Breyer

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What I've notice thru the years is that it's partisan hackery when the opposition does something but isn't when their side does it.

That's some meta deflection right there. That's my whole point. CO.H and many others in this thread have a problem with Biden's promise. But they have no problem with Reagan's or Trump's similar promises. So, yes, that's hackery.

Now, if I had a problem with Reagan or Trump, but not Biden, you could play the both sides card, but guess what? I don't. You won't ever find me complaining that Reagan or Trump promised to nominate a woman. That didn't offend me. Just as it doesn't offend me that Biden did. That's not hackery; it's consistency.

 

[NPT]

That's some meta deflection right there. That's my whole point. CO.H and many others in this thread have a problem with Biden's promise. But they have no problem with Reagan's or Trump's similar promises. So, yes, that's hackery.

Now, if I had a problem with Reagan or Trump, but not Biden, you could play the both sides card, but guess what? I don't. You won't ever find me complaining that Reagan or Trump promised to nominate a woman. That didn't offend me. Just as it doesn't offend me that Biden did. That's not hackery; it's consistency.

I don't know but I'd bet a lot of people don't like it because he threw skin color in there. Personally, I wish none would telegraph what they are gonna do. I can just see the next appointment being promised to a transgender. Neither sex or color should ever be mentioned. I've always believed that is true for most jobs UNLESS sex really is important because a job is very physically demanding.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't know but I'd bet a lot of people don't like it because he threw skin color in there. Personally, I wish none would telegraph what they are gonna do. I can just see the next appointment being promised to a transgender. Neither sex or color should ever be mentioned. I've always believed that is true for most jobs UNLESS sex really is important because a job is very physically demanding.

If the inclusion of skin color in addition to gender is their problem, then their protestations that demographics shouldn't be considered are blatant falsehoods, and race is the problem they have, and that's their problem to deal with.

 

[NPT]

If the inclusion of skin color in addition to gender is their problem, then their protestations that demographics shouldn't be considered are blatant falsehoods, and race is the problem they have, and that's their problem to deal with.

My problem with that is I just see it as opening Pandora's box .. the next one will have to be a white female gay. Maybe it won't expand but that is my fear and I don't like it especially since I know they are doing it for votes. When Reagan did it I told my wife that is something that he shouldn't have done. It's sad that voters can be convinced to vote for someone based on such a small thing but they can.


On edit: You getting a lot of snow?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

My problem with that is I just see it as opening Pandora's box .. the next one will have to be a white female gay. Maybe it won't expand but that is my fear and I don't like it especially since I know they are doing it for votes. When Reagan did it I told my wife that is something that he shouldn't have done. It's sad that voters can be convinced to vote for someone based on such a small thing but they can.

If you honestly said that when Reagan did it, then you're being consistent. What did you say when Trump promised to nominate a woman? Hopefully the same. But most people didn't. Most people had no problem with it until Biden did it, and the only difference was the inclusion of the word "black." Those people can protest all they want, but if they suddenly have a problem they didn't before, then their problem is with the only thing that is different, which is the word "black." They need to own up to that and figure out their own racial problems, instead of blaming them on Democrats.

 

[DANC]

What I've notice thru the years is that it's partisan hackery when the opposition does something but isn't when their side does it.

Mark's convinced only Republicans participate in partisan hackery. It probably does appear that way from the trailer park.

His provincialism is kind of cute.

 

[DANC]

That's some meta deflection right there. That's my whole point. CO.H and many others in this thread have a problem with Biden's promise. But they have no problem with Reagan's or Trump's similar promises. So, yes, that's hackery.

Now, if I had a problem with Reagan or Trump, but not Biden, you could play the both sides card, but guess what? I don't. You won't ever find me complaining that Reagan or Trump promised to nominate a woman. That didn't offend me. Just as it doesn't offend me that Biden did. That's not hackery; it's consistency.

You didn't, but Biden did. He objected to a black woman as a Federal judge and also an Hispanic.

 

[DANC]

The differences between your esteemed Senator from Colorado and Bailey, Cray, or Dan are purely cosmetic.

Hey, why you bringing me into it? I've not commented at all on Biden's SC nomination.

It's a foregone conclusion he's going black female - what's the big deal?

