Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

Sand

What is unclear about "progressives" tucking into the bucket corporate media is huffing and puffing over? The whole "progressive" ideology is whatever media told them to think, no matter how stupid the idea. It certainly unifies them more than describing them as young, white or middle class which was what I originally replied to.

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118566774#Comment_118566774

Honestly I’ll leave it. You aren’t making a cogent point, you’re attempting to insult social progressives and “the media” at the same time without any sort of real argument.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118566795#Comment_118566795

I made a point. You don't like it. You aren't arguing against it. It's just tired old pretending to not have access to a dictionary. You've taken that about as far as you can, so that is that.

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118566919#Comment_118566919

You didn’t make a point. You threw garbled insults wrapped in a terrible metaphor. I understood every word in your post, the order you put them in was bizarre in the context of what you were replying to

A point would have included your belief with some supporting text. I didn’t see that.

I’m happy to help though. You think that social progressives just swallow what the media tells them without applying any critical thinking? Is that your point?

if it is, then it’s wrong. Social progressives have historical been at the fringes of society and are often marginalised by state owned media. I would posit that you’re so far away from the centre in your beliefs that you think moderates are “progressives”. But that’s an easy mistake to make, because yesterday’s radical is often today’s moderate.

Most moderates left and right only want minor changes to the status quo, fiddling around the edges. That’s not really being progressive imo.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118566978#Comment_118566978

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that social progressives are at the fringes of society and are often marginalised by state owned media? Is your injection of "social" and "stated owned" important to your claim? Would it be different if we were talking about progressives and corporate media as I referenced in the statement I made?

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118567016#Comment_118567016

you made the claim that progressives were just doing what they were told by the media. The onus is on you to support that first. Please feel free and I will then engage further.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118563714#Comment_118563714

You seriously going with the 'he announced a country as an ally' is a bad thing angle?

When he warned Russia you said he was a warmonger. Pick a lane ffs.

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118567069#Comment_118567069

Not to mention the fact that BLM never proclaimed him as a saviour. He was the least bad candidate in 2020, that’s really it. I don’t remember BLM ever even praising him.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118566774#Comment_118566774

Can you define corporate media please?

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118567077#Comment_118567077

I had pretty much typed the same thing and deleted it to make the other point.

It's an attempt at another strawman.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118567065#Comment_118567065

Well, I am comfortable that you'll never agree with my point of view. Unless and until the media narrative changes.

But your claim - that progressives are marginalised by the media - is so patently ridiculous that I admit it took me by surprise by it's brazenness. So well done on that.

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118567156#Comment_118567156

So despite my best efforts you’re not going to engage in any sort of reasonable discussion. You haven’t actually explained your point of view, I would welcome the chance to engage with it and attempt to dissect it.

Insults and hyperbole are all you have, shallow nonsense. I can happily list social progressives marginalised by the media in the past and present, I started already with a couple of examples FYI, but what’s the point if this is the level of debate you enjoy.

Its the equivalent of shouting your opinion and running away with your fingers in your ears.

Pussyhands

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118567069#Comment_118567069

You do know there's a middle ground between sucking a country off and going to war with them?

Cody montana

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118567602#Comment_118567602

Wtf?

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118567602#Comment_118567602

Is that the middle ground Jamal Khashoggi was standing on?

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118567200#Comment_118567200

"I would welcome the change to engage with it and attempt to dissect it".

Yes, no doubt. On the other hand I'm not willing to concede to you a framework for the discussion where you appoint yourself the person who is evaluating my views, which I must prove as sound to you under your own beliefs and values. A debate where you set the topic, the rules and determine the result. I can see the attraction for you, but its a waste of my time. I don't require your approval of my own views. I am perfectly okay with you being wrong.

I made an observation. You can argue against the observation by advancing your own view. Or you can keep up with the hand wringing, I cant even, its the current year nonsense. It doesn't do anything to contradict my observation which you object to.

Tell me how

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568075#Comment_118568075

Ah yes, the icing on the cake that is the practice of pseudo-debate that has become so popular in the last few years, the pointing out of a typo.

You just effectively underlined and added exclamation points to the end of Faugheen's post.

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118567946#Comment_118567946

first it was a point, now it’s an observation but actually it was neither. You flippantly insulted social progressives by implying they are brain washed by “corporate media”. You haven’t got the decency to defend that point.

i don’t set the rules of the debate. That’s really up to the moderators. But I do set one condition for my engagement: defend your point first. That’s a pretty simple condition. If you believe something to be true, then back it up or concede the point. It’s called arguing in good faith, it’s quite enjoyable

Since you refuse to elaborate I consider the point conceded. I’ll bid you good evening.

