I don't get an EO to protect my interests

I really don't get how peolpe hand wave this away

as if it's from a "non legally binding defintion"

which essentially means subject to change

it's the same language they use to put people in Jail/Prison in Europe

it's the exact same language translated ...

Germany uses this standard to prosecute holocaust denial, and "antisemitism"

I doubt it will stand for long

Especially if someone sues over it

The fact that it was made in the first place should also be worrisome

yet, I'm somehow the loon for being concerned about seeing this language in a executive order... as a directive for our federal agencies.... because it's from a "non legally binding" definition crafted by a NGO?

Like how Obamacare executive order got turned over right when people sued?

How are (((you people))) so naive?

@McFansy I agree.

The only thing that's going to change this stuff is another executive order...

and it's not going to be to repeal it

This is very reminiscent of when I was trying to explain to some people that the President basically has all the powers of king

and they were arguing over whether an executive order is really law or not...

>but technically executive orders aren't law! The President can't write laws therefore he's not a king!

AOC Skipping the SOTU was actually a brilliant move. She takes a little bit of flak in the short term, but avoids all the video clips of her not applauding something good (like the rest of the white suit wearing - *totally not kkk* mafia) that the rest of her peers will have to live down come election season.

What difference does it make, she's not even going to be up for reelection.

Yeah aren't they planning on removing her district?

AOC is in the Klan...?

I think yoh may be confused.

--warn @Nyaboron civility/off topic

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***Nyaboron#0346 has been warned.***

fuk u

I shall unleash a jihad of white thots to ruin you

--warn @Nyaboron civility/off topic

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***Nyaboron#0346 has been warned.***

they have been unleashed

historically when democrats show up dressed in all white, more often than not it's a klan meeting lol. it's a metaphor, i know they aren't actually klan members

The first sentence of that post is empirically incorrect.

And I kind of figured you didn't think they were literal klan members.

I just don't understand the connection. That's what I'm trying to suss out

Was it merely wearing white and an association of "Southern man bad"?

i think you're focusing too much on a stray comment

as the kids say, "it's not that deep fam"

the debate point was that skipping the speech was a brilliant move for future reelection efforts

Gotcha. I disagree.

And I think statements like that deserve to be focused on. Using slurs like that is anti-white and classist.