MigL

You are pretty full of ... yourself.

Couldn't care less; I got my point across to at least one person. But that's not what this thread is about. I think the only person to have understood the point JC and I are making is Zapatos. The choice was right; the way he went about could have been handled differently.

Soooooo We should all be V Putins ? I thought we expected better from 'our' side.

And INow provides a perfect example of 'optics', because he perceives a lot of things that are absent from my post ... I wasn't strictly Godwin; I also included references to American history, and Russian History ( thanks for the gulag correction ), besides Nazi history. The difference being you love your children; I don't see much love directed at your Republican fellow citizens. Correct. I agree with what he did; selecting KBJ. I disagree with how he went about it; pre-announcing he would pick a black woman. And again you are correct that what is done, is done. Maybe, after all the drama, he'll have learned for next time.

So, if you don't want to educate your fellow citizens as to the 'better' way, what do you propose to do with them ? Start another civil war ? Fire up the gas chambers for a 'final solution' ? Send them all to goulags in Alaska ( more likely Florida and Texas ) ? How long can you guys keep butting heads with the opposition ? Until another Jan 6 incident finally works, and destroys your democracy ? I don't think the horse story is actually true 😄 . (

You guys are still arguing the point that the selection wasn't racist; and I agree, it wasn't. What was racist was the pre-announcement. It is exactly the same. You have a vacancy, whether an apartment or a SC seat. You announce beforehand that you will select a white male for the apartment, or a black female for the SC. Please, point out the difference. So, is the purpose to simply stay in power, or to actually fix what you yourself aknowledge is wrong with America ? Not appeasement, but showing them the 'better'way. By setting an example that unites instead of further polarizing. America has shown the world the 'better way' of democracy, and more and more countries are starting to recognize that, and follow suit. How sad that that the political parties of this great democracyhave to polarize, and get the voters to hate each other, so as to retain power and the Presidency.

Maybe this is a difference between Canadian law and American law ... Are you saying I could run an ad that says "Apartment for rent. Only white males will be considered." That is the 'optics' ( Peterkin's favorite word ) of J Biden's pre-announcement, to a lot of his constituents. Regardless of who he actually, eventually, apointed. So you don't look confused, and out of your depth.

Yes we have. But apparently you and Peterkin don't read my posts. And you, re-stating YOUR opinion doesn't negate MY opinion.

This was already addressed, here ... The appointment of KBJ is not discriminatory; announcing beforehand that he would choose a back female does fit your crteria for discrimination. Quote : "If only one group is considered, it's certainly discrimination." Do try to keep up. ( or maybe read other people's posts, and remember what you yourself wrote ) Isn't it about time to start changing things ? Or do you think the Republicans are going to do it ? Whatever happened to we, progressive Democrats, are the sensible party, that cares for the country and ALL its people ?

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. Just in case anyone wants to know where that quote came from, because Peterkin seems to be in denial, and wants to go around 28 times ... I find it amusing that people are saying how refreshing it is to have a President who does what he said he was going to do, yet you claim that when he said he would "pick a black female" for SCJ, that wasn't really true, and all sorts of other criteria were considered. Could he not have told them that with his actual selection, instead of announcing he would "pick a black female" beforehand, and alienating the other half of voters ?

Always a pleasure discussing things with you CharonY. That is essentially correct. Unfortunately, in today's society, 'style' is what is perceived, not 'substance'. The President should be mindful of people's perception. My apologies. Like you, I sometimes get carried away, trying to make a point. I did quote you ... " if only one group is considered ( that being black females ), it's certainly discrimination." Did you not say that ?

The appointment of KBJ is not discriminatory; announcing beforehand that he would choose a back female does fit your crteria for discrimination. Quote : "If only one group is considered, it's certainly discrimination." Exactly ! Good job sharpening that pencil. There are millions of immigrants in the US and Canada. My parents came to Canada in 1968; my dad worked two jobs and my mother worked nights, so that they could own a home and put my brother and I through school ( my sister chose to become a hairdresser; yes, I have great looking hair ). And we had it very good compared to Italian immigrants to the US and Canada from the turn of the century. Those 'dagos' were certainly disadvantaged, yet they crawled up through the mud and garbage to become valuable members of current society. The same is true of other nationalities, like the Irish, Polish, and other European white males. I don't think these people were in any way privileged, and I don't think they should feel any shame for what a group of your Southern Americans did a couple of hundred years ago ( and some still continue to do ). I wonder, INow, next year, will you be telling the Ukrainian refugees who have come to the US and Canada how privileged they are to be white males ?

Please elaborate. What exactly is 'bad faith' about perception ? Perception is by its very nature, is highly subjective; how do you decide for others whether that personal subjective perception, is in 'bad faith' ? Is this like "Free speech; as long as I agree with what you say" ? *appeared to do only if you ignore pretty much all of the surrounding evidence. * apeared NOT to do, only if you ignore what J Biden actually said.

I would suggest you re-read the entire thread, TheVat, but that isn't going to happen. I will simply say, discrimination is NOT bad; it is done all the time in the process of choosing. Discrimination on the basis of skin color, gender, religion, etc. IS bad, as a matter of fact, it is against the law. J Biden's pre-announcement gave the impression ( whether warranted or not ) to some people, that he was choosing according to skin color and gender. Those people are allowed their own perception, regardless of whether you think it is 'false outrage', political partisanship, or snowflakyness.

