J.C.MacSwell

Right. Forgot about that. Carry on then.

You guys bring up "butt hurt" (usually old) white men a lot. Like that's where the opposition to racializing the political process...in an obvious attempt for political gain...lies. I couldn't give a hoot for any white male justices losing there shot at the SCOTUS to KJB, nor do I suspect anyone here does. What else could possibly be objected to? If the Dems could possibly figure that out between now and the midterms...along with equally obvious answers to obvious questions...maybe they could just let the GOP...Trump et al...sink themselves. But of course...they won't...any more than those here will spouting the same crap. In the mean time I find myself hoping the Dems get there ass kicked in the mid terms and finally "get it" (though they are more likely to lament the "racist bigots" that voted GOP) or double down and allow a reasonable Independent to go up the middle. The alternative is Trump 2.0, and you guys deserve better. There's 8 billion people that need better.

Video coming out of the Moskva's last moments prior to sinking. It kind of questions Russia's version of both the damage being done just due to a fire and it sinking under tow due to rough weather and adverse sea conditions (If I ever consider reducing sail in the those conditions...time to put me down)

Here is Stalin's speech from that parade. Interesting to juxtapose those circumstances with current situation. Stalin, for that brief period of time, found himself potentially on the right side of history. Putin obviously is not.

Putin' on the Ritz Moscow's Red Square May 9, 2022. Presumably Putin will be outside enjoying all the pomp and circumstance with his 12,000 or so extensively vetted guests. Should he be nervous of any of them? Surely some of them might soon be up for house arrest or "heart attack". Or maybe more so from a Bayraktar or stealthier drone appearing seemingly out of nowhere? (obviously not flying in from Ukraine itself) Would this parade be a legitimate target for Ukraine, if they could somehow pull it off? Some of the hardware on display could surely be designated for future use against Ukraine.

Other than his ability to think well outside the common decency box, and care nothing about anyone but himself, he's no genius either. He's played himself. Or in the words of Mrs. Gump..."Stupid is as stupid does".

They need a second stamp, almost identical except with the ship on it's side starting to go down.

Any attempt at a fine balance is almost directly costing more and more lives of Ukrainian civilians, Ukrainian military personnel, and possibly ultimately more Russian troops as well.

After all...it worked out so well for Hong Kong.

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.

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.

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?

I'm not going to go look for one if that's what you're asking. Why should I?

I'll put you down for a couple of nukes then. How big is your backyard?

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'.

Do the Democrats not do that? Have they not had any practice?

Where's the contradiction?

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?

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?

Where exactly?

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.

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.

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.

He excluded, outright, some unrepresented minorities from consideration, based on race.

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?