Page 20 of 60

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:03 pm
by sdoyel
That ol' fucking turd Mitch... The last moron that needs to chime in on SCOTUS.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:24 pm
by zsn
Elections have consequences

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:32 pm
by MICHHAWK
zsn wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:24 pm Elections have consequences
uncle joe is going to replace one liberal judge with another. whoopdee doo.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 2:56 pm
by twocoach
MICHHAWK wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:32 pm
zsn wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 1:24 pm Elections have consequences
uncle joe is going to replace one liberal judge with another. whoopdee doo.
Pretty much.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:58 pm
by Mjl
Speaking of minorities on the bench, if Garland had made it through there would have been 4 Jewish justices at the same time. Kinda wild.

Now down to one.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:28 pm
by Deleted User 863
Mjl wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:15 pm
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:59 am
NewtonHawk11 wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:25 am I get what the history is, break the history without having to feel forced to break the history.
Yes. This.

And without having to make it about yourself by declaring ahead of time because you want pats on the back.
He didn't bring it up, it came up in the context of a debate.
Isn't it being reported that someone advised him to say it while they were in a strategy break during the debate?

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:07 pm
by PhDhawk
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:28 pm
Mjl wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:15 pm
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:59 am

Yes. This.

And without having to make it about yourself by declaring ahead of time because you want pats on the back.
He didn't bring it up, it came up in the context of a debate.
Isn't it being reported that someone advised him to say it while they were in a strategy break during the debate?
Maybe you should find things out definitively before posting speculative rumors.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:22 pm
by Cascadia
PhDhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:07 pm
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:28 pm
Mjl wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:15 pm

He didn't bring it up, it came up in the context of a debate.
Isn't it being reported that someone advised him to say it while they were in a strategy break during the debate?
Maybe you should find things out definitively before posting speculative rumors.
That's kind of counterproductive to being a troll. Or, as you like to say, a cunt.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:32 pm
by Deleted User 863
PhDhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:07 pm
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:28 pm
Mjl wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:15 pm

He didn't bring it up, it came up in the context of a debate.
Isn't it being reported that someone advised him to say it while they were in a strategy break during the debate?
Maybe you should find things out definitively before posting speculative rumors.
Maybe I did, but wanted to pose it as a question anyway?


https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-b ... urn-2022-1

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:47 pm
by PhDhawk
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:32 pm
PhDhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:07 pm
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:28 pm
Isn't it being reported that someone advised him to say it while they were in a strategy break during the debate?
Maybe you should find things out definitively before posting speculative rumors.
Maybe I did, but wanted to pose it as a question anyway?


https://www.businessinsider.com/biden-b ... urn-2022-1
Nope.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:11 am
by twocoach
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:28 pm
Mjl wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:15 pm
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:59 am

Yes. This.

And without having to make it about yourself by declaring ahead of time because you want pats on the back.
He didn't bring it up, it came up in the context of a debate.
Isn't it being reported that someone advised him to say it while they were in a strategy break during the debate?
It is being reported that in a strategy break during the debate that someone reminded him to announce publicly the decision he had already made privately. Your generalization makes it sound like he hadn't decided to do it until someone else told him to. That would be incorrect.

"Rep. James Clyburn rushed backstage during a Democratic presidential primary debate to remind Joe Biden, then a candidate, to make public his private commitment that his first Supreme Court appointment would be a Black woman, according to a book published last year. "

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:15 am
by Cascadia
When are you guys going to learn that facts do not matter to illy? If it doesn't fit his narrative, it doesn't matter.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:21 am
by MICHHAWK
a liberal president is replacing a retiring liberal judge with another liberal judge. i don't know why this is even news.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:47 am
by sdoyel
MICHHAWK wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:21 am a liberal president is replacing a retiring liberal judge with another liberal judge. i don't know why this is even news.
Because RepubliQans are making it news?

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:47 am
by Deleted User 863
twocoach wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:11 am
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:28 pm
Mjl wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:15 pm

He didn't bring it up, it came up in the context of a debate.
Isn't it being reported that someone advised him to say it while they were in a strategy break during the debate?
It is being reported that in a strategy break during the debate that someone reminded him to announce publicly the decision he had already made privately. Your generalization makes it sound like he hadn't decided to do it until someone else told him to. That would be incorrect.
No. My comment was that he was reminded to make sure he used it (or in this case remembered to use it) as a bargaining chip on the campaign trail. That would be a totally correct statement.

