Topic : « Ayaaa cet algérien embauche que des maghrébins »
Roubaix en même temps
"Si la faute de la société, on est pas les bienvenue ici !"
mashallah le frère Qu'Allah fructifie son commerce
Ils sont archi solidaire même chez nous
Au pire leurs pays d'origine n'est qu'a 2h d'avion.
Plutôt que créer une communauté maghrébine en France, autant aller directement au bled non ?
Ah oui j'oubliais... ils pourront pas profiter de la CAF, ni des infrastructures, ni de rien d'autres construit par l'héritage des blancs durant des siècles.
Plutôt que créer une communauté maghrébine en France, autant aller directement au bled non ?
Ah oui j'oubliais... ils pourront pas profiter de la CAF, ni des infrastructures, ni de rien d'autres construit par l'héritage des blancs durant des siècles.
Citation de PepeCisHet
Au pire leurs pays d'origine n'est qu'a 2h d'avion.
Plutôt que créer une communauté maghrébine en France, autant aller directement au bled non ?
Ah oui j'oubliais... ils pourront pas profiter de la CAF, ni des infrastructures, ni de rien d'autres construit par l'héritage des blancs durant des siècles.
Tu écartes les fesses pour qu'ils t enculent pourquoi se priver , les gweres jusqu' a quand vous allez devoir avaler du foutre afro-gnoule pour comprendre que c'est une guerre de conquête raciale et que vous êtes entrain de la perdre


Si Rabah recommande d'agir ainsi, ce serait dommage de rendre la discrimination à l'embauche condamnable hein ?
il a raison
En vrai tout le monde fait plus ou moins pareil dans les petites boîtes
Y'a que dans les grandes entreprise de cadres ou ils se forcent à mettre de la diversité (mais vu qu'il y a peu de diversité dans ces strates ça tombe bien)
Les petits commerces en France ils embauchent dans leur communauté : Français, portugais, espagnols, plus largement européens, maghrébins, etc..
Y'a que dans les grandes entreprise de cadres ou ils se forcent à mettre de la diversité (mais vu qu'il y a peu de diversité dans ces strates ça tombe bien)
Les petits commerces en France ils embauchent dans leur communauté : Français, portugais, espagnols, plus largement européens, maghrébins, etc..
Last weekend, he was saying that he had warned everyone that Donald Trump wouldn’t leave office voluntarily.
Why is it that everybody was so damn shocked?
When you’re talking about the institutions holding, you’re really talking about a handful of individuals who basically decided to stand up in key places, and say no. Were it not for a handful of those people, this could have gone very differently.
Our system hasn’t held. This is not a family newspaper, so we can say it: We’re fucked!
They got off on the wrong foot from their very first phone call.
Why did he hate [him] so much?
Certainly Donald Trump basically sucker-punched from literally Day One of [someone] presidency, so he wasn’t a very good ally to him. Putin was right about that.
The anecdote about Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, where he is stumped and asks himself, What does Putin have on Trump? Do you have a working theory of why Trump was so in Putin’s thrall?
Peter: It’s a great unanswered question that I think we’re going to be debating for years to come. I don’t think we have a crystal clear answer. We didn’t find any evidence that would contradict Robert Mueller’s conclusion about a criminal conspiracy.
I think that’s one of the things that we’re going to be exploring for years to come.
Susan: Amazingly, despite all of the work that’s been done, despite all of the investigations, despite all the reporting, we need to know more. Even as we’re having this fucking conversation, it’s worth noting that Donald Trump’s tax returns still haven’t been made public. I think that this is why we have to have a historical inquiry about the Trump presidency. It’s a five-alarm fire for American democracy. We have to keep going back at it, and going back at it, and going back at it, to understand what really happened here.
Do you think it’s important that Trump, at some point, be indicted? For either the classified documents he stashed or for fomenting the attack ?
Peter: I think that’s one of the key debates of our era. The challenge for Merrick Garland is going to be, what is the impact on American democracy at this point? If there was reason to indict, if you were to do it, does that then discredit democracy in other places that see us therefore as just a banana republic where one party takes power and prosecutes the other party? Or does it tell half of this country that this is just political? Or, on the flip side, if you don’t hold somebody accountable, if you get away with multiple seeming violations of the law and you don’t actually do anything about it, what does that say about democracy? Does it mean that we don’t believe our own adage, that no person is above the law? I think that’s a really, really, really hard debate that goes beyond the specific statutes and subpoenas and all the stuff we’re debating right now.
Susan: I just want to underscore with an exclamation point ! that accountability is what so many people feel Trump escaped again and again and again. That is another way that the credibility of institutions suffers, not just by Trump’s direct frontal attacks on those institutions, but on the perception that the mechanisms that are in place to protect an unchecked executive somehow aren’t functioning.
https://puck.news/trumps-[...]al-frontier-of-democracy/
Why is it that everybody was so damn shocked?
When you’re talking about the institutions holding, you’re really talking about a handful of individuals who basically decided to stand up in key places, and say no. Were it not for a handful of those people, this could have gone very differently.
