The Many Faces of US Politics...

[Main Street]

Gerrymandering (partisan and racial) in the USA is so brazen and oft practiced as the default (and legal) response to retaining power. It's nothing less than a toxic corruption of democracy.

[Gmac]

The Supreme Court nominee was asked what a woman was and she said she didn't know as she's not a biologist, when you participate in none sense like this you should be automatically disqualified.

It was a do-no-harm-to-your-nomination, avoid-the-gotcha-question non-answer to a grandstanding Senator, in this case trying to exploit transexuality (yet another conservative end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it outrage).

Not really criticizing the Senator in question per se, they ALL do it. And ALL Supreme Court nominees with a lick of sense avoid the gotcha question, whatever it is.

These hearings are a waste of time, and have been for years. They're just a public forum for politicians wanting to make a mark or shore up their political bono fides, especially in an election year. The success of the nominee is confirmed in advance unless the nominee steps in it big time. Hence they play it safe.

what is a woman is a gotcha question ? Ok are you a man or woman and how would you know

Gmac, if you want to pretend that was not a loaded gotcha question on transexuality, a complicated issue, knock yourself out.

But sure go ahead and give us your definition of a woman and how your dichotomous, black and white system takes into account every human being in existence.

did joe not say he wanted a woman of color for his vp and then he said he wanted a woman of color for the Supreme Court so I agree with joe it's a female of the human species, other people may call themselves a woman and that's fine but I'm not playing along .

[Eamonnca1]

These hearings are boring. I haven't seen her crying yet, or blubbering about how much she loves beer and shagging. Maybe women should be kept off the bench because they're not emotional enough.

[RedHand88]

These hearings are boring. I haven't seen her crying yet, or blubbering about how much she loves beer and shagging. Maybe women should be kept off the bench because they're not emotional enough.

Any mention of fart jokes in a diary 40 years ago?

[J70]

The Supreme Court nominee was asked what a woman was and she said she didn't know as she's not a biologist, when you participate in none sense like this you should be automatically disqualified.

It was a do-no-harm-to-your-nomination, avoid-the-gotcha-question non-answer to a grandstanding Senator, in this case trying to exploit transexuality (yet another conservative end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it outrage).

Not really criticizing the Senator in question per se, they ALL do it. And ALL Supreme Court nominees with a lick of sense avoid the gotcha question, whatever it is.

These hearings are a waste of time, and have been for years. They're just a public forum for politicians wanting to make a mark or shore up their political bono fides, especially in an election year. The success of the nominee is confirmed in advance unless the nominee steps in it big time. Hence they play it safe.

what is a woman is a gotcha question ? Ok are you a man or woman and how would you know

Gmac, if you want to pretend that was not a loaded gotcha question on transexuality, a complicated issue, knock yourself out.

But sure go ahead and give us your definition of a woman and how your dichotomous, black and white system takes into account every human being in existence.

did joe not say he wanted a woman of color for his vp and then he said he wanted a woman of color for the Supreme Court so I agree with joe it's a female of the human species, other people may call themselves a woman and that's fine but I'm not playing along .

So it's fine, but you're not playing along?

Well then it's not fine, is it? Especially as you're the one getting your knickers in a twist over the issue.

[whitey]

The Supreme Court nominee was asked what a woman was and she said she didn't know as she's not a biologist, when you participate in none sense like this you should be automatically disqualified.

It was a do-no-harm-to-your-nomination, avoid-the-gotcha-question non-answer to a grandstanding Senator, in this case trying to exploit transexuality (yet another conservative end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it outrage).

Not really criticizing the Senator in question per se, they ALL do it. And ALL Supreme Court nominees with a lick of sense avoid the gotcha question, whatever it is.

These hearings are a waste of time, and have been for years. They're just a public forum for politicians wanting to make a mark or shore up their political bono fides, especially in an election year. The success of the nominee is confirmed in advance unless the nominee steps in it big time. Hence they play it safe.

what is a woman is a gotcha question ? Ok are you a man or woman and how would you know

Gmac, if you want to pretend that was not a loaded gotcha question on transexuality, a complicated issue, knock yourself out.