He should have done it because it was the right thing to do instead of doing it to win votes by declaring it ahead of time. Just pick a black woman because representation matters. It doesn't need to be said that race/gender are why you're picking a person/from a group of people. It cheapens it in my opinion, which is totally fucking unfair to whichever very deserving woman of color he chooses.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:01 am
by MICHHAWK
every move a politician makes is a calculated pandering. of course one of his handlers told him on the trail that if he gets to make an appointment it will be a female of color.

his next appointment will be of a hispanic transgender binary 6 toed lbgtqlmnop.

won't affect my life one iota either way. and as we all know, if it don't affect my life......i don't care.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:11 am
by twocoach
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:47 am
twocoach wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:11 am
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:28 pm
Isn't it being reported that someone advised him to say it while they were in a strategy break during the debate?
It is being reported that in a strategy break during the debate that someone reminded him to announce publicly the decision he had already made privately. Your generalization makes it sound like he hadn't decided to do it until someone else told him to. That would be incorrect.
No. My comment was that he was reminded to make sure he used it (or in this case remembered to use it) as a bargaining chip on the campaign trail. That would be a totally correct statement.

He should have done it because it was the right thing to do instead of doing it to win votes by declaring it ahead of time. Just pick a black woman because representation matters. It doesn't need to be said that race/gender are why you're picking a person/from a group of people. It cheapens it in my opinion, which is totally fucking unfair to whichever very deserving woman of color he chooses.
That's flat out ignorant. He decided to do it because it is the right thing to do. It also wins him votes. These two things can exist separate of each other. The fact that it wins him votes to say it out loud doesn't mean that he shouldn't do it for fear that a constant contrarian might question his motives. The fact that a white constant contrarian thinks it cheapens it to say it out loud doesn't mean that it wasn't a necessary and important thing for African American citizens of the US to hear.

No one cares whether it cheapens it for you and people like you or me. It is irrelevant.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:27 am
by Deleted User 863
twocoach wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:11 am
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:47 am
twocoach wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:11 am

It is being reported that in a strategy break during the debate that someone reminded him to announce publicly the decision he had already made privately. Your generalization makes it sound like he hadn't decided to do it until someone else told him to. That would be incorrect.
No. My comment was that he was reminded to make sure he used it (or in this case remembered to use it) as a bargaining chip on the campaign trail. That would be a totally correct statement.

He should have done it because it was the right thing to do instead of doing it to win votes by declaring it ahead of time. Just pick a black woman because representation matters. It doesn't need to be said that race/gender are why you're picking a person/from a group of people. It cheapens it in my opinion, which is totally fucking unfair to whichever very deserving woman of color he chooses.
That's flat out ignorant. He decided to do it because it is the right thing to do. It also wins him votes. These two things can exist separate of each other. The fact that it wins him votes to say it out loud doesn't mean that he shouldn't do it for fear that a constant contrarian might question his motives. The fact that a white constant contrarian thinks it cheapens it to say it out loud doesn't mean that it wasn't a necessary and important thing for African American citizens of the US to hear.

No one cares whether it cheapens it for you and people like you or me. It is irrelevant.
He "used" it. That feels really slimy to me.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:43 am
by twocoach
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:27 am
twocoach wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:11 am
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:47 am

No. My comment was that he was reminded to make sure he used it (or in this case remembered to use it) as a bargaining chip on the campaign trail. That would be a totally correct statement.

He should have done it because it was the right thing to do instead of doing it to win votes by declaring it ahead of time. Just pick a black woman because representation matters. It doesn't need to be said that race/gender are why you're picking a person/from a group of people. It cheapens it in my opinion, which is totally fucking unfair to whichever very deserving woman of color he chooses.
That's flat out ignorant. He decided to do it because it is the right thing to do. It also wins him votes. These two things can exist separate of each other. The fact that it wins him votes to say it out loud doesn't mean that he shouldn't do it for fear that a constant contrarian might question his motives. The fact that a white constant contrarian thinks it cheapens it to say it out loud doesn't mean that it wasn't a necessary and important thing for African American citizens of the US to hear.

No one cares whether it cheapens it for you and people like you or me. It is irrelevant.
He "used" it. That feels really slimy to me.
It's almost like he was trying to win an election to be President of the United States.

Re: SCOTUS

Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2022 11:31 am
by Deleted User 863
twocoach wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:43 am
BasketballJayhawk wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:27 am
twocoach wrote: Fri Jan 28, 2022 10:11 am

That's flat out ignorant. He decided to do it because it is the right thing to do. It also wins him votes. These two things can exist separate of each other. The fact that it wins him votes to say it out loud doesn't mean that he shouldn't do it for fear that a constant contrarian might question his motives. The fact that a white constant contrarian thinks it cheapens it to say it out loud doesn't mean that it wasn't a necessary and important thing for African American citizens of the US to hear.

No one cares whether it cheapens it for you and people like you or me. It is irrelevant.
He "used" it. That feels really slimy to me.
It's almost like he was trying to win an election to be President of the United States.
Doesn't matter. Slimy.