Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 396: America's Mid(terms)

(+) Yeah! (+)

The criteria for evaluating "who would be a good supreme court justice" is not limited to their record of service and their GPA in law school. Identity and the ability to understand /represent the interests of people is just as important.

Corrik7 posted...

Every single person is equal to me, and you are judged solely by the person you are. Nothing else.

In the world we live in, race complicates "judging people as they are" - that's just reality.

Corrik7 posted...

I haven't heard many people go the "agree with me or you are racist route in a long time" must have been because I didn't talk on board 8 lately.

You said it, not me.

To put it another way, after enough hypocrisy and clearly bad faith opinions/conclusion there is little to conclude about a person other than that they have -other- reasons for believing the things they do.

Jakyl25 posted...

Did it bother you when Trump declared he would replace RBG with a woman

Yes. I don't think either Amy Coney Barrett or Ketanji Jackson really cared that much though. If George Bush had done that to Clarence Thomas, I think Thomas might have felt insulted enough to turn down the nomination.

Jakyl25 posted...

Did it bother you when Trump declared he would replace RBG with a woman

Uh yeah? I want the 9 best justices. It reeked of pandering to the left to make them feel better about replacing a liberal with a conservative.

Jakyl25 posted...

It absolutely is laughable pandering

But why does it bother you THAT much

I thought we were discussing pandering to race in regards to position and placement.

Corrik7 posted...

This is absolutely the problem. If Biden said, I will select the best Justice regardless of race or gender and chose her, it would be a great accomplishment. The fact he limited and made it seem like she was only the best when applying filters, he cheapened the accomplishment and also called the legitimacy into question.

He could have absolutely not said that and just chose her. But he needed a "please pat me on the back while I pander" points. Thats what irks me so bad about democrats. Identity politics. Democrats pander for votes instead of treating everyone the same. It was what annoyed me about Biden when he came out and made the January 6th or whatever about race. It didn't need to to there except to fuel division and pander. It made me immediately have a bad taste in my mouth. I absolutely hate when democrats do that crap.

Every single person is equal to me, and you are judged solely by the person you are. Nothing else.

Let me ask you this: let's imagine Biden kept his mouth shut, and just randomly called a press conference to announce that KBJ was his pick to replace Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. Do you genuinely believe that the majority of people upset about Biden's pandering would miraculously be cool with the announcement, and it's only his words that upset them? Because maybe I'm just cynical, but I find it hard to believe that Tucker "White Replacement Theory" Carlson and the rest of the Fox News opinion pundits wouldn't have their talking points in order within twenty-four hours, to call out KBJ as an example of Democrats pushing a "woke agenda" and replacing a white man with a black woman, and effectively saying all the same things they already said now. Her skill and legitimacy would be called into question regardless. So as shameless as the pandering might be, why not at least openly own it and get credit from SOME people?

Inviso posted...

Let me ask you this: let's imagine Biden kept his mouth shut, and just randomly called a press conference to announce that KBJ was his pick to replace Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. Do you genuinely believe that the majority of people upset about Biden's pandering would miraculously be cool with the announcement, and it's only his words that upset them? Because maybe I'm just cynical, but I find it hard to believe that Tucker "White Replacement Theory" Carlson and the rest of the Fox News opinion pundits wouldn't have their talking points in order within twenty-four hours, to call out KBJ as an example of Democrats pushing a "woke agenda" and replacing a white man with a black woman, and effectively saying all the same things they already said now. Her skill and legitimacy would be called into question regardless. So as shameless as the pandering might be, why not at least openly own it and get credit from SOME people?

I know the only issue I have is with the pandering. So at least one person? I literally can't stand pandering. I wouldn't wanna be pandered to either. I feel like eventually some have to find it insulting to them too. They pander pander pander pander pander for their votes but rarely do anything actually to help. It's weird. It's like all a show for votes.

Inviso posted...

Let me ask you this: let's imagine Biden kept his mouth shut, and just randomly called a press conference to announce that KBJ was his pick to replace Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. Do you genuinely believe that the majority of people upset about Biden's pandering would miraculously be cool with the announcement, and it's only his words that upset them? Because maybe I'm just cynical, but I find it hard to believe that Tucker "White Replacement Theory" Carlson and the rest of the Fox News opinion pundits wouldn't have their talking points in order within twenty-four hours, to call out KBJ as an example of Democrats pushing a "woke agenda" and replacing a white man with a black woman, and effectively saying all the same things they already said now. Her skill and legitimacy would be called into question regardless. So as shameless as the pandering might be, why not at least openly own it and get credit from SOME people?

Why do you care so much about what Tucker and Fox News and the rest of them say? Corrik's vote is worth literally infinite times theirs since he is a swing vote and they are going to vote GOP no matter what.

Corrik7 posted...

