Ginsburg has passed!!

[Metaphor]

I like that so many people tend to think there is usually some unique BEST qualified candidate for these types of positions. Positions that require a multitude of talents and abilities allow for many different best qualified candidates because people tend to have different mixes of abilities and different strengths.

There may not be some unique best candidate, but if you search only one part of the candidate pool (as Biden intends to by eliminating all men and all non-black women from consideration), you are statistically less likely to find all the worthy contenders by any measure or combination of measures, unless your measure of 'best' includes having the qualities of womanhood and blackness.

 

[Toni]

The real answer is that Trump should not choose a candidate for SCOTUS unless and until he has been re-elected and sworn in a second time.


He would be foolish not to have a list and to be vetting that list but to talk about replacing Ginsberg before she's even buried, especially in light of the Republican principle that such appointments should not be made in an election year, is crass and disgusting and totally like him.

He would not know a well qualified candidate if it bit him in the ass. He's already installed 200 judges many of whom are deemed unqualified to sit as judges.

 

[laughing dog]

I like that so many people tend to think there is usually some unique BEST qualified candidate for these types of positions. Positions that require a multitude of talents and abilities allow for many different best qualified candidates because people tend to have different mixes of abilities and different strengths.

There may not be some unique best candidate, but if you search only one part of the candidate pool (as Biden intends to by eliminating all men and all non-black women from consideration), you are statistically less likely to find all the worthy contenders by any measure or combination of measures, unless your measure of 'best' includes having the qualities of womanhood and blackness.

As long as one can get a sufficient pool of worthy candidates, so what?

 

[Metaphor]

I like that so many people tend to think there is usually some unique BEST qualified candidate for these types of positions. Positions that require a multitude of talents and abilities allow for many different best qualified candidates because people tend to have different mixes of abilities and different strengths.

There may not be some unique best candidate, but if you search only one part of the candidate pool (as Biden intends to by eliminating all men and all non-black women from consideration), you are statistically less likely to find all the worthy contenders by any measure or combination of measures, unless your measure of 'best' includes having the qualities of womanhood and blackness.

As long as one can get a sufficient pool of worthy candidates, so what?

So, if Trump had said "I am restricting my search to white men only", your answer would be "so what"?

EDIT: The answer is
* You will get lower quality picks over time if you arbitrarily restrict your search. This is a good reason to avoid them.
* Some people have a value system where the act of eliminating people for consideration because of their sex or race is distasteful. Obviously, your mileage may vary on this particular value.

 

[laughing dog]

As long as one can get a sufficient pool of worthy candidates, so what?

So, if Trump had said "I am restricting my search to white men only", your answer would be "so what"?

I responded to your single sentence that ended with "unless your measure of 'best' includes having the qualities of womanhood and blackness." So your question ignores the obvious context of my response and is therefore irrelevant.

But if Trump did say that, I would probably say "It figures, but at least he is honest about something".

 

[bilby]

If someone is drowning and you don't make any effort to help, you are to blame for their death. It's irrelevant whether you pushed them in, or merely stood by and watched rather than getting involved. And it's irrelevant that you did something that didn't help, just so you could claim that you didn't do nothing.

There are starving children on the other side of the planet. What are you doing for them?

I'm pretty certain bilby meant if you were near a person that was drowning. He didn't explicitly state this, but that was probably because he figured people were familiar enough with both the hypothetical and the English language that he didn't need to long hand the hypothetical.

Indeed. This is a hypothetical wherein the effort required to provide effective assistance is minimal. I don't expect anyone to try to prevent drownings on beaches on the opposite side of the planet, or even on the opposite side of town; This is about a person drowning when you are on the scene and capable of providing assistance. It's something of a stereotype, so I assumed that the immediacy element didn't need to be spelled out; But if you are not familiar with the stereotype, I hope this clarifies my intent.

 

[bilby]

Lefties: Trump is bad for harming democratic norms.

Also Lefties: We will be violent and destroy if we don’t get what we want! that is the only remaining option to preserve democratic norms

FTFY.

Violence and destruction are not morally wrong under every circumstance; The D-Day landings were extremely violent and destructive, but few people believe them to be immoral, because they were carried out in an attempt to restore democratic norms.