But sure go ahead and give us your definition of a woman and how your dichotomous, black and white system takes into account every human being in existence.

did joe not say he wanted a woman of color for his vp and then he said he wanted a woman of color for the Supreme Court so I agree with joe it's a female of the human species, other people may call themselves a woman and that's fine but I'm not playing along .

So it's fine, but you're not playing along?

Well then it's not fine, is it? Especially as you're the one getting your knickers in a twist over the issue.

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/22/jill-biden-kamala-harris-runing-mate-vice-president-book

I said it at the time that Kamala was a disgrace for implying Joe was a racist. (I would have actually voted for Joe if he had picked someone else as his running mate)

Of course the simpletons on here disagreed with me  because Kamala prefaced her attack by saying "I'm not saying you're a racist".  I know what I heard and Dr Jill  heard exactly the same thing.

She has had several opportunities to apologize and make things right, but she just cackles and says it was a debate

I wonder if she thinks it was okay for Tulsi to misrepresent her record and attack her because that also happened during a debate

[J70]

We discussed this at the time. I've no real interest in rehashing it as I haven't changed my mind and its there in this thread from two years ago. I still think Biden's record was fair game. Maybe Harris could have approached it more delicately and maybe she should have apologized, but it was still his record. Mean things get said in primaries, not just general elections. Newt Gingrich called Romney and his business career "vulture capitalism". Arguably the only thing she hurt anyway was her own candidacy. Joe ended up being rescued and thrust front and center by the black community of South Carolina.

As for not voting for him because he chose Harris, well you voted for Trump, didn't you? How much utter shite and slanderous lies has he put out there in just his political years, including in debates?

And VP choice is purely political. There's no room for sentiment and never has been. John McCain wanted Joe Lieberman, but had to go with Palin to secure the yahoo base of the GOP, basically paving the road that ended up with Trump. Ronald Reagan chose a VP candidate and successor who called his jewel policy position "voodoo economics".  You think JFK and LBJ were best buddies? Biden chose Harris because he had to tie up the Democratic coalition, including the progressive wing, to beat Trump. I'm sure he choked on his porridge a wee bit, and I doubt if their personal relationship is warm, but c'est la vie.

[whitey]

We discussed this at the time. I've no real interest in rehashing it as I haven't changed my mind and its there in this thread from two years ago. I still think Biden's record was fair game. Maybe Harris could have approached it more delicately and maybe she should have apologized, but it was still his record. Mean things get said in primaries, not just general elections. Newt Gingrich called Romney and his business career "vulture capitalism". Arguably the only thing she hurt anyway was her own candidacy. Joe ended up being rescued and thrust front and center by the black community of South Carolina.

As for not voting for him because he chose Harris, well you voted for Trump, didn't you? How much utter shite and slanderous lies has he put out there in just his political years, including in debates?

And VP choice is purely political. There's no room for sentiment and never has been. John McCain wanted Joe Lieberman, but had to go with Palin to secure the yahoo base of the GOP, basically paving the road that ended up with Trump. Ronald Reagan chose a VP candidate and successor who called his jewel policy position "voodoo economics".  You think JFK and LBJ were best buddies? Biden chose Harris because he had to tie up the Democratic coalition, including the progressive wing, to beat Trump. I'm sure he choked on his porridge a wee bit, and I doubt if their personal relationship is warm, but c'est la vie.

At time when the country was being ripped apart by racial strife do you think what she did was helpful?

It was complete and utter BS and she essentially admitted later that she would have held the same position Joe held at the time

This is actually how Trump got elected in the first place-by the Democrats accusing people of being racists for disagreeing with them.

No matter what you do or how far you go to meet them in the middle is never enough

You can be all for gay marriage. You can be all for gays in the military. You can be for same sex couples adopting kids, but God forbid you have an opinion on a biological male swimmer smashing every record under the sun competing against biological females. Now you're a bigot and a homophone/trans phobe or some other made up name (BTW-I personally don't care about this particular topic, but I vehemently disagree with the demonization of those who do hold opinions)

[J70]

And on the right if you don't deny the dignity and humanity of transgender people, you're a deviant commie out to destroy the fabric of society.

Most sensible people are struggling with this issue and don't align with either those who want to jump straight to young kids being given hormonal or surgical treatments or those who want to deny the existence of transgenderism.