 

[UncleMark]

My problem with that is I just see it as opening Pandora's box .. the next one will have to be a white female gay. Maybe it won't expand but that is my fear and I don't like it especially since I know they are doing it for votes. When Reagan did it I told my wife that is something that he shouldn't have done. It's sad that voters can be convinced to vote for someone based on such a small thing but they can.

This is a tangent, and I can't quite articulate exactly how it bothers me, but there's also the circumstance where you have the "black seat" that gets filled with a Clarence Thomas following Marshall, and a "woman's seat" that gets filled with a Barrett following Ginsberg. Both filled the quota, but otherwise were affronts to any sort of judicial continuity. It's like GHWB/Trump said "You want a black/woman? I'll give you a black/woman. Suck this."

 

[bailey777]

Administrators at Georgetown Law are considering implementing a “cry room” on campus, so that offended students have a place to go to if they “need to break down” over comments made by law scholar Ilya Shapiro, who has been placed on administrative leave by the university this week after daring to question Joe Biden’s “affirmative action” Supreme Court nomination process.

Lol some of the fascists in training are triggered. Maybe cry rooms in their companies someday??

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Administrators at Georgetown Law are considering implementing a “cry room” on campus, so that offended students have a place to go to if they “need to break down” over comments made by law scholar Ilya Shapiro, who has been placed on administrative leave by the university this week after daring to question Joe Biden’s “affirmative action” Supreme Court nomination process.

Lol some of the fascists in training are triggered. Maybe cry rooms in their companies someday??

A cry room for law students. Perfect. (Good training for Democratic staffing positions).

I’m old enough to remember when cry rooms were only used when students saw the final Torts exam.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You didn't, but Biden did. He objected to a black woman as a Federal judge and also an Hispanic.

Did he object to them being named on account of their race or gender? If so, I will agree Biden is a hypocrite on this point. My guess is that he did not.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

That's some meta deflection right there. That's my whole point. CO.H and many others in this thread have a problem with Biden's promise. But they have no problem with Reagan's or Trump's similar promises. So, yes, that's hackery.

Now, if I had a problem with Reagan or Trump, but not Biden, you could play the both sides card, but guess what? I don't. You won't ever find me complaining that Reagan or Trump promised to nominate a woman. That didn't offend me. Just as it doesn't offend me that Biden did. That's not hackery; it's consistency.

Ranger and I may be two of the few that get this and we've both made basically the same point early in this thread. It's not about offending anyone with the statement. It doesn't offend me. I think the statement was unfair to the eventual nominee who will likely be a Supreme Court Judge. Instead of being considered the most qualified candidate at the time, there will always be the thought in the minds of many that "she was the best black woman nominee" rather than "she was the best nominee." That just isn't fair to her because I'm sure she'll be very highly qualified, but it's reality. It wasn't fair to Sandra Day O'Connor. It wasn't fair to Amy Coney Barrett. Announcing those things is political pandering, which is what politicians do, but that doesn't mean that it's the best thing for the nominees. It wasn't. Every one of those women could have been nominated without that. They were highly qualified and I'm sure Biden's nominee will be. Again, not offensive, but not fair. That is all. I said it earlier and I don' t need to say it again.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It wasn't fair to Sandra Day O'Connor. It wasn't fair to Amy Coney Barrett.

That's fine. My complaint is with the posters who pretend there is a distinction. One poster in this thread even suggested Biden's promise was bad because the introduction of race narrowed the pool down to X number, which was presumably bad when Y female number was just fine.

 

[UncleMark]

Instead of being considered the most qualified candidate at the time, there will always be the thought in the minds of many that "she was the best black woman nominee" rather than "she was the best nominee." That just isn't fair to her because I'm sure she'll be very highly qualified, but it's reality. It wasn't fair to Sandra Day O'Connor. It wasn't fair to Amy Coney Barrett.

And if I stipulate all that is true, what difference does any of it make? Their influence and legacies will be derived from things other than the fact that they came from a limited pool of candidates. O'Conner will be known for her contributions to the Court (primarily for the "undue burden" test), and Barrett very well may make a name for herself as well (when she overturns Roe?).

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

And if I stipulate all that is true, what difference does any of it make? Their influence and legacies will be derived from things other than the fact that they came from a limited pool of candidates. O'Conner will be known for her contributions to the Court (primarily for the "undue burden" test), and Barrett very well may make a name for herself as well (when she overturns Roe?).