I know the only issue I have is with the pandering. So at least one person? I literally can't stand pandering. I wouldn't wanna be pandered to either. I feel like eventually some have to find it insulting to them too. They pander pander pander pander pander for their votes but rarely do anything actually to help. It's weird. It's like all a show for votes.

It would literally be pandering whether he said his intention or not, and thats why the complain is invalid.

Can we not have this devolve into If you actually believed this Corrik you obviously should believe *Random thing that is either tangentially related or Corrik does in fact believe*

red_sox_777 posted...

Why do you care so much about what Tucker and Fox News and the rest of them say? Corrik's vote is worth literally infinite times theirs since he is a swing vote and they are going to vote GOP no matter what.

Tucker used to have decent segments I would see people post on Facebook, but I have seen a ton and ton and ton of crazy crap from him lately. Foxnews almost seems unwatchable between him and Hannity from what I can tell anymore. I don't really watch much TV tho. Bill Maher used to be awesome tho.

Only almost seems unwatchable? Fox News is full on psychiatric ward and has been for a while

swordz9 posted...

Only almost seems unwatchable? Fox News is full on psychiatric ward and has been for a while

Why do you watch it?

red_sox_777 posted...

Why do you care so much about what Tucker and Fox News and the rest of them say? Corrik's vote is worth literally infinite times theirs since he is a swing vote and they are going to vote GOP no matter what.

Because Fox News sets the tone for not just GOP talking points, but apparently left-wing media talking points as well (based on that graph of crime reporting from a few weeks ago). So what they do and say does have a major impact on how politics are viewed, and the thing I find questionable is this whole "I'm only against it because it's pandering" argument. It's easy to say that, but my argument is that if Biden said nothing and just nominated KBJ, Fox News would run the same attack ads: it's woke pandering. And they'd repeat this again and again and again, and it would become a staple GOP talking point, because at the end of the day, unless the Dems replaced straight, white man Stephen Breyer with a straight, white man nominee, the nomination would ALWAYS wind up being called pandering and a woke attack on American norms or something. Fox News sets the tone, and the rest of the party follows suit.

I just don't buy that, if the GOP picked up the ball and started running with it, calling KBJ's nomination pandering non-stop, that you, Corrik, would not have had that thought invade your brain like an earworm. I think regardless of whether Biden said anything about nominating a black woman or not, due to sheer osmosis, it would get into your head that the only reason he picked KBJ was to pander to black voters or something, and you'd be just as upset and believe that to be his reason. KBJ would then no longer be the "best choice for the job", because she would have only been chosen to pander.

I want to make it very clear: I am not calling you a racist. However, I believe some people much higher on the totem pole are. Racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. And to those people, any threat to white dominance over our culture and government is dangerous to them, so they use their positions of power, either in government, or in the "news" media to push a narrative that picking a woman over a man is pandering. Picking a black person over a white person is pandering. And you repeat that over and over again, and it burrows into your head. And then, even though you yourself aren't racist, you've reached the exact conclusions the racists want you to reach about KBJ...namely that she's not as deserving as someone else who was passed over for being a white guy.

Corrik7 posted...

Why do you watch it?

I dont. Just saying theyve been off the rails insane for a long time now. Seen more than enough clips people upload to Reddit about how crazy they are

Inviso posted...

Because Fox News sets the tone for not just GOP talking points, but apparently left-wing media talking points as well (based on that graph of crime reporting from a few weeks ago). So what they do and say does have a major impact on how politics are viewed, and the thing I find questionable is this whole "I'm only against it because it's pandering" argument. It's easy to say that, but my argument is that if Biden said nothing and just nominated KBJ, Fox News would run the same attack ads: it's woke pandering. And they'd repeat this again and again and again, and it would become a staple GOP talking point, because at the end of the day, unless the Dems replaced straight, white man Stephen Breyer with a straight, white man nominee, the nomination would ALWAYS wind up being called pandering and a woke attack on American norms or something. Fox News sets the tone, and the rest of the party follows suit.

I just don't buy that, if the GOP picked up the ball and started running with it, calling KBJ's nomination pandering non-stop, that you, Corrik, would not have had that thought invade your brain like an earworm. I think regardless of whether Biden said anything about nominating a black woman or not, due to sheer osmosis, it would get into your head that the only reason he picked KBJ was to pander to black voters or something, and you'd be just as upset and believe that to be his reason. KBJ would then no longer be the "best choice for the job", because she would have only been chosen to pander.

I want to make it very clear: I am not calling you a racist. However, I believe some people much higher on the totem pole are. Racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. And to those people, any threat to white dominance over our culture and government is dangerous to them, so they use their positions of power, either in government, or in the "news" media to push a narrative that picking a woman over a man is pandering. Picking a black person over a white person is pandering. And you repeat that over and over again, and it burrows into your head. And then, even though you yourself aren't racist, you've reached the exact conclusions the racists want you to reach about KBJ...namely that she's not as deserving as someone else who was passed over for being a white guy.

