America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,980 comments
  • 1,694,796 views
GranTurNismo
I would say it's his reactionary stance on marijuana. It's clear that he won't budge on the issue, and likely for purely ideological/moral reasons, and was the most staunchly anti-marijuana candidate in the 2020 democratic primary. He hasn't even expressed support for decriminalizing/de-scheduling recreational marijuana, let alone freeing nonviolent marijuana "offenders".
Click to expand...
Putting it into google does seem to indicate some whitehouse support for decriminalizing but not "legalizing"? I'm not sure what the difference is there.

Anyway, Biden's stance on marijuana is disappointing. Even the republicans have gotten more progressive on that one. If we're using GWB as the yardstick though, Biden is left (or is it... down?) of GWB on marijuana as well. His stance seems to be roughly aligned with the Obama admin.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
Anyway, Biden's stance on marijuana is disappointing. Even the republicans have gotten more progressive on that one. If we're using GWB as the yardstick though, Biden is left (or is it... down?) of GWB on marijuana as well.
Click to expand...
I think some Republicans, like Gaetz and Hawley, have postured in a pro-marijuana direction, but when push comes to shove I think they would be against it. Even though many of the "establishment Democrats" are now open to marijuana legalization, there's no chance in hell that McConnell or McCarthy will be moved to this position.

Using GWB as a yardstick makes no sense in that GWB could not possibly bear any less relevance in today's political sphere. I would say that the "moderate Republican" and neoconservative foreign policy outlook are some of the most hated ideologies in today's populist era.
 
GranTurNismo
I think some Republicans, like Gaetz and Hawley, have postured in a pro-marijuana direction, but when push comes to shove I think they would be against it. Even though many of the "establishment Democrats" are now open to marijuana legalization, there's no chance in hell that McConnell or McCarthy will be moved to this position.

Using GWB as a yardstick makes no sense in that GWB could not possibly bear any less relevance in today's political sphere. I would say that the "moderate Republican" and neoconservative foreign policy outlook are some of the most hated ideologies in today's populist era.
Click to expand...
Well... the definition of progressive I'd be working from is one of trying to institute change into new territory to make perceived improvements. And the definition of conservative I'd work from is to fight change, or to try to revert to some past way of working in order to make perceived improvements.

So if we use that, then decriminalizing marijuana is progressive, and it's a progressive stance that some republicans are taking. Biden's take is definitely a conservative stance with respect to todays politics, but it's not deeply conservative. It harkens back about 10 years, not 20. It's conservative by today's standards, centrist by the standards of a decade ago, and progressive from the perspective of 2 decades ago (ie: GWB's time).

I count it as conservative.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
In my opinion, he did it on purpose. It's very consistent with democrat talking points and progressivism. It doesn't pull attention away from the candidate, it focuses attention on who he wants on the court.

20 years ago I probably would have thought that it was a complete waste and counter-productive to call out that he's naming a black woman on purpose. Today though, after Trump, it's maybe not. If we can get a qualified white male in the job, and that white male does outstanding legal work, then the supreme court has a good legal footing but sends a tiny bit of reinforcement of the last 4 years of veiled white supremacy from the executive. If we can get a qualified black woman in the job, and that black woman does outstanding legal work, then the supreme court has good legal footing AND a tiny bit of the damage caused over the last 4 years of veiled white supremacy may be undone.

The supreme court is a public position that doesn't only serve a role as a court, but also a figurative role. Stating that a black woman will be that figure is a nod to the importance of that role.

Trump said he was going to name a woman. Does everyone focus on whether she's qualified because Trump said he was going to pick a woman? No, I don't think so. Sure, she's maybe unqualified, but not because she's a woman. She's a terrible choice because Trump wanted someone like that. But Biden puts "black" in front of that statement, suddenly everyone is going to think she's unqualified because she was picked only based on her skin color? If they're thinking that now, they were probably going to think it anyway.