There's no hypocrisy in defending democratic norms with violence if that is the only available means to do so, despite your implied gut feeling that violence and democratic norms ought to be incompatible. That's not an indication of hypocrisy amongst your political opponents; It's just an indication that your gut feelings are shit.

To paraphrase Dr Zoidberg*: Your dichotomy is false, your arguments are hyper-simplistic, and you should feel bad.











*The one on Futurama, not the forum member on TFT with that handle.

 

[Trausti]

Lefties: Trump is bad for harming democratic norms.

Also Lefties: We will be violent and destroy if we don’t get what we want! that is the only remaining option to preserve democratic norms

FTFY.

Violence and destruction are not morally wrong under every circumstance; The D-Day landings were extremely violent and destructive, but few people believe them to be immoral, because they were carried out in an attempt to restore democratic norms.

There's no hypocrisy in defending democratic norms with violence if that is the only available means to do so, despite your implied gut feeling that violence and democratic norms ought to be incompatible. That's not an indication of hypocrisy amongst your political opponents; It's just an indication that your gut feelings are shit.

To paraphrase Dr Zoidberg*: Your dichotomy is false, your arguments are hyper-simplistic, and you should feel bad.











*The one on Futurama, not the forum member on TFT with that handle.

Ah, the violence is okay because my political ideology says so position. Presumably you'd be okay with Trump supporters also engaging in violence and destruction if they felt it was the only option left to preserve democratic norms.

 

[Metaphor]

As long as one can get a sufficient pool of worthy candidates, so what?

So, if Trump had said "I am restricting my search to white men only", your answer would be "so what"?

I responded to your single sentence that ended with "unless your measure of 'best' includes having the qualities of womanhood and blackness." So your question ignores the obvious context of my response and is therefore irrelevant.

But if Trump did say that, I would probably say "It figures, but at least he is honest about something".

I don't understand your response.

Since Trump searching among only white males would include enough worthy candidates, would you say 'so what', implying it was no big deal? Or would you find his actions problematic?

 

[Shadowy Man]

I like that so many people tend to think there is usually some unique BEST qualified candidate for these types of positions. Positions that require a multitude of talents and abilities allow for many different best qualified candidates because people tend to have different mixes of abilities and different strengths.

There may not be some unique best candidate, but if you search only one part of the candidate pool (as Biden intends to by eliminating all men and all non-black women from consideration), you are statistically less likely to find all the worthy contenders by any measure or combination of measures, unless your measure of 'best' includes having the qualities of womanhood and blackness.

And yet Trump has said he will appoint a woman as if being a woman makes her more qualified than other candidates. Why the identity politics when they react so strongly against it when Democrats do it?

 

[Metaphor]

I like that so many people tend to think there is usually some unique BEST qualified candidate for these types of positions. Positions that require a multitude of talents and abilities allow for many different best qualified candidates because people tend to have different mixes of abilities and different strengths.

There may not be some unique best candidate, but if you search only one part of the candidate pool (as Biden intends to by eliminating all men and all non-black women from consideration), you are statistically less likely to find all the worthy contenders by any measure or combination of measures, unless your measure of 'best' includes having the qualities of womanhood and blackness.

And yet Trump has said he will appoint a woman as if being a woman makes her more qualified than other candidates. Why the identity politics when they react so strongly against it when Democrats do it?

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't selectively praise identity politics. So, it's quite easy for me to identify Trump selecting a woman and saying so specifically as a virtue-signalling stunt.

But to answer your question, possibly Republicans are doing it now because identity politics is an communicable disease and they're the newly infected.

 

[bilby]

Lefties: Trump is bad for harming democratic norms.

Also Lefties: We will be violent and destroy if we don’t get what we want! that is the only remaining option to preserve democratic norms

FTFY.

Violence and destruction are not morally wrong under every circumstance; The D-Day landings were extremely violent and destructive, but few people believe them to be immoral, because they were carried out in an attempt to restore democratic norms.

There's no hypocrisy in defending democratic norms with violence if that is the only available means to do so, despite your implied gut feeling that violence and democratic norms ought to be incompatible. That's not an indication of hypocrisy amongst your political opponents; It's just an indication that your gut feelings are shit.