Which is why Jackson was correct to punt on Blackburn's question.


You've brought up Trump getting elected due to "Democrats accusing people of being racists for disagreeing with them" before. It didn't make sense then. It doesn't now. If you vote for Trump based on racial issues, at least have the balls to admit that it is because you like his in-your-face bigotry.

[whitey]

And on the right if you don't deny the dignity and humanity of transgender people, you're a deviant commie out to destroy the fabric of society.

Most sensible people are struggling with this issue and don't align with either those who want to jump straight to young kids being given hormonal or surgical treatments or those who want to deny the existence of transgenderism.

Which is why Jackson was correct to punt on Blackburn's question.


You've brought up Trump getting elected due to "Democrats accusing people of being racists for disagreeing with them" before. It didn't make sense then. It doesn't now. If you vote for Trump based on racial issues, at least have the balls to admit that it is because you like his in-your-face bigotry.

https://m.independent.ie/life/echoes-of-the-rust-belt-on-irish-riviera-35207534.html

Believe whatever you want. You need to get out of your bubble

[Gmac]

The Supreme Court nominee was asked what a woman was and she said she didn't know as she's not a biologist, when you participate in none sense like this you should be automatically disqualified.

It was a do-no-harm-to-your-nomination, avoid-the-gotcha-question non-answer to a grandstanding Senator, in this case trying to exploit transexuality (yet another conservative end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it outrage).

Not really criticizing the Senator in question per se, they ALL do it. And ALL Supreme Court nominees with a lick of sense avoid the gotcha question, whatever it is.

These hearings are a waste of time, and have been for years. They're just a public forum for politicians wanting to make a mark or shore up their political bono fides, especially in an election year. The success of the nominee is confirmed in advance unless the nominee steps in it big time. Hence they play it safe.

what is a woman is a gotcha question ? Ok are you a man or woman and how would you know

Gmac, if you want to pretend that was not a loaded gotcha question on transexuality, a complicated issue, knock yourself out.

But sure go ahead and give us your definition of a woman and how your dichotomous, black and white system takes into account every human being in existence.

did joe not say he wanted a woman of color for his vp and then he said he wanted a woman of color for the Supreme Court so I agree with joe it's a female of the human species, other people may call themselves a woman and that's fine but I'm not playing along .

So it's fine, but you're not playing along?

Well then it's not fine, is it? Especially as you're the one getting your knickers in a twist over the issue.

if she's a woman of color but doesn't know what a woman is how is she acceptable as a candidate?  according to herself she may not even be a woman, this is why this type of bs is ridiculous and needs to be called out every time you see it and playing along just leads to more insanity.

[J70]

And on the right if you don't deny the dignity and humanity of transgender people, you're a deviant commie out to destroy the fabric of society.

Most sensible people are struggling with this issue and don't align with either those who want to jump straight to young kids being given hormonal or surgical treatments or those who want to deny the existence of transgenderism.

Which is why Jackson was correct to punt on Blackburn's question.


You've brought up Trump getting elected due to "Democrats accusing people of being racists for disagreeing with them" before. It didn't make sense then. It doesn't now. If you vote for Trump based on racial issues, at least have the balls to admit that it is because you like his in-your-face bigotry.

https://m.independent.ie/life/echoes-of-the-rust-belt-on-irish-riviera-35207534.html

Believe whatever you want. You need to get out of your bubble

You've posted that before.

And as I'm pretty sure I responded last time you posted about people voting for Trump because they felt elites were "talking down to them", they should grow the f**k up and welcome to the real world.

Because people across the board look down on those who hold opposing opinions. In some cases its perfectly legitimate i.e. condemning bigotry and racism. In others, its not.

And never mind that the entire American right wing media universe is built on looking down on, and on contempt and hatred for, anything that threatens the dominance of traditional white christian society.

I do have to laugh reading that piece again though at the couple of lads who reckoned Trump was all talk when it came to deportations and anti-Muslim rhetoric. I wonder if they felt foolish when the reality of what he did and wanted to do hit?

[J70]

The Supreme Court nominee was asked what a woman was and she said she didn't know as she's not a biologist, when you participate in none sense like this you should be automatically disqualified.

