President Biden thread

10 minutes ago, Beerman said:

No, that isn't a bad thing.  

The Democratic party goes further than that.  Such as elevating someone's status who happens to be of a specific demographic to pander to a certain group.  More concerning, is how they pit certain groups of people against each other.  

I won't deny that Democrats don't play politics with their base or that they aren't deep into identity politics.  As the article I posted stated with a good deal of that base are millennials, people of color,  and queer people, and it's important to see themselves represented.  They can't put lip service to equality and keep the positions of power all white heterosexuals.   But also how to do this and keep rural white voters, not pit these groups against white people, and to not discriminate, etc. is a challenge.  

5 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

When you say that the Biden administration "does so few" and describe the press briefings as few and far between, what are you talking about? Surely you aren't comparing frequency of briefings with the Trump administration. Maybe you don't recall that Trump's communication team didn't hold a briefing for almost a year, and one of his press secretaries (Grisholm) didn't conduct a single press briefing in her 8 month stint in the job.

My guess is that you are referring to that right wing complaint that the current POTUS uses his communication team to address the press. 

I am referring to the few press  events of Biden himself,not the administration. Also his habit of not taking questions. This is my observation,  not  "right wing complaint". 

2 hours ago, Beerman said:

Before you came along, we discussed how Biden's handlers like to keep him from talking.  Many here defend that by saying he has expert professionals to get out his message for him.  In other words, people who are more qualified to speak for him than he is.  

Yes, the press treats this administration much different than Trump.  No surprise there.

In reading more about the new press secretary,  I learned she in the past has called Fox a racist organization.  I guess in addition to checking off some boxes for the woke crowd, that further qualified her for the job.

Apparently identity is very important in this administration. Race,religion, sexuality,gender..... This press secretary checks a few boxes. Yes, I've as well heard her activist type speak  

Another issue important to this administration is mass shootings. He’s made at least two speeches lately on the subject and visited the towns and victims. 
 

2 hours ago, Tweety said:

This is true.  Cruz when Biden said that called it racial discrimination against 94% of the population...meaning males and people of all colors.  

Like I said, we've already discussed this and I'm not going to rehash it.

I said as I indicated above as more a tongue and cheek statement.  But it's also based on what I hear about white people feeling discriminated against.  

https://www.socialworktoday.com/news/dn_060311.shtml

I'm sure no body is claiming that white people are suffering from racism as happened pre civil rights and beyond. 

However what is it when as a white person you are expected to "acknowledge your white privilege", "accept you are inherently racist" all by virtue of your skin color?

Where you are told that your ancestors are shameless racist murders. Where people can go on national television and say white people have less compassion because of the color of their skin. 

Social media is polluted with it. On social media and even on the news channels one can openly disparage white people. Reverse the comments and you will get banned from the site and/or even have your life ruined.  Sometimes from something taken out on context or only precieved as racist by someone else. 

One most disgusting example is Joy Ried on MSMBC, talking about "missing white woman syndrome" when that poor girl was missing and murdered by her boyfriend. Doesn't get more discussing than that. Except maybe the D bags on the view. 

On these very threads. I've seen disparaging comments about white people, mostly old white men. Perfectly fine.... White people are racist, conservatives are supremacist. I've been just looking fo a while and have seen many from several members that if we're Saud about any other race, would have been banned immediately.  

I don't think anyone here can deny that making disparaging racist comments about white people is a socially acceptable phenomenon.

Where as it may not be on the same level as slavery, Jim Crow, it's none the less racist. 

It sets a very dangerous presidence, accepting racism for any race only breeds more racism for another. 

Where as I would not compare anything happening currently,  even remotely on the same level, history provides an important lesson. 

The holocaust didn't start at the halocaust, it began slowly within everyday communities that did not speak up against the discrimination seeping in against the Jewish people. It began with small insults and racist remarks. The tolerance for that. 

Again, I am no way insinuating that modern white people are being persecuted anything near what happened before WW2. Just pointing out one of the most important lessons from history. It can happen to any race and this is why it is so dangerous. 

Racism is racism, no one is exempt, even white people. 

On 6/4/2022 at 9:45 AM, 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.

Pointing out that ACB was the least experienced nominee in 30 years is not vitriol.  

POLITICS

OCTOBER 23, 2020

Amy Coney Barrett Is the Least Experienced Supreme Court Nominee in 30 years

The Federalist Society has turned many mediocre men into judges—and a few smart moms.

STEPHANIE MENCIMER

Senior ReporterBio | Follow

Mother Jones illustration; Getty; Zuma

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett took some heat from Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) during her confirmation hearing last week, when he pressed her on her failure to turn over additional relevant documents to the committee, including an anti-abortion newspaper ad she’d signed in 2006. Barrett responded that she had submitted 30 years’ worth of material to the committee, and that she had simply missed the 15-year-old ad. “I produced 1,800 pages of material,” she insisted, implying that this submission was voluminous.

In the world of Supreme Court nominees, however, 1,800 pages of documents barely registers as a footnote. Chief Justice John Roberts rustled up 75,000 pages of records for his 2005 confirmation hearing—just from his time serving in Republican administrations. The Senate reviewed about 170,000 pages of records before confirming Justice Elena Kagan and 180,000 for Justice Neil Gorsuch. No one even comes close to the document dump from Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The Senate Judiciary Committee waded through more than 1 million records during his 2018 confirmation fight, including a supplemental submission of 42,000 the night before his hearing started.

39 minutes ago, Beerman said:

Impressive

So, rehashing KBJ’s race, gender and qualifications for Supreme Court justice is more worthy of discussion than the president’s response to mass shootings?

Alrighty, then. 

1 hour ago, Beerman said:

Impressive

I'll be impressed if he ever addresses the gun violence in Chicago. More people are killed in Chicago from gun violence than mass shootings. It's a blue state with strict gun laws but look at it. 

Perhaps he should focus more attention to the young black men dying in Chicago rather than virtue signaling by appointing a privilaged black woman to the Supreme Court?