mtutiger

I think this is fair... I just have a problem with the clear double standard being applied here. Whoever Biden picks will be very qualified... and in the grand scheme of things, most Americans are not going to notice or care about the selection process. Just a big deal over nothing.

Really happy for Matt Stafford... he deserves this!

Their loss I guess...

Reagan and Trump said the quiet part out loud as well. Just really tired of the pearl clutching on this. You don't have to like the precedent, but it existed long before Biden.

But why is Biden the one taking hell for it when we have had past Presidents (ie. Reagan, Trump) who have basically done the exact same thing with little to no controversy for using that rationale?

Knowing that McCain wanted a game changer and wanted to capitalize on Hills not getting the nomination and the fact that Thomas succeeded the first black justice, it's pretty reasonable to assume sex/gender were involved in those selections. Even if not explicitly stated. Either way, we have actual examples of declarations ahead of the nomination that keep getting brought up (O'Connor, ACB) that seem to just get ignored in this discussion. And again, only now is this an issue. I'm sorry, it just reeks of partisanship. It just does.

Did Ronald Reagan identify Sandra Day O'Connor by race or gender when selecting them? (Rhetorical q) I'll take you at your word that you dont like it, but let's not act like this is unprecedented. I just find it incredible that only now are we hearing objections. Not when O'Connor was nominated, not when ACB was nominated.... only now do we hear about it.

The COVID numbers got conflated with overall JA, which isn't as bad for sure. For reference, I remember seeing Northam was something like +30 after inauguration, so these aren't exactly great numbers. Although PPP isn't exactly the greatest pollster either, so idk.

See Buddha's post. This isn't anything new. The only reason you complain now is because you don't like Biden.

My thing is that, even setting aside the ridiculousness of the first sentence, the bulk of the post just isn't persuasive. It just reads like an opinion that starts from a conclusion (ie. everything Biden does is bad / Biden derangement syndrome) and just works backward from there. And the reality is that, for all the complaining about posting link after link of proof that would get ignored, the reality is that any opinion that doesn't fit Archie's will summarily get ignored and discarded no matter how backed up with links or reason or what have ya. It just is what it is.

Everything Biden does is bad. Biden is senile. Because everything Biden does is bad and Biden is senile. Rinse, Repeat, etc.

Not to mention that it takes a while to build actually do the construction. Just dumb, I swear they'll put anyone on air these days.

Does this airhead know the first thing about infrastructure and how long it takes to actually demo and replace a bridge? It's incredible... how someone can be paid so much and know so little.

It starts to make more sense when you take into account the embrace of illiberal governments who happen to align on policy by certain parts of conservative movement. Think Orban in Hungary or the PiS in Poland. Or frankly Putin in some respects. To be clear, I don't think it's a majority of the conservative movement... and Ukraine has a lot of support among elected Republicans. But it's become a lot more vocal and it's presence is outsized in conservative movement and in conservative media (ie. Tucker Carlson). I don't know that "dems" have moved much on this in general.... Biden up to the point has approached this situation about how I would have expected based on how his former boss approached Ukraine back in the mid-2010s. And the Dems, like on every other domestic issue, are a bigger tent on foreign policy as well.... the party has a mix of internationalist types, pragmatists and anti-war types.

Let me guess, is the new conspiracy theory gonna be that Biden collapsed the bridge on purpose?

CNN is fake news!* *(Except when it reports things which fit my cognitive bias)

Incredible

In b4 "it's Disney's fault that Fox News has wall to wall coverage"

I'm sure that you would find a lot of people who agree with this sentiment in terms of the provisions on race and sex as well. Either way, if this is your standard, every nominee would fail.

On the bigger point, the Constitution grants the Executive the power to select who they want for a SCOTUS appointment, and grants the Senate advice and consent. it doesn't say anything about rationale or whether those nominations meet modern labor law standards. And, in theory, if the nominee the POTUS select doesn't meet seem qualified or meet a high standard, the Senate should be able to exercise a check on that selection, as has been done a number of times in history. And, again, there is a precedent here that has been set multiple times. I'm just not surprised that only now are we hearing objections to this precedent.... and as buddha suggests, it reeks of partisanship.

From Section 2302(b), Title 5: So, basically, if that's your standard, then basically every single SCOTUS appointment in history fails it.

Just thinking a little more about this, maybe it's the fact that Biden put it out there a little more up front. But still, the same thing happened prior to O'Connor's selection. It'd be one thing if this were unprecedented, but it isn't.... I don't see the issue.

Right, this isn't exactly without precedence.