swansont

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.

! Moderator Note Rule 2.7 requires the discussion to take place here ("material for discussion must be posted")

Can you provide the source of this quote? Are there any testable predictions from your conjecture?

I'm not sure what the connection is. What happened on Nov 7, 1941 that would be analogous?

The thread is about the president appointing a judge. The politician is Joe Biden, who is white. So no, it’s not part of the topic’s question.

There's no balance here. NATO will certainly defend if attacked but aren't going to attack otherwise, so there's nothing else that have to do to avoid war. They don't have to concede anything to Putin. From what we've seen in Ukraine, Putin's not going to win against NATO, whose members have better weapons and more (possibly even better-trained) personnel.

It was being towed, and some time had passed, so probably not. But reports are that the Russians have moved their fleet away not closer than 80 nautical miles to Ukrainian territory. Presumably to prevent further "accidents"

Depends on whether we know you've investigated buying cars in the past, (and are likely to have done so recently) so that you are already familiar with the models.

I don't think that it's reasonable to expect anything to happen instantaneously, or nearly so. As Russia runs out of its stockpiled spare parts, things will get much worse. A war of attrition favored the Russians at the outset. But the asymmetric losses in the field and sanctions look to make that a non-viable strategy. The Kremlin no doubt will write this off as a routine oxidation evolution, and it is quite normal to evacuate the crew when this event is occurring.

Which is still off-topic for that discussion, since it didn’t center on black politicians

Amazon? Or elsewhere online with a simple search. 20 mW or 50 mW green lasers are easily obtained, and there are 1W handheld lasers out there

Whatever the potential danger is. That’s the function if the glasses - laser glasses are often OD5 or OD6 (optical density; the number indicates the number of orders of magnitude of attenuation)

A danger with NIR is that your body doesn’t detect it efficiently, so your pupils will not constrict in proportion to its brightness as it would for visible light. IR-blocking safety glasses would be prudent, but eyes shut should be fine.

ID is not falsifiable.

! Moderator Note We're not going to do this

When we ask for evidence, the implication is scientific evidence. That is, evidence that supports an hypothesis while excluding competing ones. Add to this the notion that science has to be, in principle, falsifiable. ID ticks off neither of these boxes. And it ignores the question of who designed the designer.

Shorter answer is: don't tell me what I find attractive or unattractive.

I think that there is a fairly wide spectrum of what people find attractive, and making general statements will always be weak to varying extents. The OP is wrong to insist that "red hair in men is regarded as unattractive" and by the same token "what men find attractive is the red hair" is also wrong. Both statements apply, at best, so some subset of the target audience. That subset might be large, and it might be small. As such, the statements are not particularly useful.