One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main
Race baiting and the Supreme Court
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
Jan 30, 2022 07:24:28   #
Rose42
 
"The race-baiting response to Biden's Supreme Court pledge"

"One hundred and fifteen Americans have sat on the Supreme Court. Of those, 110 have been men and 112 have been White. But now that President Biden has the chance to follow through on the promise he made to appoint a Black woman to serve on the court, conservatives are aghast at the very thought.

Not all of them, of course; some Republicans are staying mum for now, and they may ultimately decide to say the nominee is a crazy c*******t and leave it at that. But ever since we heard Justice Stephen G. Breyer will retire, a flood of reactions from the right has been based on the premise that appointing a Black woman to the court necessarily means she will be elevated over someone more qualified, presumably a White man.

That is quite simply a r****t presumption. Saying so will raise some hackles; conservatives are convinced that they are constantly being unfairly accused of r****m by liberals. Sometimes they have a point; certainly some on the left level that charge at times when it’s less than justified.

So it’s important to be clear about what I am, and am not, arguing. In assessing r****m, I try to stick to the “what you said, not who you are” standard. With the occasional exception, we can judge a statement r****t without peering into the heart of the speaker, which ends up sucking us into distractions about how many Black friends someone has.
Let’s consider some of what’s circulating on the right. On Fox News, Gregg Jarrett said Biden is violating the Civil Rights Act by promising to appoint a Black woman (and no, a Supreme Court appointment is not like an ordinary job opening). Sean Hannity claimed Biden’s pledge “may even be illegal.” Someone is clearly being discriminated against here, and it’s White people.

Conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro tweeted that rather than picking a male candidate Shapiro judged to be the “objectively best pick,” Biden would succumb to the “latest intersectional hierarchy” and choose a “lesser black woman.” (He later deleted the tweet and apologized.)

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal editorial page said choosing a Black woman “elevates skin color over qualifications,” as though it would be impossible to find a Black woman who is also qualified. “I mean, what kind of a qualification is that, being a Black woman?” asked Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo.

“They can overtly discriminate against people,” lamented Ben Shapiro. Tucker Carlson issued a nearly 10-minute rant about the injustice of it all, concluding with the suggestion that G****e F***d’s sister should be the nominee.

“She is not a judge or a lawyer or wh**ever, but in this case, who cares?" Carlson said. “Clearly, that’s not the point anymore.”
So what’s r****t about this? Aren’t they just advocating for e******y?

Think about the assumption behind these objections: That if Biden promised to choose a Black woman and then did, whoever she is, that means she must be unqualified if her race were part of the reason she was chosen, or at the very least less qualified than someone who isn’t a Black woman. Why would that be?

They look at someone such as reported leading contender Ketanji Brown Jackson — national oratory champion in high school, magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University, editor of the Harvard Law Review, Supreme Court clerk, experience as a trial and appeals court judge — and say there must be better candidates, if only Biden were open-minded enough to consider them.

Really? Like whom?

Here’s the reality of Supreme Court nominations: Hundreds of people clear the bar of
qualifications and intelligence to serve. There’s no such thing as one most qualified candidate. Once a president is picking from that pool, other variables come into play: their age, their life experiences, their ideological inclinations, whether anything about them might complicate confirmation.

Every president takes those questions into consideration, and conservatives have supported some nominees precisely because of those ancillary qualities. They praised Amy Coney Barrett for being a mother of seven and for having not attended law school at Harvard or Yale like every other justice. They found that kind of diversity valuable.

One prominent conservative even wrote in 2018, “The main reason I favor Barrett, though, is the obvious one: She’s a woman.” More g****r diversity among justices was seen as something Republicans should value.
Likewise, Brett M. Kavanaugh wasn’t chosen by President Donald Trump because he was the wisest jurist in the land. He was relatively young (then 53), so he could serve for a long time, and his years in Republican politics and stamp of approval from the Federalist Society assured Republicans that he’d be a reliable conservative v**e. As an intellect, Kavanaugh is adequate, but no one claims he’s a generation-defining genius.

Conservatives have also conveniently forgotten that Ronald Reagan made a promise similar to Biden’s when he ran for president in 1980: He vowed to appoint the first female justice — and then did. When George H.W. Bush filled Thurgood Marshall’s seat with Clarence Thomas in 1991, everyone understood that Bush wanted to find a Black conservative.