Beasty

Faugheen threadbanned

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118564071#Comment_118564071

I think the issue is that she allows her religious and personal positions to colour her Legal rulings.

I couldn't care less who or what a Judge is in Private. 

In the Courtroom however, Justice is supposed to be blind and the law applied without a "lens".

Heres the thing though, she’s on the Supreme Court - they get to have opinions, that’s the nature of the job.

Manic Moran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118564071#Comment_118564071

I suspect that the first line, if you wish to open that door, will apply to each of all of the nine justices on the bench. Remember Sotomayor's comment about how a wise latina could reach a better conclusion than a white man who hadn't lived the same life? The only logical interpretation of that is that legal interpretation can somehow be colored by personal standing and it is permissable to look at items outside of law to come up with an answer.

Instead of opening that door, I might suggest instead that if there is any 'personal position', it is in how to go about the practice of law. One can argue that originalism/intentionalism (of which textualism is a subset) is correct, or that the Living Document school of thought is correct. You may as well argue which is the better form of ethics, consequentialism or deontological. You will note that Irish jurisprudence leans towards intentionalism. (Per s5 Interpretation Act 2005) with allowances given for subsequent changes in context in statute.

It would not be beyond possibility, then, for a textualist to honestly approach the law without reference to their religious beliefs and still come out with an answer which happens to match that belief ("Where in the text is there a right to abortion?") whilst simultaneously an adherent to the living document school of thought can similarly set aside their personal believes, attack the Constitution from that technique, and just as honestly come out with a contrary conclusion.

It's not that they will always come out with differing results, much as people of different ethical values will often come to the same conclusions as well. In the 2020-21 term, the court's most common result unanimous, in a little under half the cases. https://ballotpedia.org/Supreme_Court_cases,_October_term_2020-2021

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118568892#Comment_118568892

I don't disagree at all-

Like I said the entire Judiciary in the US has been wildly politicised by all sides in recent years and really not that recently to be honest it's just become far more blatant and public lately.

Judges are being selected and promoted not for their "legal" abilities but for their loyalty to a particular vision of how the law should be interpreted.

The fact that Judges are labelled "GOP" and "Democrat" is just wrong in my view. Of course personal beliefs and experience will play into the decision making process , but there is undue emphasis placed on a Judges political persuasion when they are being considered for their role.

In an Irish context most people couldn't name the Judges on the Supreme Court and even less could tell you what their likely Political affiliations are.

The selection of a new member of a Judicial platform such as an appeals court or supreme court shouldn't be unduly impacting the overall legal direction taken by that court.

Looking at the "big ticket" items that are constantly floated in the US - Reproductive rights and the 2nd Amendment.

Both of those things could be firmly addressed by simply putting the question to the People via referendum.

The polling on both those topics has been fairly consistent for quite some time.

A solid Majority want to allow for Abortions in a number of circumstances and again a solid majority want increased checking and restrictions on Gun ownership but support gun ownership in general.

However neither side wants to actually obtain that clarity and prefer instead to dance around trying to get courts to provide them with "interpretations" that suits the agenda hence the focus on picking Judges that align to said agendas.

Igotadose

I think that sums up the current pearl clutching.

extra gravy

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1488599176489304065?t=yY8CxO1STHBrxaJJiir9-w&s=19

Republican hypocrisy being called out is always worth watching.

Cody montana

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118574061#Comment_118574061

It’s gonna be a s**tshow.

Buckle up.

Biden should nominate a lesbian, Muslim, black woman from San Francisco to make it spicy.

duploelabs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118574092#Comment_118574092

Please let them be trans too

hotmail.com

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118574092#Comment_118574092

Yeah this would keep the drama going and keep both sides happy to concentrate on that drama.

MisterAnarchy

This is the sort of judge that Biden is nominating.

She gets absolutely destroyed here by Ted Cruz, couldnt answer a simple question, “Is racial discrimination wrong?”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhb7KEN292A

Brian?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118574935#Comment_118574935

Stopped watching when Cruz started pontificating.

As usual nuance is very important here and you choose to ignore it in favour of over simplification.

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118574935#Comment_118574935

You mean like when Amy Coney Barrett couldn't remember the 5 freedoms of the 1st amendment - And her a Law Professor and all.

And who could forget the searing questioning from Republican Senator John Kennedy - "Do you hate warm little puppies?"

(Yes folks that a REAL question asked during a hearing to confirm a Supreme Court Judge in the United States!!)

See hear for details.

Oh and as an aside - No one has ever been "Destroyed" by Ted Cruz in the history of the world ever - Unless you mean the countless times he has destroyed himself on Twitter - He's at it again today btw.