If the point you were attempting to make was not precise enough, I suggest sharpening your pencil ( and thinking ). Absolutely. But I'm of the opinion that discrimination ( as J Biden's pre-announcement appeared to do ) is not the way to do it. That is what created this mess to begin with.

SergUpstart fails to see the connection that it is the Ukrainians who are fighting for their lives against the Russian invasion forces; just like the Russians were fighting for their lives against Hitler's invasion forces in 1941. There is no one attacking Russia ! Take off the blinders, and get the hell out of Ukraine.

Used to be 'too bad', and your fault, if you were born black, now apparently it's your fault if you are born white, as INow thinks you have to shoulder the burden of all white misdeeds throughout history. If I was an American Judge, and my president told me he will pick a black woman for the Supreme Court, apparently my delicate ego would be butt-hurt, since I have benefitted from my previous position of privilege. Now I can only speak for the large numbers of Italian immigrants to the US who may have risen to judge status, but 200 years ago, at the height of slavery in the US, and the beginning of my so-called privilege, other Italians, like me, were being oppressed by the Austrio-Hungarian Empire, the French and Spanish Empires, and the Papal States. The Polish and Irish immigrants to the US were also similarly 'privileged', and should also be ashamed of their skin color. I think the American canvas needs to be painted with a much smaller brush, INow. You are missing a lot of detail.

There was talk of Canada sending some Harpoon missiles, outfitted for coastal defense John Ivison: Ukraine asked us for missiles. We sent words | National Post but I have no idea if that got lost in red tape, or if it actually happened.

As I've previously stated, this is my subjective opinion, and I'm not even very concerned about it. I think he made a good choice; but it could have been handled differently, and I wanted to explore that particular viewpoint. What actually concerns me more ( as much as it could possibly concern a Canadian ) is the appointment of SCJustices according to political leaning. When one party is in power, they stuff the Court with their partisan candidates, and when the other party gains power, they do the same, in a never ending game of one-upping each other. The Justices should interpret law according to the constitution, and where outdated, according to societal standards; certainly not according to political expediency

You guys are, of course, entitled to your subjective opinions, as I am to mine. But would you feel the same way if he had announced beforehand "I will pick an old white man" ? I would assume all your arguments for having done his homework and picking the most qualified individual could still be made. As could arguments forsatisfying election promises to his base. But would it not leave a bad taste in your mouth ? He could have easily said "I will pick the person I think is most qualified, regardless of skin color or gender", gone ahead to pick KBJ, and no-one ( except the usual idiots ) would have complained. Not even J Peterson ( ? ), Peterkin.

You can't sue a sitting President either way. And you are still missing the point... No-one is complaining about the selection of KBJ. What 'looks' bad, is the prejudicial announcement of a choice, based on skin color and gender. You can argue all you want that it doesn't look bad, to you, but many people have complained that it does look bad ( even non-Republicans ). And I realise perception is highly subjective, but it is a fact that some people are of the opinion that it looks bad; that is undeniable.

Next time iclude some emojis, so I can tell. You have a weird sense of humor 😃😄 . ( "And that's how we do it", to quote Jayden Smith )

Was that supposed to clarify the term 'optics' ? If so, it fails miserably, 😃 . Let me give it a shot ... If I say I will buy a new vehicle next month, and it will be a red Range Rover Evoque, does that mean that I will consider the merits of an Acura RDX, or a Jeep Grand Cherokee, before making my decision ? Or does it look ( the 'optics' ) like I've already made up my mind ? Now, don't get me wrong, the Range Rover does have some reliability issues, but it is an excellent vehicle. Still, some may feel like my mind was already made up, and I failed to give the Acura, and Jeep, a fair evaluation; and they would be perfectly justified in their reasoning. Now consider how much worse it looks ( optics, again ) when the selection criteria is not 'red' and 'Range Rover', but skin color and gender. Skin color and gender should never be criteria for choosing a candidate; that is the definition of racial and gender discrimination ( it means selecting according to that criterion; there is no such thing as reverse discrimination ) I think some here are so caught up in the 'us vs. them' partisanship of American politics, that that they refuse to believe their 'side' could make a mis-step. J Biden's mis-step ( my opinion ) was not in his selection, which seems an excellent choice, but his announcement beforehand that he would choose according to skin color and gender. And while it is true that J Biden would have to be President for 40 years to equal the number of mis-steps of his predecessor, that shouldn't stop objective observers from pointing out his mis-steps. By the way, I've owned a Jeep Grand Cherokee and an Acura RDX, the Jeep was prone to rust and the Acura is no longer available with the excellent V6, so I considered the Range Rover but decided against it. I may wait another year or two and go electric for my retirement vehicle.

Did you start drinking early this morning ? Now you want to compare what is expected of J Biden with what we already know V Putin is capable of ?

In case there are doubts, I don't have a problem with his choice and nomination of KBJ either. I have a slight problem with his announcing beforehand, the criteria of skin color and gender,; simply because of the 'optics'. Thank you CharonY, for pointing out that L B Johnson and I think alike 🙂 .