• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A New Low in Dirty Politics

haymarket said:
Perhaps you should review the role the Federalist Papers played in the ratification of the US Constitution.

The United States of America is our nation. Nothing you or any other right winger can say changes that reality.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should just learn to accept the electoral college system and cease whining about the hildabeast losing the 2016 election.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
ObamacareFail said:
Perhaps you should just learn to accept the electoral college system and cease whining about the hildabeast losing the 2016 election.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should begin discussing the issue as an adult?
 
TurtleDude said:
its a problem because of proof issues.
Click to expand...

Don’t understand. Wouldn’t the same be true under other categories such as race or religion? I used to investigate such issues years ago. Adding sexual preference would not have been a problem. Same type of data and witnesses to deal with.
 
Nickyjo said:
Don’t understand. Wouldn’t the same be true under other categories such as race or religion? I used to investigate such issues years ago. Adding sexual preference would not have been a problem. Same type of data and witnesses to deal with.
Click to expand...

so your boss fires you from a job where you don't have an employment contract. in most states-its over unless you can prove you are a member of a protected class and then we go through the McDonell-Douglas burden shifting analysis. Now its sort of hard to fake being black or asian and religion is easy to prove generally. But Gay?
 
P
TurtleDude said:
so your boss fires you from a job where you don't have an employment contract. in most states-its over unless you can prove you are a member of a protected class and then we go through the McDonell-Douglas burden shifting analysis. Now its sort of hard to fake being black or asian and religion is easy to prove generally. But Gay?
Click to expand...

Oh, I see your point, and it was a good one. But the gay issue might be analogous to the religious one, where a legit defense might be an employers ignorance of the person’s status. I remember the notion of burden-shifting from a landmark case called Griggs v Duke Power, but am ignorant of the McDonnell-Douglas case. What was that about?
 
WillyPete said:
This whole episode, politically motivated as it is, simply doesn't compare to the GOP not permitting a vote for several months on Garland, effectively stealing that seat from Obama.
Click to expand...

Democrats have a history of steamrolling over republicans when they are in power, as in the Obama care fiasco, but they bawl like babies when republicans overrule them on anything.
 
Doc91478 said:
A New Low in Dirty Politics​

https://townhall.com/columnists/terrypaulson/2018/10/01/a-new-low-in-dirty-politics-n2523537
The presumption of innocence is one of the things that makes America’s legal system special. An accusation should never be enough to determining guilt. You need evidence—dates, times, and places. You need witnesses who corroborate. In Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s opening statements in last Thursday’s “hearing” says it all, “You have replaced advise and consent with search and destroy.”…. The Democrats, in an effort to defeat or at least delay the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh, have degraded politics to a new low by bringing unsubstantiated claims of sexual abuse in an eleventh-hour attempt to destroy his reputation and delay his confirmation. More and more Americans are seeing this for what it is—an embarrassing travesty. The Democrats are counting on this to lead to majorities in the mid-terms, but for more and more Americans the dirt is sticking on those throwing it. Responsible, fair Americans are enraged by this charade. Thankfully, even some long-term Democrats are embarrassed by this circus..... It is time to hold the vote and confirm this judge. The left will scream and complain whether you hold the vote or not. The Democrat’s mission is clear—resist everything, delay whatever they can, and work to impeach Donald Trump as soon as they can.



~~~~~~
The sad part about all this is that EVERYONE KNOWS that the whole point of the allegation(s), and more importantly it’s timing, is blatantly politically driven. It is the Progressive Marxist Socialist's (DSA) blind ideological hatred of anyone who holds a different view, idea of opinion. So much for tolerance and civility. These are the same folks who have shamelessly defended Bubba’s perjury and he got to stay on as President. Desperate Deep State Democrat demagogues dread losing that political power that they so greedily grasp. One might even call them, "Bitter Cling On's."
This is indeed a new low in American politics created by the Progressive Marxist Socialist Democrats. The only rational response is to rally around the President who appointed Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, and sweep as many of the miscreants supporting this travesty from office in November of this year.
Click to expand...

The next logic course of action would be to just ban the Democratic Party altogether. Put 500 of its top leaders in jail for treason. Harass anyone who tries to resurrect the party. Become a one-party state!

But my preference would be to develop a system of governance that does not have parties.
 
Nickyjo said:
P

Oh, I see your point, and it was a good one. But the gay issue might be analogous to the religious one, where a legit defense might be an employers ignorance of the person’s status. I remember the notion of burden-shifting from a landmark case called Griggs v Duke Power, but am ignorant of the McDonnell-Douglas case. What was that about?
Click to expand...

its similar-now its been a few years so I might be slightly off but here is how the Burden shifting analysis works

Step one-(after a materially adverse employmeant decision-such as a firing, refusal to hire or promote, demotion, etc-your boss calling you a "sloth" or a Lazy POS generally won't cut it without other action)

The employee has to establish a PRIMA FACIE CASE of discrimination

a) the employee is a member of a protected class (female, Jewish, Latino etc)
b) you suffered a materially adverse job action
(in the case of a promotion or hiring-someone with similar credentials but not a member of the protected class were selected etc)

TWO-then the burden shifts to the EMPLOYER to PROFFER a NON Discriminatory reason for its actions )(now the employer does not have to PROVE that is the reason)

THREE-now the Plaintiff must demonstrate that the PROFFERED REASON is a pretext and is not the real reason

the Plaintiff can do this by one of three means

1) prove the given reason has no factual basis (for example-claiming the firing was due to the employee was drunk and there is no evidence the employee ever drank)

2) admitting the reason was sufficient for the job action but proving it was not what was motivated the materially adverse job action (example, if the employee was fired for sleeping on the job and that is conceded by the employee but there is testimony from witnesses that the official who did the firing said something like "I hate Jews and I am going get rid of that damn Hebe") or three

3) conceding that the reason has a basis in fact but it was not sufficient to motivate the materially adverse decision )(example-proof that 8 other people with the same records who slept on the job were NOT FIRED)

if the plaintiff fails to rebut the non-discriminatory reason, then the case fails.
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps you should begin discussing the issue as an adult?
Click to expand...
I am humoring you by discussing it at all. As the electoral college has been the law of the land since the founding, I am happy to enjoy the victories and accept the defeats and move on when my side loses. Unlike the extreme left, I don't need a safe room or a pony when my side loses.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom