President Biden thread

57 minutes ago, chare said:

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. 

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.

Except that I didn't twist your words, I asked you a question about your comment.

I read all of the links provided.  I don't watch all of the video content linked in threads on this platform. The comment about dismissing sources as a reason to not link them sounds like an excuse. 

It's fine with me if you simply to qualify that remark about "most highly-qualified" candidate as just your opinion. 

1 minute ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Except that I didn't twist your words, I asked you a question about your comment.

[...]

It's fine with me if you simply to qualify that remark about "most highly-qualified" candidate as just your opinion [emphasis added]. 

I didn't say you twisted my words, I said you twisted my post out of context.   And considering I made no comment on Ms. Coney Barrett's qualifications, you are still doing so.

Just now, chare said:

I didn't say you twisted my words, I said you twisted my post out of context.   And considering I made no comment on Ms. Coney Barrett's qualifications, you are still doing so.

I now understand the point you made.  Misunderstanding is not the same as twisting unless you think that my intention was to misrepresent your words rather than discuss what I understood them to mean. 

Nevertheless, I was incorrect in my reading, my apologies. 

1 hour ago, Tweety said:

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.

Yes. The problem being is that there may have been a better candidate that wasn't the same race as her. However such a person most likely didn't have a chance because of the color if their skin. I think the position warrants the best of the best.  Non black need not apply. It's interesting the difference in words......

Pre civil rights and Jim Crow, "colored need not apply" to "color can only apply". Both racist in my opinion. 

2 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Yes. The problem being is that there may have been a better candidate that wasn't the same race as her. However such a person most likely didn't have a chance because of the color if their skin. I think the position warrants the best of the best.  Non black need not apply. It's interesting the difference in words......

Pre civil rights and Jim Crow, "colored need not apply" to "color can only apply". Both racist in my opinion. 

 For a very long time people of color didn't have a chance at much, especially high positions of authority or power, precisely because of the color of their skin. In this instance, it's a hollow argument that there was probably a more qualified candidate somewhere among white people.  That's been the argument for a very long time,  that a white person somewhere is more qualified than the black person in front of them with impeccable credentials. 

Undoing that long term thinking requires some uncomfortable steps.  Biden put qualified black women at the top of his list of candidates to consider and made that intention public.  Like I said,  I think that he's an old man who made politics his career and he's thinking about his legacy and what he will be remembered for by historians rather than pundits. But that's just my opinion. 

31 minutes ago, Justlookingfornow said:

Yes. The problem being is that there may have been a better candidate that wasn't the same race as her. However such a person most likely didn't have a chance because of the color if their skin. I think the position warrants the best of the best.  Non black need not apply. It's interesting the difference in words......

Pre civil rights and Jim Crow, "colored need not apply" to "color can only apply". Both racist in my opinion. 

I agree and don't want to rehash what we hashed out months ago.

At the end of the day "best of the best" is subjective and someone that is deemed "best of the best" gets in because the President at that time is pro-life, or visa versa.  There really is no best of the best that gets in, even if that's the ideal.

It's all political.  Obama's choice was railroaded into waiting until after the election and Trump's choice got in the final months.   We all know it's not about the "best of the best".   It's about who is in power at the time.

46 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Identity politics is more or less a pillar of the Drmocratic platform.

Did anyone catch the new press secretary on her first day.  She made it a point of saying how proud she was to be the first black, gay, woman to serve in the role.  ***eye roll***

and eye rolls when people celebrate milestones and diversity are a pillar of the Republican Platform.  

Obviously that has nothing to do with the job and I acknowledge that. 

25 minutes ago, Beerman said:

I have no reason to believe that a black gay woman couldn't be WH press secretary.  And, in her case it least it doesn't seem she had many obstacles in her path to that position that had to be overcome because she was a black gay woman.  If anything, in the recent past at least it, likely helped her.

Even though I'm not a Republican,  I'll continue to eyeroll at fake milestones and celebrations.

I don't have any reason to believe a black gay woman can't be anything at all either, and it's becoming easier as time goes on.   

It made the news because she was the first.  If you think that's a fake milestone that's your prerogative.  It made the news, not that there was a great celebration like when Obama became President, but it was newsworthy as a milestone, in my opinion.  

Sooner, I hope rather than later, there won't be any "first African American....." anything.