President Biden thread

23 minutes ago, subee said:

We are not "past that."  Look at the vitriol spewed on Brown Jackson's appointment, ...

And this differs from vitriol spewed on Ms. Coney Barrett's nomination and appointment how?

26 minutes ago, subee said:

... Brown Jackson's appointment, as any of those spreading the vitriol had any knowledge base to recommend anyone else over her. ...

Of course all of those "spreading the vitriol" against Ms. Coney-Barrett were sufficiently knowledgeable not only to recognize her lack of qualifications, but identify the most highly qualified nominee as well.

13 hours ago, Tweety said:

I'd like to think those hired were the best person for the job.  

I also do appreciate though that those that govern are representative of society at large and that all groups are included in the decision making process.  For example Trump picked a Native American to run the Bureau of Indian Affairs.  It matters.

I would hope they are as well, and they probably are, however,their skin color is of no concern. 

Something like the Aboriginal woman to run the Bureau of Indian Affairs is absolutely aporopriate considering the department. That makes sense. 

However appointing judges, speakers etc based on their race or skin color is not appropriate.  It also disadvantages the person who is hired because of their skin color. I most certainly would want to be hired on my merit, not because of my gender or skin color. Or perhaps depending on the power and money, and my ideology,perhaps I could get over it. Who knows. As an average person though, I want to be selected for my accomplishments and hard work,not the color of my skin or the political points it might award my employer  

I really cannot believe that we are even having this discussion. 

2 hours ago, subee said:

We are not "past that."  Look at the vitriol spewed on Brown Jackson's appointment, as any of those spreading the vitriol had any knowledge base to recommend anyone else over her.  It's incredibly important that young girls grow up in a country where they can imagine that achievement for themselves.  Once again, the Republicans were happy to sling their arrows but couldn't offer any alternative choice themselves.  Electing a justice is still a crap shoot unless a nominee is particularly noted to be embraced by the NRA or "likes beer" and gets grouchy when he doesn't get it by 5 p.m.

Exactly. Jackson should have been appointed on her qualifications. In which are exceptional. Instead, Biden used her for political virtue signaling. 

He used her as a political statement. Had he not referenced early on that it would be a black women, he should have said that the best person for the appointment would be nominated. He could still have hired a black woman but at least it would be obvious because of her qualifications. He just couldn't pass that opportunity up. Not to mention he could further his propaganda by calling anyone, especially Republicans "racist" and "sexist" for objecting to her nomination. This tricky slight of hand is the only thing that redeems him from his obvious cognitive decline. However considering his anger over the White House Staff constantly correcting his errors, it's obvious he is not the one making decisions. 

He exploited her race and gender for his political image and to call any Republican racist and sexist for objecting to her appointment. Just another "old white man" exploiting black women. Isn't that what  "white supremacist " do? Exploit POC for their political  gain and profit? 

2 hours ago, chare said:

And this differs from vitriol spewed on Ms. Coney Barrett's nomination and appointment how?

Of course all of those "spreading the vitriol" against Ms. Coney-Barrett were sufficiently knowledgeable not only to recognize her lack of qualifications, but identify the most highly qualified nominee as well.

Do I understand your comment to mean that you believe that Coney-Barrett was the most highly qualified candidate when her nomination was rushed through the Senate? Could you link to some expert discussion or analysis of that? Please. 

19 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Exactly. Jackson should have been appointed on her qualifications. In which are exceptional. Instead, Biden used her for political virtue signaling. 

He used her as a political statement. Had he not referenced early on that it would be a black women, he should have said that the best person for the appointment would be nominated. He could still have hired a black woman but at least it would be obvious because of her qualifications. He just couldn't pass that opportunity up. Not to mention he could further his propaganda by calling anyone, especially Republicans "racist" and "sexist" for objecting to her nomination. This tricky slight of hand is the only thing that redeems him from his obvious cognitive decline. However considering his anger over the White House Staff constantly correcting his errors, it's obvious he is not the one making decisions. 

He exploited her race and gender for his political image and to call any Republican racist and sexist for objecting to her appointment. Just another "old white man" exploiting black women. Isn't that what  "white supremacist " do? Exploit POC for their political  gain and profit? 

In your opinion and that opinion certainly fits nicely within the narrative that flushed through right wing messaging. I would bet you my left arm that her nomination would have been called political virtue signaling (or similar) had he nominated without telling the country that he intended to find a qualified black woman...simply because he nominated an extremely well qualified black woman. That's because that's the pattern of behavior from today's GOP. IMHO

2 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Do I understand your comment to mean that you believe that Coney-Barrett was the most highly qualified candidate when her nomination was rushed through the Senate? ...

As my question to  @subee was whether she believed Ms. Coney Barretts detractors were qualified to select an appropriate candidate, and not regarding Ms. Coney Barrett's qualifications, you have, once again, manage to twist one of my posts totally out of context. 

12 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

... Could you link to some expert discussion or analysis of that? Please. 