But when a Democrat does the same thing, a noxious yet familiar narrative emerges: The true story of any advancement for a Black person, we’re told, is that White people are being victimized.

To repeat, it doesn’t matter whether conservatives expressing outrage that Biden will appoint someone with a stellar resume who is also a Black woman are genuinely motivated by racial animus. What matters is that they are quite intentionally engaged in a project of race-baiting, one that seeks to mobilize the racial fears and resentments of the Republican base.
They know exactly what they’re doing. And we shouldn’t let them claim otherwise."

Paul Waldman, The Washington Post

Reply
Jan 30, 2022 07:32:39   #
Liberty Tree
 
Rose42 wrote:
"The race-baiting response to Biden's Supreme Court pledge"

"One hundred and fifteen Americans have sat on the Supreme Court. Of those, 110 have been men and 112 have been White. But now that President Biden has the chance to follow through on the promise he made to appoint a Black woman to serve on the court, conservatives are aghast at the very thought.

Not all of them, of course; some Republicans are staying mum for now, and they may ultimately decide to say the nominee is a crazy c*******t and leave it at that. But ever since we heard Justice Stephen G. Breyer will retire, a flood of reactions from the right has been based on the premise that appointing a Black woman to the court necessarily means she will be elevated over someone more qualified, presumably a White man.

That is quite simply a r****t presumption. Saying so will raise some hackles; conservatives are convinced that they are constantly being unfairly accused of r****m by liberals. Sometimes they have a point; certainly some on the left level that charge at times when it’s less than justified.

So it’s important to be clear about what I am, and am not, arguing. In assessing r****m, I try to stick to the “what you said, not who you are” standard. With the occasional exception, we can judge a statement r****t without peering into the heart of the speaker, which ends up sucking us into distractions about how many Black friends someone has.
Let’s consider some of what’s circulating on the right. On Fox News, Gregg Jarrett said Biden is violating the Civil Rights Act by promising to appoint a Black woman (and no, a Supreme Court appointment is not like an ordinary job opening). Sean Hannity claimed Biden’s pledge “may even be illegal.” Someone is clearly being discriminated against here, and it’s White people.

Conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro tweeted that rather than picking a male candidate Shapiro judged to be the “objectively best pick,” Biden would succumb to the “latest intersectional hierarchy” and choose a “lesser black woman.” (He later deleted the tweet and apologized.)

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal editorial page said choosing a Black woman “elevates skin color over qualifications,” as though it would be impossible to find a Black woman who is also qualified. “I mean, what kind of a qualification is that, being a Black woman?” asked Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo.

“They can overtly discriminate against people,” lamented Ben Shapiro. Tucker Carlson issued a nearly 10-minute rant about the injustice of it all, concluding with the suggestion that G****e F***d’s sister should be the nominee.

“She is not a judge or a lawyer or wh**ever, but in this case, who cares?" Carlson said. “Clearly, that’s not the point anymore.”
So what’s r****t about this? Aren’t they just advocating for e******y?

Think about the assumption behind these objections: That if Biden promised to choose a Black woman and then did, whoever she is, that means she must be unqualified if her race were part of the reason she was chosen, or at the very least less qualified than someone who isn’t a Black woman. Why would that be?

They look at someone such as reported leading contender Ketanji Brown Jackson — national oratory champion in high school, magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University, editor of the Harvard Law Review, Supreme Court clerk, experience as a trial and appeals court judge — and say there must be better candidates, if only Biden were open-minded enough to consider them.

Really? Like whom?

Here’s the reality of Supreme Court nominations: Hundreds of people clear the bar of
qualifications and intelligence to serve. There’s no such thing as one most qualified candidate. Once a president is picking from that pool, other variables come into play: their age, their life experiences, their ideological inclinations, whether anything about them might complicate confirmation.

Every president takes those questions into consideration, and conservatives have supported some nominees precisely because of those ancillary qualities. They praised Amy Coney Barrett for being a mother of seven and for having not attended law school at Harvard or Yale like every other justice. They found that kind of diversity valuable.

One prominent conservative even wrote in 2018, “The main reason I favor Barrett, though, is the obvious one: She’s a woman.” More g****r diversity among justices was seen as something Republicans should value.
Likewise, Brett M. Kavanaugh wasn’t chosen by President Donald Trump because he was the wisest jurist in the land. He was relatively young (then 53), so he could serve for a long time, and his years in Republican politics and stamp of approval from the Federalist Society assured Republicans that he’d be a reliable conservative v**e. As an intellect, Kavanaugh is adequate, but no one claims he’s a generation-defining genius.