It was a do-no-harm-to-your-nomination, avoid-the-gotcha-question non-answer to a grandstanding Senator, in this case trying to exploit transexuality (yet another conservative end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it outrage).

Not really criticizing the Senator in question per se, they ALL do it. And ALL Supreme Court nominees with a lick of sense avoid the gotcha question, whatever it is.

These hearings are a waste of time, and have been for years. They're just a public forum for politicians wanting to make a mark or shore up their political bono fides, especially in an election year. The success of the nominee is confirmed in advance unless the nominee steps in it big time. Hence they play it safe.

what is a woman is a gotcha question ? Ok are you a man or woman and how would you know

Gmac, if you want to pretend that was not a loaded gotcha question on transexuality, a complicated issue, knock yourself out.

But sure go ahead and give us your definition of a woman and how your dichotomous, black and white system takes into account every human being in existence.

did joe not say he wanted a woman of color for his vp and then he said he wanted a woman of color for the Supreme Court so I agree with joe it's a female of the human species, other people may call themselves a woman and that's fine but I'm not playing along .

So it's fine, but you're not playing along?

Well then it's not fine, is it? Especially as you're the one getting your knickers in a twist over the issue.

if she's a woman of color but doesn't know what a woman is how is she acceptable as a candidate?  according to herself she may not even be a woman, this is why this type of bs is ridiculous and needs to be called out every time you see it and playing along just leads to more insanity.

The options are:

1.   She doesn't know if she is a woman.
2.   She knows she is a woman, but is unwilling to engage in an ill-informed, pointless public "debate" with a grandstanding anti-LGBTQ Senator whose real question is "are trans-females also women".

Are we back to schoolchild level of analysis?

BTW, I'm pretty sure there have been one or two transgender discussion threads. I'm sure you can resurrect those if you need to expound on these issues.

[whitey]

And on the right if you don't deny the dignity and humanity of transgender people, you're a deviant commie out to destroy the fabric of society.

Most sensible people are struggling with this issue and don't align with either those who want to jump straight to young kids being given hormonal or surgical treatments or those who want to deny the existence of transgenderism.

Which is why Jackson was correct to punt on Blackburn's question.


You've brought up Trump getting elected due to "Democrats accusing people of being racists for disagreeing with them" before. It didn't make sense then. It doesn't now. If you vote for Trump based on racial issues, at least have the balls to admit that it is because you like his in-your-face bigotry.

https://m.independent.ie/life/echoes-of-the-rust-belt-on-irish-riviera-35207534.html

Believe whatever you want. You need to get out of your bubble

You've posted that before.

And as I'm pretty sure I responded last time you posted about people voting for Trump because they felt elites were "talking down to them", they should grow the f**k up and welcome to the real world.

Because people across the board look down on those who hold opposing opinions. In some cases its perfectly legitimate i.e. condemning bigotry and racism. In others, its not.

And never mind that the entire American right wing media universe is built on looking down on, and on contempt and hatred for, anything that threatens the dominance of traditional white christian society.

I do have to laugh reading that piece again though at the couple of lads who reckoned Trump was all talk when it came to deportations and anti-Muslim rhetoric. I wonder if they felt foolish when the reality of what he did and wanted to do hit?

You just don't get it

Telling someone they're a bigot and a racist because they're not 100% on board with the most extreme positions of the Democratic Party is asinine and  should cost them votes

Maybe the Democrats are the ones who need to grow the fvck up and realize that elections aren't won on Twitter. Maybe they should stop pandering to the lunatic fringe and scolding everyone who isn't on board with them

[J70]

FFS I'm not on board with anything remotely close to 100% of the "most extreme positions of the Democratic Party".

Yet I don't ever recall being labeled a bigot or racist.

Perhaps because I'm not glued to Fox News or listening to the late Rush Limbaugh and his continuing impersonators hype and exaggerate and fearmonger about every outlandish tweet and every cartoonish caricature of liberals that they can think up.

And at least in the Democratic Party they ARE the lunatic fringe. Last I checked, we elected a moderate president despite the choice of a socialist. Here in NYC we went with a former police captain (and former Republican) for mayor over several fairly lefty progressives.

In the Republican Party and the conservative movement in general, the lunatics, led by Trump, are the mainstream centre of the party.