You can stipulate that it's true, because it is true.

 

[DANC]

Did he object to them being named on account of their race or gender? If so, I will agree Biden is a hypocrite on this point. My guess is that he did not.

Do you seriously think he's going to say "I don't want them because they're black/Hispanice" or "I don't want them because they're women"? Of course not.

What I'm saying is, he had the chance to support a black woman. He had the chance to support an Hispanic. I don't know why he didn't, but I can speculate that he didn't want Republicans to be the first to appoint somone in that race/gender.

All this talk about representation - the only representation Biden - and name your Republican - wants is someone who supports their philosophy. Anything else is just virtue signaling.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Ranger and I may be two of the few that get this and we've both made basically the same point early in this thread. It's not about offending anyone with the statement. It doesn't offend me. I think the statement was unfair to the eventual nominee who will likely be a Supreme Court Judge. Instead of being considered the most qualified candidate at the time, there will always be the thought in the minds of many that "she was the best black woman nominee" rather than "she was the best nominee." That just isn't fair to her because I'm sure she'll be very highly qualified, but it's reality. It wasn't fair to Sandra Day O'Connor. It wasn't fair to Amy Coney Barrett. Announcing those things is political pandering, which is what politicians do, but that doesn't mean that it's the best thing for the nominees. It wasn't. Every one of those women could have been nominated without that. They were highly qualified and I'm sure Biden's nominee will be. Again, not offensive, but not fair. That is all. I said it earlier and I don' t need to say it again.

I see your point with O'Connor and Barrett.

O'Connor was during a significantly different political environment in this country. I think pandering was of little consideration if any. Moreover, O'Connor's confirmation was unanimous. Different times indeed.

Barrett is a different story. Trump had a list of nominees at or before his inauguration. It was her turn and that was that. Trump's comment about nominating a women was usual Trump BS because she alsways was going to be the nominee. His litmus test was philosophy.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Do you seriously think he's going to say "I don't want them because they're black/Hispanice" or "I don't want them because they're women"? Of course not.

What I'm saying is, he had the chance to support a black woman. He had the chance to support an Hispanic. I don't know why he didn't, but I can speculate that he didn't want Republicans to be the first to appoint somone in that race/gender.

All this talk about representation - the only representation Biden - and name your Republican - wants is someone who supports their philosophy. Anything else is just virtue signaling.

So you got nothing.

 

[DANC]

So you got nothing.

And you have something? Feel free to express your something any time.

"Did he object to them being named on account of their race or gender? If so, I will agree Biden is a hypocrite on this point. My guess is that he did not."

Your "guess" means shit.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

And you have something? Feel free to express your something any time.

"Did he object to them being named on account of their race or gender? If so, I will agree Biden is a hypocrite on this point. My guess is that he did not."

Your "guess" means shit.

You implied he did and you can't back it up. That's your failure, not mine.

 

[DANC]

You implied he did and you can't back it up. That's your failure, not mine.

You implied he didn't and can't back it up. That's your failure, not mine.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You implied he didn't and can't back it up. That's your failure, not mine.

That's not how claims work. It's also not how negatives work.

 

[DANC]

That's not how claims work. It's also not how negatives work.

I don't confuse guessing with facts.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't confuse guessing with facts.

You confuse a lot of things with facts.

 

[DANC]

You confuse a lot of things with facts.

Original

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Did he object to them being named on account of their race or gender? If so, I will agree Biden is a hypocrite on this point. My guess is that he did not.

Huh? Are you suggesting Biden doesn’t believe race and gender are important? Then why would he make a mess of this nomination? He could have said he was just looking for a liberal.

 

[UncleMark]

Barrett is a different story. Trump had a list of nominees at or before his inauguration. It was her turn and that was that. Trump's comment about nominating a women was usual Trump BS because she alsways was going to be the nominee. His litmus test was philosophy.

His litmus test was a woman who would overturn Roe. That she would be replacing Ginsberg made it all the more delicious for them.

 

[DANC]

Huh? Are you suggesting Biden doesn’t believe race and gender are important? Then why would he make a mess of this nomination? He could have said he was just looking for a liberal.