Conservatives have also conveniently forgotten that Ronald Reagan made a promise similar to Biden’s when he ran for president in 1980: He vowed to appoint the first female justice — and then did. When George H.W. Bush filled Thurgood Marshall’s seat with Clarence Thomas in 1991, everyone understood that Bush wanted to find a Black conservative.

But when a Democrat does the same thing, a noxious yet familiar narrative emerges: The true story of any advancement for a Black person, we’re told, is that White people are being victimized.

To repeat, it doesn’t matter whether conservatives expressing outrage that Biden will appoint someone with a stellar resume who is also a Black woman are genuinely motivated by racial animus. What matters is that they are quite intentionally engaged in a project of race-baiting, one that seeks to mobilize the racial fears and resentments of the Republican base.
They know exactly what they’re doing. And we shouldn’t let them claim otherwise."

Paul Waldman, The Washington Post
"The race-baiting response to Biden's Supreme... (show quote)


If Biden nominates a very liberal Black woman and she is opposed by someone not because of race but ideology the left will immediately call them r****t and thus be guilty of race baiting themselves.

Reply
Jan 30, 2022 07:48:13   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
Rose42 wrote:
"The race-baiting response to Biden's Supreme Court pledge"

"One hundred and fifteen Americans have sat on the Supreme Court. Of those, 110 have been men and 112 have been White. But now that President Biden has the chance to follow through on the promise he made to appoint a Black woman to serve on the court, conservatives are aghast at the very thought.

Not all of them, of course; some Republicans are staying mum for now, and they may ultimately decide to say the nominee is a crazy c*******t and leave it at that. But ever since we heard Justice Stephen G. Breyer will retire, a flood of reactions from the right has been based on the premise that appointing a Black woman to the court necessarily means she will be elevated over someone more qualified, presumably a White man.

That is quite simply a r****t presumption. Saying so will raise some hackles; conservatives are convinced that they are constantly being unfairly accused of r****m by liberals. Sometimes they have a point; certainly some on the left level that charge at times when it’s less than justified.

So it’s important to be clear about what I am, and am not, arguing. In assessing r****m, I try to stick to the “what you said, not who you are” standard. With the occasional exception, we can judge a statement r****t without peering into the heart of the speaker, which ends up sucking us into distractions about how many Black friends someone has.
Let’s consider some of what’s circulating on the right. On Fox News, Gregg Jarrett said Biden is violating the Civil Rights Act by promising to appoint a Black woman (and no, a Supreme Court appointment is not like an ordinary job opening). Sean Hannity claimed Biden’s pledge “may even be illegal.” Someone is clearly being discriminated against here, and it’s White people.

Conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro tweeted that rather than picking a male candidate Shapiro judged to be the “objectively best pick,” Biden would succumb to the “latest intersectional hierarchy” and choose a “lesser black woman.” (He later deleted the tweet and apologized.)

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal editorial page said choosing a Black woman “elevates skin color over qualifications,” as though it would be impossible to find a Black woman who is also qualified. “I mean, what kind of a qualification is that, being a Black woman?” asked Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo.

“They can overtly discriminate against people,” lamented Ben Shapiro. Tucker Carlson issued a nearly 10-minute rant about the injustice of it all, concluding with the suggestion that G****e F***d’s sister should be the nominee.

“She is not a judge or a lawyer or wh**ever, but in this case, who cares?" Carlson said. “Clearly, that’s not the point anymore.”
So what’s r****t about this? Aren’t they just advocating for e******y?

Think about the assumption behind these objections: That if Biden promised to choose a Black woman and then did, whoever she is, that means she must be unqualified if her race were part of the reason she was chosen, or at the very least less qualified than someone who isn’t a Black woman. Why would that be?

They look at someone such as reported leading contender Ketanji Brown Jackson — national oratory champion in high school, magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University, editor of the Harvard Law Review, Supreme Court clerk, experience as a trial and appeals court judge — and say there must be better candidates, if only Biden were open-minded enough to consider them.

Really? Like whom?

Here’s the reality of Supreme Court nominations: Hundreds of people clear the bar of
qualifications and intelligence to serve. There’s no such thing as one most qualified candidate. Once a president is picking from that pool, other variables come into play: their age, their life experiences, their ideological inclinations, whether anything about them might complicate confirmation.