It's not what I would have done, but I'm not a democrat - this is core democrat philosophy.
Click to expand...
Interesting.

Thinking on it more after reading this I see it as not too dissimilar to what some medical schools in the UK are doing with regards to working class applicants, with the goal of encouraging a doctor workforce that better reflects the country's demographics.

That being said it must suck to be discounted purely because of an immutable characteristic, especially more so when you are used to privilige.
 
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
Interesting.

Thinking on it more after reading this I see it as not too dissimilar to what some medical schools in the UK are doing with regards to working class applicants, with the goal of encouraging a doctor workforce that better reflects the country's demographics.

That being said it must suck to be discounted purely because of an immutable characteristic, especially more so when you are used to privilige.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is used to the privilege of being appointed to the supreme court. It's such a politically charged position that I don't think anyone feels like it should have been theirs. It's impossible to say "I have these qualifications, I should be the current supreme court nominee, not that other person".
 
Danoff
I don't think anyone is used to the privilege of being appointed to the supreme court. It's such a politically charged position that I don't think anyone feels like it should have been theirs. It's impossible to say "I have these qualifications, I should be the current supreme court nominee, not that other person".
Click to expand...
Perhaps I worded it wrong - I meant the privilege that those characteristics usually come/came with.

As an example, wealthy parents complaining about Oxbridge taking less of their kids

Odds are they are not used to those characteristics being barriers to what they want to achieve.

EDIT: It's behind a paywall but you can google the title to find a version online
 
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
Perhaps I worded it wrong - I meant the privilege that those characteristics usually come/came with.

As an example, wealthy parents complaining about Oxbridge taking less of their kids

Odds are they are not used to those characteristics being barriers to what they want to achieve.

EDIT: It's behind a paywall but you can google the title to find a version online
Click to expand...
I understand that but it doesn't apply to the supreme court. I'd say similarly it doesn't apply to something like a CEO position.

As far as your oxbridge example, what I could find suggested that it was mostly just the school moving away from allowing people to buy slots for kids who were otherwise less qualified. Maybe I'm misreading it. Wealth is not a barrier in that example, it's just not buying such an advantage.
 
Danoff
I understand that but it doesn't apply to the supreme court. I'd say similarly it doesn't apply to something like a CEO position.
Click to expand...
In this case it does, as the barrier is you won't be considered if you're non-black (I was talking more specifically about white people as they have traditionally enjoyed more "perks" in America.) I'm not saying they should expect to get appointed because of that characteristic, rather that what was in the past an asset is now a hinderance.

Danoff
As far as your oxbridge example, what I could find suggested that it was mostly just the school moving away from allowing people to buy slots for kids who were otherwise less qualified. Maybe I'm misreading it. Wealth is not a barrier in that example, it's just not buying such an advantage.
Click to expand...
Not less qualified, but at least as equally qualified. It's a reason a lot more are going overseas to the Ivy Leagues

Later on in the article:

Dorothy Byrne is unapologetic about her mission to slash the numbers of private school pupils going to Cambridge University.
Cambridge should ideally take 93 per cent of its students from state schools, and “private school students need to get over their obsession” with Oxbridge, the new head of the university’s all-female Murray Edwards College told us this month.
Eton students “would be very lucky to get into Manchester and Sheffield universities”, she said. In fact, “it might be good for them” to “travel to the north” and “meet more diverse people”.
The message that they are no longer as welcome as they once were at Oxford and Cambridge — two of the best universities in the world — is one that private school pupils and their parents have been hearing loud and clear.
“It can seem like there’s no point in trying,” says Saiesha Gupta, 18, a pupil at £40,000-a-year Benenden School in Kent.
She tells of a friend who won offers from Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Columbia, but was recently turned down by Cambridge. He had “the best application I’d ever seen” — he was a head boy, had four A*s at A-level and fourteen A* GCSEs. She believes the fact he had studied at a private school was the reason he failed to win an Oxbridge place.

