Biden's America

[Archy1221]

4 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I enjoy coming on here and having conversation with most of you, however, my disappointment in Biden stays here. Like everyone else, what the guy does in that office has almost no bearing on my life. I'm golden.

That party that has faux racism and sexism outrage over darn near everything, makes a choice on a job paid for by the taxpayer based on sex and race!?!

[BigRedBuster]

25 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Pandering is never flattering. If a black woman happens to be the best candidate, fantastic. But to limit your candidates that drastically? That's pandering. Nothing more.

The Supreme Court is a place I think it’s important to have a very diverse group of people. So, I have no problem with this. 
 

I would say the same thing if the court was all but one black women and the president said he will nominate a white woman. 

[B.B. Hemingway]

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

The Supreme Court is a place I think it’s important to have a very diverse group of people. So, I have no problem with this. 
 

I would say the same thing if the court was all but one black women and the president said he will nominate a white woman. 

 

I just don't like limiting your options off the top like that, especially when the two requirements you mention (must be a woman, must be black) don't make anyone inherently qualified for any job. All things being equal, of course diversity matters. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

4 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

 

I was very critical of Trump's presidency. Thanks for noticing. Also, there's a significant difference in making a worthy observation and being outraged.

... do the qualifications I listed for the leading candidate seem inadequate to you?

[B.B. Hemingway]

Just now, Dr. Strangelove said:

... do the qualifications I listed for the leading candidate seem inadequate to you?

 

I was clear earlier that the most qualified candidate should be chosen. If that's her, then fantastic. My issue is with the clear pandering. But that's politics.

[Archy1221]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The Supreme Court is a place I think it’s important to have a very diverse group of people. So, I have no problem with this. 
 

I would say the same thing if the court was all but one black women and the president said he will nominate a white woman. 

A black woman would be great, but to limit the selection criteria to only that seems pandering.  If we are going strictly based on diversity, an Asian American would make much more sense as there has never been one.  

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 minute ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

I was clear earlier that the most qualified candidate should be chosen. If that's her, then fantastic. My issue is with the clear pandering. But that's politics.

So, you're not disagreeing that the leading candidate is highly qualified given her impeccable credentials.

 

I can list the qualifications of the other leading candidates, but they're all similarly highly educated, have decades of experience and were top students at prestigious Universities. 

 

Personally, I hoped the President would appoint a heavily accented 29 year old lesbian Latina Woman who identifies as non-binary just to watch the absolute meltdown on Fox. But, alas, we're going to get an intelligent and highly qualified black women, who is as qualified as any recent nominees to the Court. 

[Dr. Strangelove]

8 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

A black woman would be great, but to limit the selection criteria to only that seems pandering.  If we are going strictly based on diversity, an Asian American would make much more sense as there has never been one.  

There's never been a black woman either though?!

 

But honestly if the best Republicans can do at this point is suggest 'pandering' because they can't attack the qualifications of the leading candidates, that's absolutely a win. 

[B.B. Hemingway]

1 minute ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

So, you're not disagreeing that the leading candidate is highly qualified given her impeccable credentials.

 

I can list the qualifications of the other leading candidates, but they're all similarly highly educated, have decades of experience and were top students at prestigious Universities. 

 

Personally, I hoped the President would appoint a heavily accented 29 year old lesbian Latina Woman who identifies as non-binary just to watch the absolute meltdown on Fox. But, alas, we're going to get an intelligent and highly qualified black women, who is as qualified as any recent nominees to the Court. 

 

Maybe next time. 

[B.B. Hemingway]

25 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

  If we are going strictly based on diversity, an Asian American would make much more sense as there has never been one.  

 

Yeah, but that wouldn't garner near the political points.

[Dr. Strangelove]

5 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

 

Yeah, but that wouldn't garner near the political points.

Amy Coney Barrett wasn't even a judge until 2017.

 

If I go back to your post history, will I find similar resentment towards picking her since she may have not been the most qualified for the job?

 

Ronald Reagan - the Jesus of the modern Republican Party - pledged to nominate the first woman to the court during his campaign in 1980. 

[B.B. Hemingway]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Amy Coney Barrett wasn't even a judge until 2017.

 

If I go back to your post history, will I find similar resentment towards picking her since she may have not been the most qualified for the job?

 

Ronald Reagan - the Jesus of the modern Republican Party - pledged to nominate the first woman to the court during his campaign in 1980. 

 

You can look if you'd like, I don't remember anything specific on Barrett. What do you imagine the theme was around her nomination on this board? I don't tend to repeat what the masses are saying on here, even if I agree with them. What more is there to add to the conversation at that point?

 

Good for Reagan, I guess?

[NM11046]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

The Supreme Court is a place I think it’s important to have a very diverse group of people. So, I have no problem with this. 
 

I would say the same thing if the court was all but one black women and the president said he will nominate a white woman. 

Well said.  Diversifying to better match the people they serve is far from "pandering".  And just because one sets out to do that doesn't mean those on the short list for the spot are anything other than talented and capable.

[Archy1221]

25 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Well said.  Diversifying to better match the people they serve is far from "pandering".  And just because one sets out to do that doesn't mean those on the short list for the spot are anything other than talented and capable.

If diversification was the goal, an Asian female would be the most logical choice.  Would make the court 5-4 male/female and put the one nationality on the court that currently isn’t represented.  

[B.B. Hemingway]

47 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

If diversification was the goal, an Asian female would be the most logical choice.  Would make the court 5-4 male/female and put the one nationality on the court that currently isn’t represented.  

 

And yet, somehow the Asian community seems to thrive in this country.