Every president takes those questions into consideration, and conservatives have supported some nominees precisely because of those ancillary qualities. They praised Amy Coney Barrett for being a mother of seven and for having not attended law school at Harvard or Yale like every other justice. They found that kind of diversity valuable.

One prominent conservative even wrote in 2018, “The main reason I favor Barrett, though, is the obvious one: She’s a woman.” More g****r diversity among justices was seen as something Republicans should value.
Likewise, Brett M. Kavanaugh wasn’t chosen by President Donald Trump because he was the wisest jurist in the land. He was relatively young (then 53), so he could serve for a long time, and his years in Republican politics and stamp of approval from the Federalist Society assured Republicans that he’d be a reliable conservative v**e. As an intellect, Kavanaugh is adequate, but no one claims he’s a generation-defining genius.

Conservatives have also conveniently forgotten that Ronald Reagan made a promise similar to Biden’s when he ran for president in 1980: He vowed to appoint the first female justice — and then did. When George H.W. Bush filled Thurgood Marshall’s seat with Clarence Thomas in 1991, everyone understood that Bush wanted to find a Black conservative.

But when a Democrat does the same thing, a noxious yet familiar narrative emerges: The true story of any advancement for a Black person, we’re told, is that White people are being victimized.

To repeat, it doesn’t matter whether conservatives expressing outrage that Biden will appoint someone with a stellar resume who is also a Black woman are genuinely motivated by racial animus. What matters is that they are quite intentionally engaged in a project of race-baiting, one that seeks to mobilize the racial fears and resentments of the Republican base.
They know exactly what they’re doing. And we shouldn’t let them claim otherwise."

Paul Waldman, The Washington Post
"The race-baiting response to Biden's Supreme... (show quote)


And, once again, the L*****t/Democrat/MSM/etal display their amazing ability to mind read goals, intentions, and motivations of anyone they aim their weaponized crystal balls towards.
If President Biden had announced that he intended to appoint an Irish Catholic or a White male evangelical to replace Judge Breyer, what would the reaction from the left have been?
The article is right about one thing, though. There is a reasonably sized pool of qualified candidates out there. There is nothing wrong with Biden, or any other President, picking a woman, or a person of color, or a wh**ever FROM THAT POOL! The question the right is asking, and reasonably so, is will Biden actually DO that? Or will he go looking for a Black woman who is politically correct, actively partisan, and wildly liberal in all regards? My own personal crystal ball says that is likely to be EXACTLY what President Biden does. We shall see.

Reply
 
 
Jan 30, 2022 08:04:09   #
moldyoldy
 
See that Rose, post something obviously true and well thought out and the piranhas attack.

Reply
Jan 30, 2022 08:16:44   #
Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX
 
Liberty Tree wrote:
If Biden nominates a very liberal Black woman and she is opposed by someone not because of race but ideology the left will immediately call them r****t and thus be guilty of race baiting themselves.


It seems to be a way of ensuring the USA goes broke to me. The Left continues to get their drugs and untraceable kids into the country. Just my opinion. They also don't want Navy Seals conducting training in Washington and Oregon state parks. They might finally discover why so many children disappear in state parks or find Bigfoot. Oh, the horror of that. Meanwhile, the borders are overwhelmed and i******s continue to make it into all parts of the USA.

Biden is clearly now the current head of the deep state and trying to start WW-III with Russia Over Ukraine. His actions easily prove it. They can board planes just by showing their border apprehension paperwork, duh, how much more evidence do we need to see? Biden needs to be impeached or forced out of office by the military. Trump put a big dent into their illegal money-making operations and adrenochrome sources.

The west and east coasts seem to have been captured by the Left and some on the Right. Most people are leaving the Dem party. Trump has exposed them all and people are wide awake now. Mamma and Poppa Bears are now fighting back to protect their children and our way of life and Constitutional rights and the Marxists Left keep trying to block our attempts to secure our borders and restore Law and Order. Soros's DAs continue to release even murderers and rapists. How much more evidence do people need to see? And they still want our guns. The judge says Kyle Rittenhouse AR-15 will be destroyed after he was found not guilty. It won't be returned. The Dems are a criminal cabal. No one can think otherwise who is sane and understands our Constitution. Soros clearly stole Ukraine from Russia by installing a puppet government inside Ukraine. I hope Putin takes it back and sets it free again. Remember, the offspring of Kerry, Pelosi, Biden, and others were making big bucks in Ukraine until Trump was elected. How many more facts do you need? The Left is clearly selling us out to the CCP. The Olympics will start another round of mass v******tion just when it's beginning to fizzle out.

