Versatile_Hunter

Do you have any evidence? Please provide links.

Parroting talking heads does not a prediction make…

Did you miss his spineless apology tour on Fox?

lol, you had predictions?? Lol!!

You though that I was? Presumptuous, huh. Here, I would point you towards Ted Cruz but I imagine that even you consider him too much of a clown to be taken seriously...

I said it was dated but broken I did not. I’ll get to the bottom of this!

So both concern and celebration?

U.S. Deer Hunters Harvested More Bucks Last Season Than Any Season in the Past 21 Years Cause for concern or celebration? https://www.outdoorlife.com/hunting/deer-hunting-harvest-highest-in-21-years/

A compilation of conservative media whiners didn’t do it for you? Gee, did you at least chuckle a couple of times?

You mean a bunch of white guys acting butt hurt because it was announced that a black woman will be nominated (with a surprising amount of bipartisan support) doesn’t paint a picture of aggrieved conservatives? Well then, here’s a dated yet hilarious take on the matter: https://www.cc.com/video/cctlv8/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-gop-special-victims-unit

Of a crying lib? Or victimized conservative? A snowflake?

I’d encourage you to consider the historical context that adds asymmetries to the counter example you propose. For far too long, black folks where legally not allowed to participate. Though those laws have been overturned, in far too many instances they remain in place de facto. His proclamation brings attention to this gap and I feel that it’s a positive step in the right direction. As a white dude, I don’t feel victimized or attacked by it in any way.

Snowflake is clearly tongue in cheek. It’s amusing to see it used against crying libs when conservatives are constantly crying about some (usually fictitious) sense of victimization…

Nailed it. Though in this instance I believe in the cause and so I feel the declaration is laudable, it’s the same old game. Nothing outrageous or inappropriate. Bunch of dainty snowflakes.

No I don’t think anyone has said that either. I’m claiming that there is nothing unique to this kind of presidential posturing. In my examples, they’re signaling to a demographic that feels that fetuses or minorities have been disenfranchised, certainly for perceived political gain. There’s nothing like the prospect of nominating a Justice to mobilize an electorate. Sure it’d be great if this political gamesmanship wasn’t in play, and perhaps better if it was operating more subtly in the background if at all.

You need to brush up on your history if you think race and gender rights don’t fall under the purview of the Supreme Court. It’s a good thing for the court to resemble the make up of America. Get over it.

I don't know, the last guy didn't seem to care too much about decorum or political correctness. In fact, I believe he mocked it. But sure, was there political posturing in this announcement? Leave it to the politicians to play politics. Don't think Lindsey Graham is playing along because he's suddenly a great guy. He's making a shrewd political decision. But hey, is it so bad for these white guys in charge to finally say black people matter?

I quoted what I was responding to. There is no ambiguity here. I'm sorry if you wish the quote said something else...

I don't understand the logic. Do you think these Supreme Court candidates didn't exist or haven't been vetted until after a vacancy was announced? You're upset because you feel that Biden is playing politics by announcing race. How is this any different than Trump promising to appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v Wade? Abortion is as politicized as race in this country. It was a shrewd political move that won him the Christian right and ultimately the presidency. They're playing the same game. Now, I personally prefer Biden's game because I'm in favor of both gender/racial parity in public institutions and in women having autonomy over their bodies and not being governed by fringe theological doctrine.

I'm sorry, what's being spun here? The argument was "Choosing a person because of their Race / Sex and not because of their qualifications I believe is a mistake." This argument presumes that qualifications are not being considered and I rejected that.

Look, once you're in this top 0.00001% of qualification, it's really hard/impossible to parse between 0.00001 and 0.000009 in a fully objective manner. Personality, politics, and even looks (remember Trump's central casting?) will factor in when the resolution disallows the separation of infinitesimal differences in qualifications.

America has been operating for far too long under the de facto condition that positions of power be assigned to white men. Biden isn't the first president (both Reps and Dems have done it) to state that they are looking for a specific gender/race. I don't tend to align much with Lindsey Graham, but I agree with him that there's nothing wrong with having these institutions resemble the demographic makeup of America.

This may be disturbing to some, but there is such a thing as a qualified black woman.

But that's not what's actually happening. Your boy Lindsey (he/him) can help you understand:

Shocked! What monsters!!