I am usually the one that is leading the charge for being annoyed by Democrat pandering with the people I know. And at work they literally call me "the democrat" now because you know not being full aboard for Trump isn't republican enough now.

The thing is, I have for years been talking about the pandering and the media's goal to rouse racial division for views, especially when it comes to election years.

I don't think it came from Tucker or whatever, but if it did, I probably would fully agree with him on that subject.

I mean, I would argue that Biden "pandering" in this particular instance is actually an attempt to quell racial division, since black people have been historically oppressed throughout our nation's history, either via slavery, or Jim Crow and Segregation, or just the statistically overwhelming crime statistics against them. Given that there's literally no way to redress this oppression through legislation, since one party who controls half of the electorate either wants to outright deny it exists, or just doesn't want to spend money to fix the problem...using one of the few things the executive branch can unilaterally do (nominating, not confirming since that's still on the Senate) in order to try and heal a divide that has existed for centuries...I mean, what more do you want in terms of avoiding racial division?

Also, when it comes to pandering...you've told us in the last topic that you plan on voting for Dr. Oz. Like...he's LITERALLY a celebrity from outside Pennsylvania, shipped into Pennsylvania to try and win a Senate seat by appealing to the lowest common denominator, who might be swayed by the smart man from TV the same way they bought into Trump. Never mind that he's an out-of-touch rich guy. That's also very much pandering.

Inviso posted...

I mean, I would argue that Biden "pandering" in this particular instance is actually an attempt to quell racial division, since black people have been historically oppressed throughout our nation's history, either via slavery, or Jim Crow and Segregation, or just the statistically overwhelming crime statistics against them. Given that there's literally no way to redress this oppression through legislation, since one party who controls half of the electorate either wants to outright deny it exists, or just doesn't want to spend money to fix the problem...using one of the few things the executive branch can unilaterally do (nominating, not confirming since that's still on the Senate) in order to try and heal a divide that has existed for centuries...I mean, what more do you want in terms of avoiding racial division?

Also, when it comes to pandering...you've told us in the last topic that you plan on voting for Dr. Oz. Like...he's LITERALLY a celebrity from outside Pennsylvania, shipped into Pennsylvania to try and win a Senate seat by appealing to the lowest common denominator, who might be swayed by the smart man from TV the same way they bought into Trump. Never mind that he's an out-of-touch rich guy. That's also very much pandering.

Oz is out of touch as can be. His commercial about some crazy ass food I never heard of was very telling.

Corrik7 posted...

I know the only issue I have is with the pandering. So at least one person? I literally can't stand pandering. I wouldn't wanna be pandered to either. I feel like eventually some have to find it insulting to them too. They pander pander pander pander pander for their votes but rarely do anything actually to help. It's weird. It's like all a show for votes.

You know literally everything any politician says to the public is pandering, right?

Surprise a person who wants votes, is going to pander to get votes!

Nah see, Corrik wants pandering that feels specific to him.

Its not "racism" in his eyes so it doesn't count. It just happens to benefit him in his own eyes.

Jakyl25 posted...

You know literally everything any politician says to the public is pandering, right?

Fair enough.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1587256488397099009?t=sYBS7LBN7exmpPQ39WjgbQ&s=19

When a black woman needs to have achieved significantly more than her white male coworker, for them to be equals at the table. That's why affirmative action is needed, and kbj's appointment was necessary.

Separately, this is a really good read about Vance for anyone interested.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/jd-vance-tim-ryan-ohio-senate-trump-midterms.html

On some level, Vance seems to understand that he has more criticisms of America in 2022 than ideas about how to fix it. What social progressives have accomplished over the last couple of decades is to deprive our country of any real sharedany real shared anything, right? Vance complained to the Posts van Zuylen-Wood. We dont have a shared sense of our own history. We dont have a shared sense of our own great monuments and figures. We do not have a shared religion. When the reporter pressed him on how hed achieve those things, he gave the best and funniest answer of this or, perhaps, any election cycle: Ah, I mean, honestly, he replied, I dont know.

Been thinking about this, wasnt every Supreme Court justice prior to Barette from either Harvard or Yale law schools?

There is no way the most qualified person just so happens to always be rich enough to have gone to one of those two schools.

So while I agree that I hate saying the next appointment is going to be a minority, there is obviously something wonky with the selection criteria if someone average financially enough to have not gone to an ivy keague law school can never be a justice

With only 9 justices at a time, it's impossible for the most qualified person to have been chosen every time.

masterplum posted...

Been thinking about this, wasnt every Supreme Court justice prior to Barette from either Harvard or Yale law schools?

There is no way the most qualified person just so happens to always be rich enough to have gone to one of those two schools.

