J.C.MacSwell

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.

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.

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?

I know you get it. Can you explain why others don't seem to?

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?

How could it be so clean and untarnished if it hadn't sped through the air toward that train station?

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.

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.

Why are you not? Do you think Biden would have changed his mind if one of them was sufficiently qualified, after announcing the race and gender he was looking for?

No. They were excluded on the basis of race. You can point to a number of other reasons to not choose them, good or bad, right or wrong, but Biden claimed them ineligible. No other reasons were considered. Why would they be? They were deemed by Biden to be ineligible based on their race.

That makes it unlikely. It does not justify excluding each and every one of them on the basis of race.

So you think it was a good thing for Biden to go about it the way he did? If you think she was the best candidate available all things considered; Do you think this was fair to KBJ? What's the difference, to you, of excluding indigenous women, and not excluding them, from any chance of consideration?

And surely you are aware of the difference.

Being a Black female is an attribute that can reasonably be considered given the current make up of the SCOTUS. But excluding all others is racist, plain and simple. Even excluding all whites is racist, but particularly excluding all other non represented races a priori. If Biden cared more about his appointee's than his misplaced virtue signalling he would have just appointed her as the best available candidate.

Exactly! Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani fleeing his country with a bag of cash is the real hero of our time.

I guess the 1956 Hungarian Revolution means little to them now.

...and now, just 3 days after the election, and after clear evidence of the atrocities in Bucha, agreeing to prop up the ruble. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungary-working-solution-pay-russian-gas-may-foreign-minister-2022-04-06/ Kind of begs the question...if they are demonstrably supporting Putin's aggression "Why are they in NATO?"

Not Indian but I've watched enough WION to vouch for it as reasonably fair and balanced given a definite Indian bias. I've subjected myself to much worse.

No ifs, ands or butts about it.

Looks like the Viktator has won yet again, thanks at least in part to the degree he has control of the media. I wonder if he'd won if the essence of his victory speech was forefront on his campaign trail? (maybe it was, I don't really know, but this seems more like leaning toward Putin than Europe...the very thing claimed by his opponents) “We have such a victory it can be seen from the moon, but it’s sure that it can be seen from Brussels,” Orban said in his speech on Sunday night, making light of his government’s long-running tensions with EU leaders. “We will remember this victory until the end of our lives because we had to fight against a huge amount of opponents,” Orban said, citing a number of his political enemies including the Hungarian left, “bureaucrats” in Brussels, the international media, “and the Ukrainian president too – we never had so many opponents at the same time.” https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungarians-vote-orbans-12-year-rule-tight-ballot-overshadowed-by-ukraine-war-2022-04-03/ I guess he wants Russian gas.

UK doesn't have much dependence on Russian gas or oil. You'd probably feel the effects of the World market from a broader boycott than the effect of stopping imports yourself.

Let's not be anti-dentites!

How well have they managed to supply their much closer troops from those locations? Maybe this will help: I realize I'm being an ass, but also consider how much easier it would be to supply the Ukrainians directly to where their war supplies are most needed from Poland if the Russians don't win control of that border (while risking Nato intervention with any "mistakes")

It's always the 90% of politicians that give the rest a bad name.

It will be interesting to see how PM Viktor "Viktator" Orban does in the Hungarian Election tomorrow against a coalition of parties trying to oust him. He is considered the closest to Putin of all Nato and European Union leaders, and Hungary has done the least to support Ukraine's war efforts. (They have taken in a lot of refugees) "Orbán has said Hungary will not send weapons to Ukraine, or allow shipments from other countries to transit through its territory. While analysts say his stance has left him more isolated from Western leaders, including some of the country's strongest allies like Poland and the Czech Republic, the war has allowed him to craft a campaign message for his domestic audience. " https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/hungary-orban-election-putin-1.6405998 He claims he's the only one that will keep them out of the war and his opposition says he's the choice for Russia and they for Europe.