I won't, for two reasons.  First, if it wasn't from a source you consider acceptable (e.g., NYT, WaPo) you would, based on many of your previous posts, dismiss it out of hand.  And second, until the expectation is that both sides are "required" to provide "expert discussion" to support their position, I'll pass on this.

1 hour ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Exactly. Jackson should have been appointed on her qualifications. In which are exceptional. Instead, Biden used her for political virtue signaling. 

He used her as a political statement. Had he not referenced early on that it would be a black women, he should have said that the best person for the appointment would be nominated. He could still have hired a black woman but at least it would be obvious because of her qualifications. He just couldn't pass that opportunity up. Not to mention he could further his propaganda by calling anyone, especially Republicans "racist" and "sexist" for objecting to her nomination. This tricky slight of hand is the only thing that redeems him from his obvious cognitive decline. However considering his anger over the White House Staff constantly correcting his errors, it's obvious he is not the one making decisions. 

He exploited her race and gender for his political image and to call any Republican racist and sexist for objecting to her appointment. Just another "old white man" exploiting black women. Isn't that what  "white supremacist " do? Exploit POC for their political  gain and profit? 

We already had many discussions about this during the time it happened.  I agree that Biden saying before he was elected that he would choose a black woman wasn't the right thing to say.  He essentially dismissed quite a lot of qualified people.  People had a lot to say about that at the time.  But no need to rehash her nomination.

I will say that most appointees are appointed for the political gain of the person appointing them.  Presidents don't go looking for brilliant scholars and the very best judges, they go looking for people that will advance  and maintain their political principles or score points with voters.

44 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Do I understand your comment to mean that you believe that Coney-Barrett was the most highly qualified candidate when her nomination was rushed through the Senate? Could you link to some expert discussion or analysis of that? Please. 

That's not what I said. I made no reference to her qualifications. I only referenced Jackson's qualifications which were well established and she did not require a special hire because of her skin color. Apparently Biden did. But ya know, "black kids are just as smart and talented as white kids".....

-Biden POTUS 

52 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Do I understand your comment to mean that you believe that Coney-Barrett was the most highly qualified candidate when her nomination was rushed through the Senate? Could you link to some expert discussion or analysis of that? Please. 

The poster merely asked about the differences in vitriol.  

Democrats found every reason not to like Trump's pick and Republicans found every reason not to like Biden's pick.  To me the vitriol is understandable on both sides, but to say one if more righteous than the other, or it existed on one side and not the other isn't right.

The American Bar Association gave Barrett the highest rating and approval to sit on the Supreme Court.  She had qualifications.

Personally, as I think I said that the time she wasn't the best qualified person out there.  She didn't have much experience and her case rulings were questionable.  Like I said above, these judges are appointed for political gain or political points.  

6 minutes ago, Tweety said:

We already had many discussions about this during the time it happened.  I agree that Biden saying before he was elected that he would choose a black woman wasn't the right thing to say.  People had a lot to say about that at the time.  But no need to rehash her nomination.

I will say that most appointees are appointed for the political gain of the person appointing them.  Presidents don't go looking for brilliant scholars and the very best judges, they go looking for people that will advance  and maintain their political principles.

Yes and I agree! It's all about political gain. Including Comey. It's just a shame that her skin color had to foreshadow her accomplishments and credentials. She deserves to been know for her attributes not her race. Justice Jackson deserves better. 

It may be mostly my opinion but I think that this was a particularly sleezy political gain on Biden's part. Get the race virtue points and call Republicans racist at the Sametime. Political gold! One almost can't blame him for jumping on that opportunity. However I do blame him because as I said, she deserved more than this. 

3 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Yes and I agree! It's all about political gain. Including Comey. It's just a shame that her skin color had to foreshadow her accomplishments and credentials. She deserves to been know for her attributes not her race. Justice Jackson deserves better. 

It may be mostly my opinion but I think that this was a particularly sleezy political gain on Biden's part. Get the race virtue points and call Republicans racist at the Sametime. Political gold! One almost can't blame him for jumping on that opportunity. However I do blame him because as I said, she deserved more than this. 

While most of us know on one level she was given the position solely because she was African American female, and I get what you're saying that she deserved better.  On the other hand she seemed quite proud, and many people rejoiced that a ceiling had been broken.  She will mostly be remembered as the first African American woman to sit on the Supreme Court rather than "she only got it because she's black and Biden used her".  

In my opinion.

48 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

In your opinion and that opinion certainly fits nicely within the narrative that flushed through right wing messaging. I would bet you my left arm that her nomination would have been called political virtue signaling (or similar) had he nominated without telling the country that he intended to find a qualified black woman...simply because he nominated an extremely well qualified black woman. That's because that's the pattern of behavior from today's GOP. IMHO

Well we will never know because he did announce that....... 

Perhaps it would have been a better choice to do just what you said? Then we could see the from the horse's mouth how racist the GOP really  is. I'd sooner believe this about the GOP had it gone the way you described. However it didn't and that poor lady got used in this political garbage from democrats and Republicans alike!