The latter example is anecdotal, yes, but there were plenty of similar stories about people rejected from med schools as well when I last looked up the topic.

EDIT: I guess I should say those who have a private education rather than wealthy as I've tutored a student who is currently in a private school who definitely doesn't come from a well off family (single mum in fact) but was accepted on a scholarship.
 
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
In this case it does, as the barrier is you won't be considered if you're non-black (I was talking more specifically about white people as they have traditionally enjoyed more "perks" in America.) I'm not saying they should expect to get appointed because of that characteristic, rather that what was in the past an asset is now a hinderance.
Click to expand...
No there is no such thing as any kind of expectation or non-subjective qualification to be a supreme court justice. What was for one president a hindrance, is for another president an asset. It's inherent in the position.
HenrySwanson
Not less qualified, but at least as equally qualified. It's a reason a lot more are going overseas to the Ivy Leagues

Later on in the article:

Dorothy Byrne is unapologetic about her mission to slash the numbers of private school pupils going to Cambridge University.
Cambridge should ideally take 93 per cent of its students from state schools, and “private school students need to get over their obsession” with Oxbridge, the new head of the university’s all-female Murray Edwards College told us this month.
Eton students “would be very lucky to get into Manchester and Sheffield universities”, she said. In fact, “it might be good for them” to “travel to the north” and “meet more diverse people”.
The message that they are no longer as welcome as they once were at Oxford and Cambridge — two of the best universities in the world — is one that private school pupils and their parents have been hearing loud and clear.
“It can seem like there’s no point in trying,” says Saiesha Gupta, 18, a pupil at £40,000-a-year Benenden School in Kent.
She tells of a friend who won offers from Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Columbia, but was recently turned down by Cambridge. He had “the best application I’d ever seen” — he was a head boy, had four A*s at A-level and fourteen A* GCSEs. She believes the fact he had studied at a private school was the reason he failed to win an Oxbridge place.

The latter example is anecdotal, yes, but there were plenty of similar stories about people rejected from med schools as well when I last looked up the topic.

EDIT: I guess I should say those who have a private education rather than wealthy as I've tutored a student who is currently in a private school who definitely doesn't come from a well off family (single mum in fact) but was accepted on a scholarship.
Click to expand...
First of all, private school is something that is within your control (as a parent). Secondly, what school you go to is somewhat germane to the topic of qualification for acceptance.
 


Deranged rant on Biden's re-statement that a qualified black woman would be his pick. If you decide to watch this, keep in mind that Trump announced that his last pick would be a woman.

“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” Trump said. “I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Danoff
No there is no such thing as any kind of expectation or non-subjective qualification to be a supreme court justice. What was for one president a hindrance, is for another president an asset. It's inherent in the position.
Click to expand...
And this particular hindrance (in this case to the extent that it precludes their consideration at all) is usually associated with privilege. It was interesting to me how that switch might feel like for someone hoping to be a Supreme Court appointee.
Danoff
First of all, private school is something that is within your control (as a parent). Secondly, what school you go to is somewhat germane to the topic of qualification for acceptance.
Click to expand...
It's more the juxtaposition of what something was like/what it is now, similar to above.
 
HenrySwanson
And this particular hindrance (in this case to the extent that it precludes their consideration at all) is usually associated with privilege. It was interesting to me how that switch might feel like for someone hoping to be a Supreme Court appointee.
Click to expand...
I understand your point, but I don't agree with it. The reason is because "hoping to be a supreme court nominee" is not like hoping to go to a college, or even a particular college, or to get a job in a particular career. It's not like hoping to be a doctor, or a lawyer, or even a judge (though that's closer). Hoping to be a supreme court nominee is not something you could possibly ever reasonably expect to happen. There's roughly a single seat available every 2 years. A particular age range is appealing, and the characteristics of what makes a good supreme court nominee change wildly with politics. In 2020, being pro life was appealing for a candidate. At which point everyone who was pro choice would be denied the "privilege" you're talking about, as well as being a black woman, or muslim, or... I mean I could go on forever. And it's not the kind of thing that could be forecast 4 years prior either, because Hillary came damned close to winning the election, and that would have drastically changed the top candidates for those years. If Hillary had won in 2016, none of the last 3 appointees would have come anywhere near the cut. An 8 year run of a random president could be your entire prime age consideration for a supreme court spot. If you're 45 at the start of a random president that for some reason doesn't like you (you're pro choice or something), and then you're 53 when the next president takes over, and 55 until there is a vacancy. That's it! You're probably just about too old for consideration. Certainly you're a step behind someone 8 years younger than you, and a step is all it takes.

