- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Biden opposed and filibustered a black female judicial nominee in 2003 AND 2005
Posted on 1/28/22 at 10:11 pm to Mickey Goldmill
Posted on 1/28/22 at 10:11 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:That's true.
Obviously his choice isn’t based SOLEY on the person being a black woman. It has to be a black woman who has certain beliefs/qualifications that he agrees with.
And fwiw, I'm not opposed, obviously, to a black female being the nominee. I'm opposed limiting the search to black females. It's racist, and it's a disservice to the citizens of our great country
Posted on 1/28/22 at 10:24 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Doesn’t this go against the narrative that he’s picking someone based solely on “black woman?”
Yeah you must be straight up stupid. Because that is exactly what Biden said he would do. Nominate a black woman and wouldn’t consider anyone else.
This post was edited on 1/28/22 at 10:25 pm
Posted on 1/28/22 at 10:29 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Obviously his choice isn’t based SOLEY on the person being a black woman. It has to be a black woman who has certain beliefs/qualifications that he agrees with.
I would say it is and you can’t really make a legit argument against it. The man said he would nominate a black woman if he had to pick a new SCJ. I will add every single list I have seen of potential candidates. No matter what network or news source, not a single list had anyone on it that was not a black woman. All I am going by is the evidence before us, if you know something else please share it?
Posted on 1/28/22 at 10:40 pm to Ponchy Tiger
quote:
I would say it is and you can’t really make a legit argument against it. The man said he would nominate a black woman if he had to pick a new SCJ. I will add every single list I have seen of potential candidates. No matter what network or news source, not a single list had anyone on it that was not a black woman. All I am going by is the evidence before us, if you know something else please share it?
Making “black woman” a prerequisite doesn’t mean it’s the only criteria. That’s my point. He’s limiting his pool to black women, but he’s not choosing someone like Candace Owens. They have to still meet other criteria. Which goes back to the OP. He didn’t blindly support a black female judicial nominee simply because they were a black female.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 10:44 pm to Ponchy Tiger
quote:
Yeah you must be straight up stupid. Because that is exactly what Biden said he would do. Nominate a black woman and wouldn’t consider anyone else.
Nope, he said he would nominate a black women. Not any black woman simply because she’s a black woman. He isn’t pulling a name out of a hat.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 10:56 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
He isn’t pulling a name out of a hat.
He is limiting the names going into the hat by two arbitrary traits. Traits that one has no control over and thereby admitting ability is secondary to pandering for votes
Posted on 1/28/22 at 11:25 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Narrows it. That’s my point
Stop pretending you’re intelligent enough to have a point progressive lunatic.
quote:
Obviously his choice isn’t based SOLEY on the person being a black woman. It has to be a black woman who has certain beliefs/qualifications that he agrees with.
Your dedication to worshipping before the alter of stupidity now has you contradicting yourself while arguing against things that literally nobody else is saying.
Posted on 1/28/22 at 11:43 pm to Open Your Eyes
Where did I contradict myself? Limiting one’s choice to a certain portion of the population doesn’t mean it’s the only criteria. If his only criteria was a black woman, it could be any black woman.
Posted on 1/29/22 at 5:38 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:I mean technically she could be dead so yeah that's not the ONLY criteria but it's definitely the primary and non-negotiable one
If his only criteria was a black woman, it could be any black woman.
Posted on 1/29/22 at 6:00 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
. He didn’t blindly support a black female judicial nominee simply because they were a black female.
But in this case that is exactly what he is doing because that is what he said he would do. Do you think this is legal?
What if in 4 years there is another republican President and he says he be picking a southern white male for the SC because he feels they are underrepresented on the court. Would this be legal? Of course it’s not 2 seconds after words left his mouth the democrats would start the process of impeachment
Posted on 1/29/22 at 7:46 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Obviously his choice isn’t based SOLEY on the person being a black woman.
That is true. She must also be a goose-stepping leftist that hates America.
Fortunately for the Democratic Marxists and their usurper, there is an almost inexhaustible supply of choices for them.
Joe and his supporters = idiocracy.
Posted on 1/29/22 at 8:00 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Doesn’t this go against the narrative that he’s picking someone based solely on “black woman?”
Not when it comes directly out of his mouth.
Posted on 1/29/22 at 9:08 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Where did I contradict myself? Limiting one’s choice to a certain portion of the population doesn’t mean it’s the only criteria. If his only criteria was a black woman, it could be any black woman.
You know it's ok to just admit that he's signaling and pandering instead of trying to make some weird point to make it look like something it isn't.
Posted on 1/29/22 at 9:11 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Doesn’t this go against the narrative that he’s picking someone based solely on “black woman?”
So you basically admit that it has to be your kind of black woman?
You people are disgusting.
Posted on 1/29/22 at 9:48 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:He didn’t say political ideology or judicial philosophy was the primary qualifying feature. He said skin color was. That is racism and it isn’t some made-up narrative.
Making “black woman” a prerequisite doesn’t mean it’s the only criteria. That’s my point. He’s limiting his pool to black women, but he’s not choosing someone like Candace Owens. They have to still meet other criteria. Which goes back to the OP. He didn’t blindly support a black female judicial nominee simply because they were a black female.
Obviously there has to be other considerations. Obviously a leftist isn’t going to nominate another Clearance Thomas or Candace Owens, but the issue at hand is the racist standard of using skin color to filter out candidates before looking at anything else.
It is against the law for a hiring manager at a private company to say that they will only consider black candidates or female candidates (or only black females) and then follow through with that criteria when hiring because it is discrimination.
Posted on 1/29/22 at 10:00 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Doesn’t this go against the narrative that he’s picking someone based solely on “black woman?”
Narrative? The dumbarse potato said it himself. Damn dude, you voted for the worst president of the modern era. Accept he's a fricking idiot, you are also for voting for him, and move on.
This post was edited on 1/29/22 at 10:01 am
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News