So while I agree that I hate saying the next appointment is going to be a minority, there is obviously something wonky with the selection criteria if someone average financially enough to have not gone to an ivy keague law school can never be a justice

Harvard and Yale are not really more expensive than other law schools, beyond merit scholarships being harder to get. For the best of the best, though, they probably got very significant scholarships wherever they went, so it's sort of a moot point.

https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1587263368699596800?s=46&t=itu1DTYUVsuJ4XOlNP93Tw

masterplum posted...

Been thinking about this, wasnt every Supreme Court justice prior to Barette from either Harvard or Yale law schools?

The other eight justices serving at that time? Yeah.

If you mean literally every other SCOTUS justice in history (as I initially read that) then lmfao no (though those two are by far the top two). RBG graduated from Columbia, for instance. (She attended Harvard but transferred out after a sexist dean continually harassed and obstructed her)

Unlike almost every other position in the US government, you don't even need to be a US citizen to be a SCOTUS justice. With 7 billion people in the world, how unlikely is it that the most qualified candidate has been from the US every time?

Kenri posted...

Unlike almost every other position in the US government, you don't even need to be a US citizen to be a SCOTUS justice. With 7 billion people in the world, how unlikely is it that the most qualified candidate has been from the US every time?

given the job sort of requires a knowledge of US law and the constitution, I think its pretty likely the most qualified person is from the US

but I do think its suspicious that Americans keep winning the World Series

masterplum posted...

There is no way the most qualified person just so happens to always be rich enough to have gone to one of those two schools.

So while I agree that I hate saying the next appointment is going to be a minority, there is obviously something wonky with the selection criteria if someone average financially enough to have not gone to an ivy keague law school can never be a justice

Why are you focusing on wealth as the big problem there? You don't have to be rich to get into Harvard/Yale.

MoogleKupo141 posted...

given the job sort of requires a knowledge of US law and the constitution, I think its pretty likely the most qualified person is from the US

but I do think its suspicious that Americans keep winning the World Series

Canada won it twice!

Plum, the other thing is that law school admissions are prestige-driven to an absurd degree. If you get into Harvard/Yale/Stanford, you go there in almost all cases. It's the right choice not only for bragging purposes but also for your career.

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1587263368699596800?s=46&t=itu1DTYUVsuJ4XOlNP93Tw

to be entirely fair the enforcement of that rule is spotty at best, I'm not sure how much would actually change if they took that out

....but it'd still likely drive me off the site

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/0/4/AAeYFbAAD1uo.png

I mean it's an obvious call but I'mma gloat

already been shifting my engagements elsewhere, which sucks because yeah there's absolutely no alternative and Twitter's pretty well the go-to for self-promo but whatever

AriaOfBolo posted...

to be entirely fair the enforcement of that rule is spotty at best, I'm not sure how much would actually change if they took that out

....but it'd still likely drive me off the site

hey we got Peterson and Rubin smacked for it leading to the UP YOURS WOKE MORALISTS line

but yeah I've marked plenty posts straight out using the t-slur aggressively and Twitter always comes back with "nothing found"

I've already basically shut down my main but I'd really like to stay a part of the community I'm in with my alt, ain't no way I'm finding all those people in one place elsewhere

but there's a good chance in a year I'll just be back to tumblr and also 128034769 individual discords <_<

https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/11-1-2022/watchdogs-architect-report/

Tldr - A federal position that I didn't know existed is occupied by a corrupt guy whose removal procedure is unclear.

Fox News brought Tim Ryan on and it didn't work too well for them.

Don't think they expected their audience to stand and clap for "legalize Marijuana". Were probably trying to dunk him since that's a pretty tight race.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1587571819804254208?t=q-3c-_V4sWofMLIeUrMrKw&s=19

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Fox News brought Tim Ryan on and it didn't work too well for them.

Don't think they expected their audience to stand and clap for "legalize Marijuana". Were probably trying to dunk him since that's a pretty tight race.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1587571819804254208?t=q-3c-_V4sWofMLIeUrMrKw&s=19

dude Ive been saying! Literally no downside, lol Joe has one week before its all over

https://twitter.com/chillmage/status/1587522464699256833?s=46&t=GMSAFBgpxQPjfV-PFD20Ig

Where all them Halloween Fenty deaths BTW??

Just to ask, should I typically see anyone who complains about something like "you can't criticize X or you're racist/sexist" as tacitly admitting they're a bigot?

Jesus Christ

Yes. No discussion needed.

Should you always draw sweeping conclusions about whole classes of people based on one data point? The answer is clearly no.

I said "typically". I see no need to use that kind of rhetoric regardless of if someone is actually a bigot or not, so it seems like a way to implausibly deny bigoted intent at best.

Hello everyone I spent 27 hours on this please enjoy.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/1/4/AATFBfAAD14K.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/1/8/0/AAeolZAAD15M.jpg