iNow

When I do this, I keep returning to the same question… Where were these people over the last 200+ years? Why are they only speaking up now today on this topic for the very first time?

No, but the manufactured rage generally is.

In what way / how so? Ok. When you’re president then you can be less transparent.

I’d be even more specific. People are upset about process. They acknowledge this is how it always works, but they’re mad at Biden for saying it out loud and being transparent about it. RAGE!!!!

This isn’t a blog

No, I’m using the past to reinforce my stance that there is no actual issue here, that it’s a bullshit line of attack and a distraction. I also acknowledge it would be different had he said “must be a white male,” but that’s bc for centuries that’s all there ever was. Also:

More to the point, I COMPLETELY reject the foundational premise here that anything whatsoever is wrong with this. I find arguments that this is a problem totally lacking and wholly without merit, and history completely backs me up here. This is how it’s ALWAYS been, and that’s not a “they did it so we should too!” position being espoused. The real issue is now the rage manufacturing apparatus of the right are stirring up yet another baseless furycane bc people are easier to control when they’re angry, even if the subject of that anger is specious like this is. See also: Benghazi! And “her emails!” and “caravans of foreign rapists at the border!!”

Here’s what the feels like: Me: Look at history here. Others: You’re saying this. Me: No, that’s not the point I’m trying to make. Here is my point. Others: Nope. I’ll tell YOU what YOUR point is. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Fair. Next we must define what we mean by right and wrong

That is not a correct interpretation of my point. I looked for similar comments from Carter, Clinton, and Obama but couldn’t find any… So I shared those I DID find and it was coincidental they were all from Republicans. As I later clarified, my point was how the context of this “debate” seemed absent from the discussion given precedent. Unsure how much more clear I can be.

I chuckle a bit that even those advocating for the removal of rep found it useful to signal their own agreement in this thread… about removing rep.

I need it explained. Kindly please proceed.

The movement which matters here IMO isn’t feminism, but instead the movement from small minded white males who feel increasingly marginalized and are afraid of no longer representing the majority. If white males support minority positions like they so often profess to do, then why are they so terrified of moving into the minority themselves? You wouldn’t be hearing about these “evil feminism” messages so often if fewer males were receptive to them.

Counter Proposal: Return to the old system where a single click from me or swansont would knock someone’s rep down by 372 or more points since the power of the result was driven by the positive rep of the person applying it. 😂 Kidding aside, to me this all seems less related to the content of one’s argument than it’s related to the manner in which one makes it. A quality argument is almost NEVER neg repped even when people disagree (and let’s be honest, I’ve probably received more neg reps even when presenting rational quality arguments over the years here than anybody else…combined!). Instead, negative responses with rep tend to come when people post needless personal barbs or act disingenuously… when they seem to be knowingly misrepresenting the position of others or continue to act as if their position hasn’t been refuted even when it very much has, and even when that refutation comes from recognized topic experts (see also: the science of gender and sex). Neg reps come when one acts in bad faith, is being an asshole (yep, I’ve gotten lots of those, too… and I deserved many of them!), or when one gets obstinate and just digs in their heels. I’m not one who thinks every kid should always get a trophy and I do tend to adjust my approach based on community responses, but YMMV. 🤷‍♂️

How does one objectively define torture? Understanding what’s being described is prerequisite to subjectively determining whether it’s right or wrong.

Just making sure everyone was clear on precedent. Please do carry on attacking me for being aware of it and willing to share it for the important context it offers to the current “debate.”

Facts which add this whole thing to the “give me a fucking break” category for me: Dwight Eisenhower expressly sought to appoint a Catholic to the seat of retiring Justice Sherman Minton in 1956 and then named William Brennan (yep, a Catholic) to the bench. Recordings from Lyndon Johnson show he deliberately chose to make history with the appointment of the first Black justice and later nominated Thurgood Marshall. Ronald Reagan, October 14, 1980. He said “one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled” by a woman. Reagan also chose Antonin Scalia for the court specifically because he was “of Italian extraction” as confirmed by several of his direct staff. In 1991, George H.W. Bush pledged to replace retiring Justice Marshall with another Black jurist and later nominated Clarence Thomas (yep, a black man just like he said). Donald Trump, September 19, 2020 (a day after Justice Ginsburg died). Donald Trump declared he would limit his search for her replacement to ONLY female candidates. "It will be a woman … we have numerous women on the list." STFU already and stop listening to the propagandists.

I’m trying to focus discussion on the probable response from US and allies (and the potential ramifications of that) when/if Russia decides to invade more and more sovereign neighbors. When comments at least attempt to tie back and relate to that focus, it’s appreciated.

Maybe we can go with who can handwrite the entire text of the constitution the fastest using a quill in the shape of a pickle and mayonnaise for ink, or who can sculpt a gavel out of a potato accurate to the nearest micron. I’m genuinely struggling to think of objective measures to answer such a question about defining “best” since the entirety of a justices role in the SCOTUS is to interpret the most difficult nuances. Maybe Melania Trump can help. “Be best!”

On topic would be welcome

Perhaps, but it shows the opposite of that in the present.

Predictions are hard, especially about the future

From Axios: Maxar satellite images show an expansion of Russia's buildup near Ukraine's border, with troop tents and shelters now visible at "virtually every deployment location in Belarus, Crimea and western Russia." Evidence of new housing and live-fire exercises suggest pre-positioned units "have increased their overall readiness level."

It's a really bad precedent to set. "We'll completely abandon our ideals that people should be allowed to rule themselves democratically. So long as you threaten to attack them and you're serious, then we'll also abandon the principle that sovereign nations should not be invaded by neighboring armies.." Yeah, that sounds like a brilliant idea. Worked really well when Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler, too. When the bully threatens you, you don't stop them by giving them your lunch money. You stop them by punching them back in the throat or exploding their nose across their face.

In addition to the 8,500 US troops already on standby, another 3,000 US troops are being deployed to Eastern Europe in the Baltic states, focused primarily in spots where Russian tanks are most likely to cross. That number obviously pales in comparison to the over 100,000 troops Russia has amassed, so is more likely intended to send a message / use as a bargaining chip in talks about pulling back.