That's my two cents on the subject. I'm tired of the r****m name-calling, protecting i******s, drugs, and harm to children. It's becoming 24/7/365 now. Past time to end their illegal reign of terror.

Reply
Jan 30, 2022 08:31:59   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
moldyoldy wrote:
See that Rose, post something obviously true and well thought out and the piranhas attack.


You call that an attack? Two very reasonable posts questioning the accuracy the article? Did anyone say anything against Rose personally, or against her posting the article? And this coming from a wannabe piranha that attacks anything right leaning, usually without any credible justification. Fortunately, your teeth have long since been pulled, if you ever had any. Your worst attack can, at the most, leaves a little insignificant hicky.

Reply
Jan 30, 2022 08:54:51   #
Rose42
 
moldyoldy wrote:
See that Rose, post something obviously true and well thought out and the piranhas attack.


Much of it is true and I think it would have been much smarter for Biden to just quietly make his pick rather than announce he was choosing a black woman. There would have been less of a brouhaha.

Reply
 
 
Jan 30, 2022 09:37:26   #
American Vet
 
Rose42 wrote:
"The race-baiting response to Biden's Supreme Court pledge"

"One hundred and fifteen Americans have sat on the Supreme Court. Of those, 110 have been men and 112 have been White. But now that President Biden has the chance to follow through on the promise he made to appoint a Black woman to serve on the court, conservatives are aghast at the very thought.

Not all of them, of course; some Republicans are staying mum for now, and they may ultimately decide to say the nominee is a crazy c*******t and leave it at that. But ever since we heard Justice Stephen G. Breyer will retire, a flood of reactions from the right has been based on the premise that appointing a Black woman to the court necessarily means she will be elevated over someone more qualified, presumably a White man.

That is quite simply a r****t presumption. Saying so will raise some hackles; conservatives are convinced that they are constantly being unfairly accused of r****m by liberals. Sometimes they have a point; certainly some on the left level that charge at times when it’s less than justified.

So it’s important to be clear about what I am, and am not, arguing. In assessing r****m, I try to stick to the “what you said, not who you are” standard. With the occasional exception, we can judge a statement r****t without peering into the heart of the speaker, which ends up sucking us into distractions about how many Black friends someone has.
Let’s consider some of what’s circulating on the right. On Fox News, Gregg Jarrett said Biden is violating the Civil Rights Act by promising to appoint a Black woman (and no, a Supreme Court appointment is not like an ordinary job opening). Sean Hannity claimed Biden’s pledge “may even be illegal.” Someone is clearly being discriminated against here, and it’s White people.

Conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro tweeted that rather than picking a male candidate Shapiro judged to be the “objectively best pick,” Biden would succumb to the “latest intersectional hierarchy” and choose a “lesser black woman.” (He later deleted the tweet and apologized.)

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal editorial page said choosing a Black woman “elevates skin color over qualifications,” as though it would be impossible to find a Black woman who is also qualified. “I mean, what kind of a qualification is that, being a Black woman?” asked Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo.

“They can overtly discriminate against people,” lamented Ben Shapiro. Tucker Carlson issued a nearly 10-minute rant about the injustice of it all, concluding with the suggestion that G****e F***d’s sister should be the nominee.

“She is not a judge or a lawyer or wh**ever, but in this case, who cares?" Carlson said. “Clearly, that’s not the point anymore.”
So what’s r****t about this? Aren’t they just advocating for e******y?

Think about the assumption behind these objections: That if Biden promised to choose a Black woman and then did, whoever she is, that means she must be unqualified if her race were part of the reason she was chosen, or at the very least less qualified than someone who isn’t a Black woman. Why would that be?

They look at someone such as reported leading contender Ketanji Brown Jackson — national oratory champion in high school, magna cum laude graduate of Harvard University, editor of the Harvard Law Review, Supreme Court clerk, experience as a trial and appeals court judge — and say there must be better candidates, if only Biden were open-minded enough to consider them.

Really? Like whom?

Here’s the reality of Supreme Court nominations: Hundreds of people clear the bar of
qualifications and intelligence to serve. There’s no such thing as one most qualified candidate. Once a president is picking from that pool, other variables come into play: their age, their life experiences, their ideological inclinations, whether anything about them might complicate confirmation.

