Jump to content

J.C.MacSwell

Senior Members
  • Posts

    6230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Everything posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. After all...it worked out so well for Hong Kong.
  2. If Putin feels tactical nukes should be used in case of an existential threat to Russia he should aim one at his head and press the button.
  3. Because creating it immediately requires making sure no one has any opportunity, short of some omnipresent God stepping in. On the topic at hand, how would you suggest it be done without throwing the 9 justices out on their asses? Or put another way, who do you trust to create and maintain your version of equal opportunity? Maybe it might be better to actually focus more on that, in a more equitable manner than currently exists. Not that it's easy, but actual progress can be made.
  4. I've gone on record in other threads you participated in that I am in favour of affirmative action in some cases, and to some degree. I'll add here that it shouldn't be used to force equality beyond moving toward equal opportunity. Breaking the "old boys club" where it clearly exists..I think it can be justified, just keep in mind all boys aren't in that club. So where was I when Trump announced he was picking a female? Consistent with the above. Same as I have been throughout this thread. So now we have 2 of 9 on the SCOTUS where there racial demographic makes up 12%. If, despite that, it was announced that blacks were ineligible to be picked next time...be assured I would speak out against such nonsense. Was that you hiding in my attic?
  5. I'll put you down for a couple of nukes then. How big is your backyard?
  6. Can you provide a link where Biden clearly stated he had candidates in mind, or barring that admit Biden could have handled it better. Outside of that I could sympathize with your position that the GOP are taking advantage...of Biden dropping the ball...if it wasn't perfectly obvious that the Dems do the same at every opportunity. (including where there's no real opportunity...and the extremes just can't help themselves...and the rest go along with it) You mean when Trump excluded all males while making it clear he had a list? (With both males and females on it) Excluding the almost half the populations demographic that was well represented (males), is not the same as excluding 94% of the population, which would included unrepresented demographics. Not that I think it's a big deal, KBJ sounds pretty good, but let's not conflate her personally with the racializing of the process, which I'm sure the worst of the GOP might do. Susan Collins voted for her...once again showing she has more integrity than the average of either party...just sayin'.
  7. So you're saying that it doesn't actually look bad, other than the fact that the Republicans are making it look bad? Biden made a deal to make the process based first and foremost about race...and the Republicans are disingenuously pointing it out? What do they have to make up?
  8. It seems to compare different hair colours of women, and separately men. My claim is of attractiveness of men vs women, so I don't see a contradiction. Perhaps you could point out where in Zaps link?
  9. Women of every hair colour are generally attractive where men of each hair colour are comparatively not relatively speaking. It comes down to eggs are expensive and sperm are cheap after millions of years of wash rinse repeat of said hair.
  10. Thank you and good post. I agree the pick wasn't racist. My issue is with the process being racialized to an unreasonable extent and for political purposes...to the detriment of racial harmony. But I'm sure I'll get over it.
  11. He also signalled that it would be based on race for his own political expedience. Nether of those particular aspects should be admired, even if you like the results. He racialized the process more than necessary.
  12. He excluded, outright, some unrepresented minorities from consideration, based on race.
  13. No. I'm already on record that it can be justified for some reasons to a limited degree. I agree with that. +1. Would you agree that Biden unnecessarily racialized the process, more than was needed to achieve the purpose you described?
  14. They didn't do the exact same thing. If do in fact get it, and realize how Biden's handled it, you would recognize the false equivalency, even if in principle it is much the same.
  15. That is one definition. If I act against you because I don't like your race, or because of your race, that's racism. It might be more despicable if I think your race is inferior while doing so, but it's still racism if I don't hold that view, but am acting based on your race.
  16. Do you see it as virtue signalling, and promoting or attempting to take advantage of racial discord for political purposes? Or not? And in a smart way? Or not?
  17. Wouldn't they be happier if KBJ had just been chosen? It seems Jordan Petersen (the younger one, if that's her real name) would have been. Wouldn't KBJ have been happier if simply chosen?
  18. How could it be so clean and untarnished if it hadn't sped through the air toward that train station?
  19. Yes. Several others. Who has disagreed with that point? Being from an unrepresented minority can reasonably be considered an attribute for consideration. Toward one group that was underrepresented. A group that is representative of approx 6% of the population. A group that now has been signalled what exactly? That no matter how good they are, no matter how hard they try, they should expect to wait a long time to be considered again? Because of their race? Exactly. +1. Absolutely. Yes Democrats. They won't even see how this works against them.
  20. Are you saying exclusion of every race but one is okay? It's okay as long as he doesn't think they are inferior? You guys are tripping over yourselves on this. You might ask yourselves why. Why make it more about race than it has to be? There are just 9 positions on the SCOTUS. You can't make it perfectly reflect American Society. There is nothing wrong with choosing a black woman for SCOTUS. There is nothing wrong with choosing one as your running mate. There is something wrong with Biden going out with the blinders on and choosing just on race and gender. Especially when some minorities remain unrepresented and especially by announcing it first, not even knowing who the candidates might be. Am I the only one here that thinks a black female could in fact be the best candidate? He should have just nominated KBJ as the best candidate available. It's his fault, not hers, that he didn't.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.