There is nothing fair about the process. There is no expectation, no perfect resume, no real control one has over becoming a supreme court justice. It is being at the right place at the right time. And when I say in the right place, I'm including every possible political consideration.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
In 2020, being pro life was appealing for a candidate.
Click to expand...
I mean...

Screenshot-20220127-142100-Samsung-Internet.jpg


:lol:
 
Liquid
Yep. The police definitely look after their own.
Click to expand...
Somebody needs to. On TV they are saying the murder of police by assassination is at unprecedented record levels. Recruitment of new hires is below replacement levels. Locally this seems true in my area of Seattle/Tacoma. Unsolved cases of arson and murder are piling up with no end in sight while local politicians seem helpless.
 
That reminds me of a scene from Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight - you know, the one with the Joker disguised as a police officer.
 
Dotini
On TV they are saying the murder of police by assassination is at unprecedented record levels.
Click to expand...
Swing and a miss. Either "they [on TV]" have misrepresented data or you have misrepresented reporting. Given your sensationalist doomer posting style and your propensity to misuse words like "unprecedented," I suspect it may be the latter.

Edit: "Either" above is problematic, as TV reporting (which is rather ambiguous, it should be said) frequently misrepresents data. It could easily be a combination of the two, but then the ambiguity of the "they [on TV]" makes it impossible to positively say.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
South Carolina Republicans have introduced a bill in the state's General Assembly that would criminalize inquiring about vaccination status for access to private property, with those found to be in violation facing a fine of up to $14,000 and incarceration up to a year. I've addressed it in more detail here.

I'd suggest the mother****ers have lost the plot, but this is the plot.
 
Last edited:
TexRex
South Carolina Republicans have introduced a bill in the state's General Assembly that would criminalize inquiring about vaccination status for access to private property, with those found to be in violation facing a fine of up to $14,000 and incarceration up to a year. I've addressed it in more detail here.

I'd suggest the mother****ers have lost the plot, but this is the plot.
Click to expand...
So the party that’s all about property rights is trying to tell people what they can and can’t do on their own property. Got it.
 
Populuxe
So the party that’s all about property rights is trying to tell people what they can and can’t do on their own property. Got it.
Click to expand...
If I may quote myself (replace "businesses" with "property"):

NotThePrez
Republicans: "We're against government overreach!"

Also Republicans: "We're gonna reach riiiight into people's private businesses and tell them what they can/can't do."
Click to expand...
 
Some news floated past my Twitter feed about Ukraine/Russia, and I almost looked right through it except it contained a name that jumped out at me.

The US Secretary of State is called Antony Blinken? He's actually, really, genuinely called "A Blinken"? As in... you know...

58e2e1e2-73aa-4c8d-a321-06bd52cec5ae_text.gif
​
 
Last edited:
Liquid
He'll be A Blinken Idiot if it all goes tits up.
Click to expand...
Yes, but on the other hand, Boris Johnson's uncanny vision and sterling leadership bid fair to put him on par with Edward III as an historic leader of the English speaking peoples.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
438 439 440
Replies
13K
Views
583K
TheCracker
TheCracker
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
437 438 439
Replies
13K
Views
694K
jesse100190
J
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
669
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
7K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back