence why Sara McKenzie will receive more call backs than Shaneeka Jones despite having the exact same resume. White privilege.

Now you're moving the goalposts. Why white privilege exists is a separate topic from the innate fact that it does exist. You initially denied the latter, but now you're talking about the former.

From a cursory search, the government pursued cases against Trump but they were relatively intermediary infractions; so they didn't bring the hammer down. Looks like he pleaded guilty in a civil case and agreed to a few non-prosecution agreements. Interestingly, one was for Civil Rights Act violation for not renting to blacks.

Doing as such is 100% illegal. But as that link detailed, even black employers are subject to hiring whites over blacks.

This just further proves my point that a stigma is attached to the minority job applicant; across the board. As the link details, this is typically the result of an employer's perception that race signals lower productivity. Again, a fully credentialed black job applicant is fighting an uphill battle compared to his/her white counterpart as it pertains to obtaining wealth.