Goat gets a free drinking pass. He knows Joe's a hypocrite and liar when it comes to race.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Huh? Are you suggesting Biden doesn’t believe race and gender are important? Then why would he make a mess of this nomination? He could have said he was just looking for a liberal.

My point is that he hasn't made a mess of it. People like you are attacking him because he's a Dem, and pretending it's principle. People like DANC are just flat making things up.

Here's an idea: let's share our thoughts about potential nominees. Out of the names being thrown around, who do you think would be a deserving pick, and who do you not, and why?

 

[NPT]

Huh? Are you suggesting Biden doesn’t believe race and gender are important? Then why would he make a mess of this nomination? He could have said he was just looking for a liberal.

Do you think Reagan and Trump thought gender were important? If not, why did they say they were gonna nominate one?

 

[dbmhoosier]

It appears that Chuck is one those people who chooses truth over facts.

 

[mcmurtry66]

It appears that Chuck is one those people who chooses truth over facts.

View embedded media

It's so interesting that the Court is taking up affirmative action at this time.

 

[DANC]

My point is that he hasn't made a mess of it. People like you are attacking him because he's a Dem, and pretending it's principle. People like DANC are just flat making things up.

Here's an idea: let's share our thoughts about potential nominees. Out of the names being thrown around, who do you think would be a deserving pick, and who do you not, and why?

What did I make up? I said Biden helped block a black woman from a Federal Judge appointment and was against an HIspanic being nominated to the SC.

Both facts.

I've also claimed his nomination of a black woman to be nothing more than virtue signaling, which is true, since he had the chance to back a black woman before and, instead, blocked it. All for ideological reasons.

All facts. You need to understand that anyone who disagrees with you is 'flat making things up'.

 

[DANC]

It appears that Chuck is one those people who chooses truth over facts.

View embedded media

Wow, what a dumbass.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What did I make up? I said Biden helped block a black woman from a Federal Judge appointment and was against an HIspanic being nominated to the SC.

Both facts.

I've also claimed his nomination of a black woman to be nothing more than virtue signaling, which is true, since he had the chance to back a black woman before and, instead, blocked it. All for ideological reasons.

All facts. You need to understand that anyone who disagrees with you is 'flat making things up'.

You said that Biden complained about Reagan and Trump promising to nominate a woman.

 

[DANC]

You said that Biden complained about Reagan and Trump promising to nominate a woman.

I don't think I said that. You got a quote?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't think I said that. You got a quote?

I said:

Now, if I had a problem with Reagan or Trump, but not Biden, you could play the both sides card, but guess what? I don't. You won't ever find me complaining that Reagan or Trump promised to nominate a woman. That didn't offend me. Just as it doesn't offend me that Biden did. That's not hackery; it's consistency.

And you said:

You didn't, but Biden did. He objected to a black woman as a Federal judge and also an Hispanic.

Maybe your intent was different, but by saying "You didn't, but Biden did," you were clearly saying that Biden did the thing that I claimed I didn't, which in context, was complaining about the promise to nominate a woman.

 

[cosmickid]

Regardless of why they did it, claiming to have a problem with it on principle only some of the time is the hallmark of partisan hackery. It is the partisan hackery of the fake Senator from Colorado I am concerned with at the moment, not the vote-whoring of Presidents Reagan, Trump, or Biden.

"fake Senator from Colorado"

For a moment I thought you meant Boebert. Just read that she yelled at Pelosi to "look at her" while she's talking nonsense. Not a huge Pelosi fan personally, but purposely avoiding eye contact with an idiot seems a pretty sensible idea on her part...

But when I realized who you actually meant, I laughed out loud. I could actually see that person playing a failed senatorial candidate in an old western...

 

[bailey777]

What did I make up? I said Biden helped block a black woman from a Federal Judge appointment and was against an HIspanic being nominated to the SC.

Both facts.

I've also claimed his nomination of a black woman to be nothing more than virtue signaling, which is true, since he had the chance to back a black woman before and, instead, blocked it. All for ideological reasons.

All facts. You need to understand that anyone who disagrees with you is 'flat making things up'.

The Goat is not interested in what you have to say. He is interested in only one side and if you do not agree he will start calling you nasty names, etc. Not even sure why you are engaging with him it is a waste of time and he simply is just plain nasty honestly.