swansont

It can be interpreted that way, and was, but only if you ignore facts. So people whose jobs require this bad-faith interpretation ran with that. It became the narrative pushed by the right, and swallowed whole by a large swath of people who listen to such tripe. The people who "interpret" it this way professionally care not a whit whether PoC were allegedly demeaned. The subset of them in office want to take away PoC's ability to vote. How demeaning is that? I think you've missed some things. The point some of us have been making is that race and gender were included as factors owing to the perspective such an individual would have, and that perspective is needed, and that's perfectly valid for this situation. But they were not the only factors, and Biden was aware of well-qualified candidates before making the campaign promise, because not only is that a reasonable inference for any candidate who has a long history of holding office, we actually have evidence that he was aware. If you want to have a discussion panel on the struggles of <minority group> in society, is it not reasonable to put people from that group on the discussion panel? Doesn't that become a legitimate qualification? We aren't talking about employment and equal opportunity.

Yeah, I wonder what happens when a bunch of people leave the platform if they don't like how it's going - how quickly will it implode?

The promise didn't actually point out the demographic makeup of the court, but everyone knows what it was, and the promise was that a large voter demographic of South Carolina democrats would have representation. Not hard to connect the dots, IMO. I've said my piece on the narrative being sold, and how its hogwash, so no need to revisit that.

The announcement was made at a campaign speech in South Carolina, which has a large population of black people who tend to vote for democrats, if that helps. How so? I'm having trouble seeing how a promise that certain people - not just white men - will have representation in his administration is demeaning.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/254896-a-panda-walks-into-a-cafe-he-orders-a-sandwich A panda walks into a cafe. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air. "Why?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife annual and tosses it over his shoulder. "I'm a panda," he says, at the door. "Look it up." The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation. Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.

This is irrelevant, right? I didn't say I was an atheist, and I didn't demand scientific proof of God. I just said such a test can't be conducted. Key phrase: "I am going to assume" So basically this is circular logic. You assume something and then conclude it. Nothing valid is demonstrated.

How do you test* this? If a supreme being is omnipotent, how do you distinguish between how they choose to behave, and how they are able to behave? *and this is the underlying issue when it comes to these matters. There's no way to run a scientific test. You can explain away anything but prediction is not really something you can do.

In Star Trek, usually the answer is yes

It’s not like Star Trek unless they waited until the last minute to shoot it down, even though they didn’t need to be so dramatic.

Your offspring may be nice, but German children are kinder.

In quantum models you need an exchange particle, and GR has singularity issues, so we know it’s not a complete theory.

! Moderator Note You are better served narrowing discussion to one topic per thread, and please note that rule 2.7 requires that discussion take place here, so “go watch this video” doesn’t fly Pick one subject and present actual evidence. As Ghideon notes, debunking artwork really isn’t a basis for anything

"A ship matching Moskva’s size and situation is seen at 45°10’43.39″N, 30°55’30.54″E. This position is east of Snake Island, 80 nautical miles from Odesa and 50 nautical miles from the Ukrainian coast. The satellite passed at 6.52pm local time. Based on analysis by multiple people, we are confident that this shows Moskva’s final hours." https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/04/satellite-image-pinpoints-russian-cruiser-moskva-as-she-burned/ AFAIK within 12 nm is within a nation's territory, but there is an economic zone that extends to 200 nm (modified by the existence of another nation's territory or zone, where you tend to split the difference or negotiate where the boundary is)

He won, so how does one demonstrate that he made things worse? Many of the people who griped were going to gripe anyway. How do we know? Because they gripe about everything, even when the "controversy" is made up. Obama wearing a tan suit. Searching for his birth certificate. Hunter Biden's laptop. Biden not holding a press conference soon enough. Any number of Peter Doocy questions that get dismantled by Jen Psaki at the press briefings. Mitch McConnell's repeated hypocrisies.

"you claim that when he said he would "pick a black female" for SCJ, that wasn't really true, and all sorts of other criteria were considered." I never said that "pick a black female" wasn't really true; my position was that this was along with potential candidates' other qualifications already being known. By claiming that this isn't true, what we're left with is the conclusion that black + female were the sole criteria. Where is the strawman? I don't think anyone is contending this This is a false dilemma, and at the crux of the issue here. There is nothing about "I will pick a black woman" that says other factors weren't considered. It is an assumption, and one that nobody here has backed up with evidence. (edit to add: IOW, you are essentially claiming that you know that Biden did not do anything to vet people before his announcement and there is no way for you to know this, so how can you possibly insist that it is true? "I will do X" is not the same as "I will do X and only X") I'm waiting for J.C. MacSwell to come by and admonish you for your strawman

Not only not, but fuck no. It’s not like that’s the only option, so what’s the point of offering it up? I saw a quote earlier today about how people don’t get credit for doing the right thing. Dems do something questionable or even have an appearance of impropriety and they resign under pressure from other dems, while republicans do not hold themselves or their peers to account.

A. As long as it takes, and B. Do you really think that not doing so will make them stop trying to take over the government and dismantle democracy? (If so, what evidence do you have?) And, as a general followup (i.e. I'm asking everyone), why is it incumbent on the left to "be nice" when the right is not held to the same standard?

No. not at all. Some hyperbole, but nobody has produced evidence for the narrative that Biden did not do any due diligence before the announcement, and there is evidence that he did.

So “I will pick a black female” suggests to you that no other criteria were considered? Wow, how lucky he picked someone with impeccable credentials for SCOTUS and not some housewife who only had a semester of junior college and was going to major in art history!

I doubt very much that they discussed profits

And also, whose perceptions matter more to a candidate: people who might vote for you, and people who aren't going to vote for you no matter what you say?

Gosh, you'd think that he was campaigning for office or something Maybe he just overestimated the reasoning ability and intelligence of the voters, and DGAF about what the haters would say. To clarify: the GOP's actions are largely "Biden (or any democrat) is wrong about everything, and we will find or manufacture a reason to be outraged" so it really doesn't matter what he said as far as the reaction from the punditry on the right goes. People are acting as if it would have mattered, regarding the reaction, and I don't see the basis for that position.

And nobody has shown that only one group was considered. One can reach this conclusion (some because it's the conclusion they want to reach) by assuming that this was the beginning of the process, rather than the middle of the process. Anybody not applying tunnel vision (i.e. excluding easily-discovered truths) can see that it wasn't the beginning of the process. Based IN PART on skin color and gender, because of the perspectives and experiences such a person would have. But meeting other criteria one applies to selecting for such a position. What is a pre-announcement? It's just an announcement, right?

It’s a bad faith position when it’s based on untruths. And as I quite clearly said response, I was not discussing the perception, so this is moot. And that’s the problem. By only focusing on what he said, as if it’s the only information out there, is the bad faith. You strip the speech from its context. Quotes without context can often look like they mean something very different. And it’s even worse because there’s an implied context which is very different from reality.

*appeared to do only if you ignore pretty much all of the surrounding evidence. It is, in fact, more subtle than this. And others are allowed to point out the bad-faith nature of this response.