Our system hasn’t held. This is not a family newspaper, so we can say it: We’re fucked!
They got off on the wrong foot from their very first phone call.
Why did he hate [him] so much?
Certainly Donald Trump basically sucker-punched from literally Day One of [someone] presidency, so he wasn’t a very good ally to him. Putin was right about that.
The anecdote about Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, where he is stumped and asks himself, What does Putin have on Trump? Do you have a working theory of why Trump was so in Putin’s thrall?
Peter: It’s a great unanswered question that I think we’re going to be debating for years to come. I don’t think we have a crystal clear answer. We didn’t find any evidence that would contradict Robert Mueller’s conclusion about a criminal conspiracy.
I think that’s one of the things that we’re going to be exploring for years to come.
Susan: Amazingly, despite all of the work that’s been done, despite all of the investigations, despite all the reporting, we need to know more. Even as we’re having this fucking conversation, it’s worth noting that Donald Trump’s tax returns still haven’t been made public. I think that this is why we have to have a historical inquiry about the Trump presidency. It’s a five-alarm fire for American democracy. We have to keep going back at it, and going back at it, and going back at it, to understand what really happened here.
Do you think it’s important that Trump, at some point, be indicted? For either the classified documents he stashed or for fomenting the attack ?
Peter: I think that’s one of the key debates of our era. The challenge for Merrick Garland is going to be, what is the impact on American democracy at this point? If there was reason to indict, if you were to do it, does that then discredit democracy in other places that see us therefore as just a banana republic where one party takes power and prosecutes the other party? Or does it tell half of this country that this is just political? Or, on the flip side, if you don’t hold somebody accountable, if you get away with multiple seeming violations of the law and you don’t actually do anything about it, what does that say about democracy? Does it mean that we don’t believe our own adage, that no person is above the law? I think that’s a really, really, really hard debate that goes beyond the specific statutes and subpoenas and all the stuff we’re debating right now.
Susan: I just want to underscore with an exclamation point ! that accountability is what so many people feel Trump escaped again and again and again. That is another way that the credibility of institutions suffers, not just by Trump’s direct frontal attacks on those institutions, but on the perception that the mechanisms that are in place to protect an unchecked executive somehow aren’t functioning.
https://puck.news/trumps-[...]al-frontier-of-democracy/
Citation de Seducteur
Last weekend, he was saying that he had warned everyone that Donald Trump wouldn’t leave office voluntarily.
Why is it that everybody was so damn shocked?
When you’re talking about the institutions holding, you’re really talking about a handful of individuals who basically decided to stand up in key places, and say no. Were it not for a handful of those people, this could have gone very differently.
Our system hasn’t held. This is not a family newspaper, so we can say it: We’re fucked!
They got off on the wrong foot from their very first phone call.
Why did he hate [him] so much?
Certainly Donald Trump basically sucker-punched from literally Day One of [someone] presidency, so he wasn’t a very good ally to him. Putin was right about that.
The anecdote about Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, where he is stumped and asks himself, What does Putin have on Trump? Do you have a working theory of why Trump was so in Putin’s thrall?
Peter: It’s a great unanswered question that I think we’re going to be debating for years to come. I don’t think we have a crystal clear answer. We didn’t find any evidence that would contradict Robert Mueller’s conclusion about a criminal conspiracy.
I think that’s one of the things that we’re going to be exploring for years to come.
Susan: Amazingly, despite all of the work that’s been done, despite all of the investigations, despite all the reporting, we need to know more. Even as we’re having this fucking conversation, it’s worth noting that Donald Trump’s tax returns still haven’t been made public. I think that this is why we have to have a historical inquiry about the Trump presidency. It’s a five-alarm fire for American democracy. We have to keep going back at it, and going back at it, and going back at it, to understand what really happened here.
Do you think it’s important that Trump, at some point, be indicted? For either the classified documents he stashed or for fomenting the attack ?
Peter: I think that’s one of the key debates of our era. The challenge for Merrick Garland is going to be, what is the impact on American democracy at this point? If there was reason to indict, if you were to do it, does that then discredit democracy in other places that see us therefore as just a banana republic where one party takes power and prosecutes the other party? Or does it tell half of this country that this is just political? Or, on the flip side, if you don’t hold somebody accountable, if you get away with multiple seeming violations of the law and you don’t actually do anything about it, what does that say about democracy? Does it mean that we don’t believe our own adage, that no person is above the law? I think that’s a really, really, really hard debate that goes beyond the specific statutes and subpoenas and all the stuff we’re debating right now.
Susan: I just want to underscore with an exclamation point ! that accountability is what so many people feel Trump escaped again and again and again. That is another way that the credibility of institutions suffers, not just by Trump’s direct frontal attacks on those institutions, but on the perception that the mechanisms that are in place to protect an unchecked executive somehow aren’t functioning.
https://puck.news/trumps-[...]al-frontier-of-democracy/
September 20, 2022




