Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Elixir]

Oh FFS. What exactly was it you intended to convey with this:

There will be no chance of “halting this runaway train” as long as the orange engineer is bent on causing a train crash.

You need remedial reading lessons or something... What is meant by that is
WE (AMERICA) WILL BE IN THIS WORSENING SITUATION OF VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION UNTIL TRUMP IS GONE AND PROBABLY LONG AFTER, but there is absolutely no chance of anything getting better in this Country as long as The Pedophile leads a ruling cult.
He is a Russian puppet and every outcome he ensures, does the will of his master.
Show me wrong.

The tragedy is that you, Emily, will probably be able to evidence your online history to land you a bigtime job in 2029 if The Felon is still alive, while mile will earn me a death sentence. But you're young, I'm not, and I hope you enjoy the spoils.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Elixir]

I'd like her to get there on her own merits, not because some collection of guilt-ridden people decided that we had to have a female president to make some sort of social statement.

So you are passing judgment, not on the candidate's merits, but on the candidate's supporters' social stance.
THAT is the problem.

 

[Elixir]

Yep. Free speech is dying fast.

 

[pood]

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

Look, you know I disagree with LP on damned near every topic like this, but I think you're stretching things here. It's entirely possible to be quite happy and open to non-white or non-male (or both) leaders while still opposing affirmative action or diversity objectives as the reason why we get non-white or non-male leaders.

Seriously, I would love to have a competent, powerful, intelligent woman in charge of the US. But I'd like her to get there on her own merits, not because some collection of guilt-ridden people decided that we had to have a female president to make some sort of social statement.

But why should we think that Kamala Harris, for example, did not get where she was on her own merits?

Realistically... because Biden literally said he was only going to consider black women for the role of VP. And because her record as AG and senator were pretty blase and even unattractive.

How so? Details about her failings, please. Historically, being an AG and a senator has been a sign of great success. Of course we know that a lot of those AGs and senators, the vast majority of whom were white males, were very often drunks, dummies, and dipshits, but that was OK because they were white men and therefore had to be exemplary. So it’s possible that Harris was as bad as them, but so far I have not seen evidence of that.

Then, too, Biden pledging to only consider black women for the role contained the unstated and very reasonable assumption that he was going to pick a QUALIFIED black woman. I see no evidence that he did not do that very thing.

 

[crazyfingers]

As I already pointed out, we've lost Roe and we're going to lose Obergefell.

I think we're less at risk of losing Obergefell, because we actually have a law in place that requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages as legally binding. We never had an actual law regarding abortion, and that was the undoing of Roe.

Nationally, both abortion and same sex marriage were protected by supreme court decisions, not laws. The supreme court decided to change it's mind on abortion. It could so the same with same sex marriage. Some justices even suggested that. What you say makes no sense.

It's much harder to get rid of a law than it is to reinterpret an interpretation.

Whether it's harder or not to change a federal law or not is not the point. The point is that the supreme court on a whim would nullify same sex marriage, law or not. And don't think that 6 justices may want to given the opportunity.

Given the 6 radical right wing majority on the court, that would be easy.

 

[Elixir]

The point is that the supreme court on a whim would nullify same sex marriage, law or not.

SCOTUS can even let Trump anoint himself dictator for life, cancel elections and take over private businesses just like Putin did.
AND THEY WILL IF AMERICANS DON'T STAND UP

 

[crazyfingers]

The point is that the supreme court on a whim would nullify same sex marriage, law or not.

SCOTUS can even let Trump anoint himself dictator for life, cancel elections and take over private businesses just like Putin did.
AND THEY WILL IF AMERICANS DON'T STAND UP

The current supreme court appears absolutely willing to make Trump a dictator and won't they be surprised when Trump fires them all. I won't be.

 

[bilby]

If the only reason those women got there was because of AA

The idea that this is ever the ONLY reason is nonsensical.

 

[Millrat]

If the only reason those women got there was because of AA

The idea that this is ever the ONLY reason is nonsensical.

Don’t forget “legs up”

 

[Elixir]

So you won’t vote for a Dem, which is essentially a vote for MAGGOTry

"If you don't vote for Dems, you're a fascist nazi"?