To paraphrase Dr Zoidberg*: Your dichotomy is false, your arguments are hyper-simplistic, and you should feel bad.











*The one on Futurama, not the forum member on TFT with that handle.

Ah, the violence is okay because my political ideology says so position.

Not quite, but I can see how someone absolutely committed to oversimplification might misinterpret it as that.

Presumably you'd be okay with Trump supporters also engaging in violence and destruction if they felt it was the only option left to preserve democratic norms.

Absolutely I would.

Indeed I would be ecstatic if Trump supporters were to show the slightest respect for democratic norms in any way whatsoever.

But I shalln't be holding my breath.

 

[Derec]

And yet the right always accuses the left of identity politics.

Tu qoque fallacy.

Shouldn’t Trump pick the best qualified candidate irrespective of gender?

Yes, he should.

 

[James Brown]

Shouldn’t Trump pick the best qualified candidate irrespective of gender?

Yes, he should.

I understand Merrick Garland is still available.

 

[Patooka]

Well this isn't surprising in the least:

Donald Trump questions whether Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dying statement was written by senior Democrats

US President Donald Trump has cast doubts on former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dying wish that her replacement be selected after the inauguration of a new president.

Mr Trump told Fox News' Fox & Friends segment on Monday that "it just sounds to me like it would be somebody else" who made the comments.

Stay classy Trump.

 

[J842P]

Lefties: Trump is bad for harming democratic norms.

Also Lefties: We will be violent and destroy if we don’t get what we want! that is the only remaining option to preserve democratic norms

FTFY.

Violence and destruction are not morally wrong under every circumstance; The D-Day landings were extremely violent and destructive, but few people believe them to be immoral, because they were carried out in an attempt to restore democratic norms.

There's no hypocrisy in defending democratic norms with violence if that is the only available means to do so, despite your implied gut feeling that violence and democratic norms ought to be incompatible. That's not an indication of hypocrisy amongst your political opponents; It's just an indication that your gut feelings are shit.

To paraphrase Dr Zoidberg*: Your dichotomy is false, your arguments are hyper-simplistic, and you should feel bad.











*The one on Futurama, not the forum member on TFT with that handle.

Well, in this case the Republicans would be following the norms, i.e., the Senate gets to confirm the nomination to the Supreme court supplied by the President.

 

[Shadowy Man]

And yet the right always accuses the left of identity politics.

Tu qoque fallacy.

Shouldn’t Trump pick the best qualified candidate irrespective of gender?

Yes, he should.

And yet he specifically said he’d nominate a woman. It’s not about a fallacy it’s just about the parade of Republican hypocrisy.

 

[Gospel]

Lefties: Trump is bad for harming democratic norms.

Also Lefties: We will be violent and destroy if we don’t get what we want! that is the only remaining option to preserve democratic norms

FTFY.

Violence and destruction are not morally wrong under every circumstance; The D-Day landings were extremely violent and destructive, but few people believe them to be immoral, because they were carried out in an attempt to restore democratic norms.

There's no hypocrisy in defending democratic norms with violence if that is the only available means to do so, despite your implied gut feeling that violence and democratic norms ought to be incompatible. That's not an indication of hypocrisy amongst your political opponents; It's just an indication that your gut feelings are shit.

To paraphrase Dr Zoidberg*: Your dichotomy is false, your arguments are hyper-simplistic, and you should feel bad.











*The one on Futurama, not the forum member on TFT with that handle.

Well, in this case the Republicans would be following the norms, i.e., the Senate gets to confirm the nomination to the Supreme court supplied by the President.

Its clear they only follow the norms when it benefits them. History confirms this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, in this case the Republicans would be following the norms, i.e., the Senate gets to confirm the nomination to the Supreme court supplied by the President.

Its clear they only follow the norms when it benefits them. History confirms this.

Yeah. The GOP blocks near 80 Clinton judicial nominations. Then whine about 8 or 10 that the Dems block of W. Then they flat out stonewall Obama between '15 and '16, don't even consider Garland. And now, that whole justification is out the window and McConnell is about the stuff SCOTUS with one more justice. If Garland was on the bench, we wouldn't be having this conversation!

 

[Trausti]