Huge turnout! Was staying room only!!!

Town Hall is happening tonight and we will be live on TikTok if you can't be in here: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8jR3CGc/

Also if you can't make it we will be broadcasting live on TikTok! https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8jR2bJ7/ join us at 7pm!

It's tonight?

Yes it is! I'll message you but we are on for 7pm.

Honestly, it seems like a horrible power trip by some maga pro mods. Sad. But the best part is by you posting this and mods put their half ass response it brought 1000x more attention.

So you are okay with him being a rapist, Hitler and corrupt as long as he isn't a career politician....okay.

It is so easy to research things before you just post nowadays.

"FAA had a shortage. But they still would not hire a white guy that got 100% on the test." This is based on a lawsuit about changes the FAA made to its hiring process in 2014, replacing the AT-SAT test with a "Biographical Assessment" to broaden diversity. The applicant claimed discrimination, but the lawsuit was dismissed. There’s no credible evidence that he was rejected because he was white. Verdict: Misleading.

"Military officers had to keep submitting promotion lists until a DEI candidate was picked." The military has diversity goals, yes. But promotion boards are not required to reject qualified candidates if no DEI candidate appears. This conflates political pressure with formal policy. Verdict: Overstated.

"Employers are dropping tests because they don’t want proof they’re not hiring the most qualified." This is speculation. Employers are reevaluating how tests are used because some can unintentionally filter out qualified people from disadvantaged backgrounds. That’s not the same as intentionally avoiding merit. Verdict: False equivalence.

"Obama made a law forcing landlords to rent to felons." No, he didn’t. HUD released guidance in 2016 saying blanket bans on criminal records could violate the Fair Housing Act due to disproportionate racial impact. It encouraged case-by-case assessments—not mandatory renting. Verdict: False.

"Schools are firing professors for not passing certain groups." This is an anecdotal claim often based on viral outrage stories that lack context or verification. There's no systemic policy requiring this. Verdict: Unproven and likely exaggerated.

"Target’s CEO admitted to hiring 51% minorities, even though they’re a population minority." Target shared its diversity statistics. Many of their locations are in urban areas with high minority populations, so 51% isn’t even surprising. Also, racial demographics aren’t evenly distributed, so comparing to national averages is flawed logic. Verdict: Misleading.

"Liberals want to divide people and keep race an issue." This is a political opinion, not a factual argument. Most liberals argue that race needs to be discussed to address inequality—not to divide people. Verdict: Opinion, not evidence.

TL;DR: Most of these points are misrepresented or factually incorrect. If you’re going to make bold claims, you need strong evidence—preferably from sources better than a Facebook Reel.

That’s a pretty loaded question, and it makes a lot of assumptions....This is exactly the kind of conversation the Hands Off March is trying to spark—because a lot of the rhetoric out there right now is designed to divide us rather than deal with the real issues.

First, equal rights laws still exist, but we’ve seen that just having laws on paper doesn’t guarantee fairness in practice. The march isn’t about asking for “entitlements based on race”—it’s about defending civil rights protections, voting access, and diversity efforts that aim to fix real, ongoing inequities. These aren’t handouts—they’re guardrails against discrimination and exclusion.

And under Trump’s administration, we’ve already seen direct actions that undermine those protections:

He revoked Executive Order 11246, which had required federal contractors to ensure equal opportunity regardless of race, sex, etc.

He eliminated all federal DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) program. The programs that existed to make sure public institutions weren’t reinforcing old biases.

The DOJ launched investigations into university admissions practices at places like Stanford and the UC system, trying to chill support for underrepresented students post-affirmative action.

The EEOC is now targeting law firms for offering diversity fellowships and claiming they’re discriminatory, which could shut down paths for folks who never had a fair shot to begin with.

His team even froze federal research funding at Princeton over DEI concerns, setting a dangerous precedent for academic freedom.

And they’ve pulled back on protecting voting rights, dropping lawsuits in states with documented voter suppression and withdrawing from key redistricting cases.

Now, the claim that schools or employers are “forced to accept less qualified people” that’s just not accurate. Diversity programs are about recognizing that potential and merit can show up in lots of ways, especially when not everyone starts from the same place. It’s not about hiring unqualified people—it’s about expanding who gets to be seen as qualified.

As for the idea that “whites should get entitlements because Asians make more” that’s based on a misleading stereotype called the “model minority myth.” It flattens out the wide range of experiences within Asian communities and pits groups against each other, when the real issue is inequality at the systems level, not who has a slightly higher median income.

Bottom line: this isn’t about race-based favoritism. It’s about making sure that the systems we all live and work in are actually fair and inclusive. And that’s something we all benefit from.

Thanks lol! I've active member of indivisible so we hard! As a fellow "purple" state the next election coming up we will have our spotlight soon,

No, no he doesn't.

Why did I instantly know who this insane person voted for.....🤔

It's also fake : https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-dont-fall-story-164800295.html

✊✊✊✊👏👏👏👏

I mean in VA we went blue but I'm rooting for ya! You guys got this.

We were at a protest this weekend about cutting Medicaid and someone stopped to say they had no idea what we were talking about....it is like some people live in a different world.

They were on Medicaid.

Of course he did...... most of his cult members hadn't even thought about trans athletes before he mentioned it (especially considering I think there were only like 10 athletes total in the US that this would affect). Just like with "dei" and "fraud, waste and abuse" they are buzz phrases that work before they never look past the surface level and are easily manipulated.

Kind of like "you're fired" from his reality TV days (though his presidency feels like a season of the real housewives with their stupidity and drama).

Man that was my comment lol...as it was my instant thought.

You are oversimplifying the situation and ignores the real issues with the amendments.

Amendment 1 wasn’t about fixing courts—it would’ve expanded the Louisiana Supreme Court’s power to discipline out-of-state attorneys and let the legislature redraw court jurisdictions. That opens the door to serious overreach and political manipulation of the judiciary.

Amendment 2 looked like a tax cut, but the language was misleading and could’ve gutted essential revenue. It tied tax changes to arbitrary spending caps, risking cuts to healthcare, education, and infrastructure—things that actually attract business investment.

Amendment 3 would’ve let the legislature decide which kids under 17 get tried as adults. That’s not about accountability—it’s about pushing more youth into adult prisons without addressing root causes like poverty or underfunded schools.

And Amendment 4 would’ve rushed judicial elections, which sounds good until you realize it gives less time for vetting candidates and more room for political appointments.

Voting “no” wasn’t some brain-dead protest. It was a calculated decision to stop vague, risky changes from being locked into the LA constitution. If lawmakers want real reform, they should bring clearer, better-drafted proposals—not cram four half-baked ones onto a ballot.