I didn’t say that.

Get used to it.
Chess with pigeons.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm concerned about the increasing view among younger people that violence like this is justifiable and acceptable. It bodes poorly for our future.

Master of understatement.
The acceptability of “second amendment solutions” has orange roots.

Democrats have done their fair share of fanning the flames too, Elixir. If we stand any chance of halting this runaway train, you're going to have to acknowledge that this isn't a one sided problem.

There will be no chance of “halting this runaway train” as long as the orange engineer is bent on causing a train crash.
You can bleat “both sides” til you’re blue in the face and it won’t change that FACT.

You are one of the ones who helped fan the flames.

Unless, of course, you would ever deign to explain why you were so fascinated by gas ovens.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So you won’t vote for a Dem, which is essentially a vote for MAGGOTry

"If you don't vote for Dems, you're a fascist nazi"?

I didn’t say that.

What's the difference between "MAGGOTry" and "fascist nazi"?

 

[SLD]

Yep. Free speech is dying fast.

Fuck me. It sure is. I hope she sues the fuck out of the university and the cops who blatantly violated her civil rights.

 

[Elixir]

Yep. Free speech is dying fast.

Fuck me. It sure is. I hope she sues the fuck out of the university and the cops who blatantly violated her civil rights.

Yeah that. Then hope they are forced to pay up before they can get the case heard by SCOTUS.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

In regard to Kamala Harris being a black woman, and Biden gave prior notice of his intention. What if he had said that he wanted an economist as his VP? That is an even narrower pool of possibilities, less than 1%, whereas Black woman as a category is about 10% of USA population.
But the pool of black women that he would consider actually choosing his VP from was very much less than 1%.
She wasn't chosen because she was a black woman. She was chosen for her qualifications, and she also matched his desire for a black woman to be his VP. If he couldn't have found a qualified black woman he would have chosen someone else, but of course there were plenty of black women who could have qualified.

Incidentally, since none of them were chosen, maybe they should have whinged about being a black woman but not picked by Biden.
You see in the final choosing, a person was chosen not because they were part of a particular category, but as an individual.

As regards the violence issue, well I hope may Americans are ready to apologize to the British for the violent American Revolution, so as to be consistent with their stance on violence in politics.

 

[Politesse]

Why do you think I give a flying fuck about Trump? I don't want a goddamned civil war.

Those two sentences don't match. If you don't want a civil war, you should definitely give a flying fuck about the guy who is constantly threatening to instigate one.

 

[robnisch]

In regard to Kamala Harris being a black woman, and Biden gave prior notice of his intention. What if he had said that he wanted an economist as his VP? That is an even narrower pool of possibilities, less than 1%, whereas Black woman as a category is about 10% of USA population.
But the pool of black women that he would consider actually choosing his VP from was very much less than 1%.
She wasn't chosen because she was a black woman. She was chosen for her qualifications, and she also matched his desire for a black woman to be his VP. If he couldn't have found a qualified black woman he would have chosen someone else, but of course there were plenty of black women who could have qualified.

Incidentally, since none of them were chosen, maybe they should have whinged about being a black woman but not picked by Biden.
You see in the final choosing, a person was chosen not because they were part of a particular category, but as an individual.

As regards the violence issue, well I hope may Americans are ready to apologize to the British for the violent American Revolution, so as to be consistent with their stance on violence in politics.

Yes. The colonization of the world by white Europeans was non-violent.

 

[barbos]

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

Look, you know I disagree with LP on damned near every topic like this, but I think you're stretching things here. It's entirely possible to be quite happy and open to non-white or non-male (or both) leaders while still opposing affirmative action or diversity objectives as the reason why we get non-white or non-male leaders.

Seriously, I would love to have a competent, powerful, intelligent woman in charge of the US. But I'd like her to get there on her own merits, not because some collection of guilt-ridden people decided that we had to have a female president to make some sort of social statement.

But why should we think that Kamala Harris, for example, did not get where she was on her own merits?

Because she is as dumb as a rock.
VP picks by candidates are always based on some voting statistics considerations, not on qualifications.