You can move wherever you want.

Oh, look, it’s the oldest bigot’s rebuttal in the book. “Well how do you know what words mean? I certainly don’t know what words mean. They could mean anything! Therefore, they mean nothing, so I’m totally not a racist.”

Everyone here is talking about racism. “Segregation isn’t codified anymore” is a response to a strawman. That’s why you’re not getting a good rebuttal to it. Because it’s not what anyone is saying. Because it is ridiculous. Which you know, because you’re the one who said it to avoid talking about race.

Aw, shoot, that’s right, racism ended in 1954. I’m always forgetting how that’s a real non-head-in-sand idea that’s based in any measure of reality.

But you know that isn’t what the SAT measures, right?

Wait, are you trying to deny that redlining happened? For real? It was a very public and very popular policy.

Did you go to a Title I school? Do you understand why that question is important?

Which absolves her of responsibility for or even association with which of the things she said and did, exactly?

That’s a pretty damming indictment of your reading comprehension skills, then. Are you also sore over a low SAT score?

Except for the fact that she’s explicitly stated that she believes that.

There’s a phrase they use to describe narratives based on an unsupported suspicion that public figures are acting on motivations contrary to the ones they claim for nebulous purposes. What is it again? Cuz this is one of those.

They’re more competitive internally. The opposite is true when you compare the entire school to other schools. Stop pretending you don’t know what words mean.

She may well resent some unknown number of white people for something. Her lawsuit solely regarded her belief that she had been reject on account of her race, tho. Notice how UT’s defense that this wasn’t the case caused the court to find in their favor. Chewbacca defenses don’t work at any level of the appeals…

So, you’re just gonna double-down on this absurd misrepresentation of legislative procedure instead of addressing what I had to say about it? You understand that what you’re actually saying here is “Sanders has had support from other legislators on every bill of consequence,” right? Being the sole sponsor on anything…

That is some... ARTFUL reading of statistics. Co-sponsorships don’t count, but amendments do? And it doesn’t matter if the amended bill passed? And we’re comparing the totals of a six year career with the average of four years out of a thirty year career? Someone just failed Math 103.

Yeah, What kind of idiot lets their political views affect the way they vote? It’s about making sure your team wins, not how you think the country should be run, duh!

He actually has a storied record of being able to negotiate with House Republicans, while Clinton had been watching every piece of legislation she championed crash and burn for 25 years now, with the sole exception of the ‘93 crime bill, which isn’t exactly something to be proud of.

Wait, you don’t consider it a civil conversation unless everybody agrees with everything you say? You realize half of what you wrote was just vague insults, right?

Emphasis on the “light,” it’s organizing for obvious lascivious reasons.

OF COURSE it’s what they were told to wear. It’s LIGHT FETISH GEAR. Go-Go dancers, which you seem to be suggesting these women were, are absolutely NOT normal for office parties, or even clubs since like the fucking seventies.