Every president takes those questions into consideration, and conservatives have supported some nominees precisely because of those ancillary qualities. They praised Amy Coney Barrett for being a mother of seven and for having not attended law school at Harvard or Yale like every other justice. They found that kind of diversity valuable.

One prominent conservative even wrote in 2018, “The main reason I favor Barrett, though, is the obvious one: She’s a woman.” More g****r diversity among justices was seen as something Republicans should value.
Likewise, Brett M. Kavanaugh wasn’t chosen by President Donald Trump because he was the wisest jurist in the land. He was relatively young (then 53), so he could serve for a long time, and his years in Republican politics and stamp of approval from the Federalist Society assured Republicans that he’d be a reliable conservative v**e. As an intellect, Kavanaugh is adequate, but no one claims he’s a generation-defining genius.

Conservatives have also conveniently forgotten that Ronald Reagan made a promise similar to Biden’s when he ran for president in 1980: He vowed to appoint the first female justice — and then did. When George H.W. Bush filled Thurgood Marshall’s seat with Clarence Thomas in 1991, everyone understood that Bush wanted to find a Black conservative.

But when a Democrat does the same thing, a noxious yet familiar narrative emerges: The true story of any advancement for a Black person, we’re told, is that White people are being victimized.

To repeat, it doesn’t matter whether conservatives expressing outrage that Biden will appoint someone with a stellar resume who is also a Black woman are genuinely motivated by racial animus. What matters is that they are quite intentionally engaged in a project of race-baiting, one that seeks to mobilize the racial fears and resentments of the Republican base.
They know exactly what they’re doing. And we shouldn’t let them claim otherwise."

Paul Waldman, The Washington Post
"The race-baiting response to Biden's Supreme... (show quote)


So basically this person is saying that a quota system is needed........

Reply
Jan 30, 2022 09:50:58   #
moldyoldy
 
Rose42 wrote:
Much of it is true and I think it would have been much smarter for Biden to just quietly make his pick rather than announce he was choosing a black woman. There would have been less of a brouhaha.


A campaign promise like Reagan made to appoint a woman.
Trump pandered to the anti a******n folks with Barrett, who has a thin resume when compared to the Black women on Biden’s short list.

Reply
Jan 30, 2022 10:38:32   #
Weewillynobeerspilly Loc: North central Texas
 
moldyoldy wrote:
A campaign promise like Reagan made to appoint a woman.
Trump pandered to the anti a******n folks with Barrett, who has a thin resume when compared to the Black women on Biden’s short list.


You probably believe that.... And kamalatoe being one shows your level of bias coupled with rampant ignorance beyond compare.

Reply
Jan 30, 2022 12:04:07   #
Rose42
 
moldyoldy wrote:
A campaign promise like Reagan made to appoint a woman.
Trump pandered to the anti a******n folks with Barrett, who has a thin resume when compared to the Black women on Biden’s short list.


Reagan and Trump are irrelevant to this. So is Obama and his horrible pick of Sotomayor You know it was a bad move by Biden. Go ahead and appoint a black woman. But why needlessly incite r****m when you know full well thats what will happen

Reply
 
 
Jan 30, 2022 12:15:02   #
moldyoldy
 
Rose42 wrote:
Reagan and Trump are irrelevant to this. So is Obama and his horrible pick of Sotomayor You know it was a bad move by Biden. Go ahead and appoint a black woman. But why needlessly incite r****m when you know full well thats what will happen



R****m never needs to be incited in the US, it is ingrained.

Reply
Jan 30, 2022 13:21:33   #
Rose42
 
moldyoldy wrote:
R****m never needs to be incited in the US, it is ingrained.


Biden’s handlers fueled it. Purposely. Think about it

Reply
Jan 30, 2022 13:27:01   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
Rose42 wrote:
Much of it is true and I think it would have been much smarter for Biden to just quietly make his pick rather than announce he was choosing a black woman. There would have been less of a brouhaha.


Agreed. The way he handled it looks very much like what it is: him immediately obeying wh**ever the l*****t pundits want him to do. It would have been smarter to at least pretend like he is not catering to their every desire.

Reply
Jan 30, 2022 13:28:28   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
moldyoldy wrote:
A campaign promise like Reagan made to appoint a woman.
Trump pandered to the anti a******n folks with Barrett, who has a thin resume when compared to the Black women on Biden’s short list.


There's another couple of horseapples. The floor is getting a little covered.

Reply
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.