Confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

[Elegiac]

Nobody is arguing that the Democrats weren't the party of slavery historically.

But then Civil Rights happened, which was a large catalyst for the gradual coalescing of social conservatives (and in the South, these tended to be segregationists) into the Republican Party.

You'd think with the Democrats being such neoliberal hacks they'd choose reasons to bitch which actually have some grounding in reality, but no. We're going with "secret Klan".

Also the lack of self-awareness in claiming that they haven't met many racists when they admit they think minorities have been "manipulated" by Democrats.

[seashell86]

Ok, let's take a look.

Oh, this is pretty damning...



Man, you should really take another look at your sources. How embarrassing.



Sounds like we should embrace communism.

I don't know. Are you sure you actually read that article or did you just go by the click bait headline?

Because, honestly, like with most anti-Trump nonsense, it tends to do a lot of inferencing and "reading into things."

However, here's a clip of Van Jones talking about how historic their prison reform bill is.

So, there's that.

I don't know. All this what-about-ism just sounds like Democrats bein' Democrats to me.

[Eviscero]

What I find cute is just how few white supremacists there actually are compared to how many most modern liberals think there are.

I have literally never once met an actual conservative that feels race is a useful metric for anything other than how like someone is to vote Democrat because of how masterfully they have been able to manipulate minorities.

That's literally it.

Trump lost the popular vote but not by that much. There are A LOT of white supremacists.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know. Are you sure you actually read that article or did you just go by the click bait headline?

Because, honestly, like with most anti-Trump nonsense, it tends to do a lot of inferencing and "reading into things."

However, here's a clip of Van Jones talking about how historic their prison reform bill is.

So, there's that.

I don't know. All this what-about-ism just sounds like Democrats bein' Democrats to me.

But her emails?

[Elegiac]

Trump lost the popular vote by not by that much. There are A LOT of white supremacists.

More importantly the system itself is one of white supremacy.

People in this thread really be making the Crash argument.

[Monster Hunter]

Can some.one clarify a few questions i have

1. Why do you let president pick you heads of the judiciary when it supposed ot be a separate branch, and not have in independent judicial commission that makes appoints like most other places ?

2. Why is you judiciary political at all ?

[Themius]

The best long term solution is to admit the country is too fractured to survive and figure out a way to split it into smaller countries that are able to meet the wants and needs of their populations in less contentious manners without resorting to a civil war.

I mean sure but I don’t want the poor decrepit country that would be Dixieland to exist...it’s a breeding ground for terrorists.

[seashell86]

Nobody is arguing that the Democrats weren't the party of slavery historically.

But then Civil Rights happened, which was a large catalyst for the gradual coalescing of social conservatives (and in the South, these tended to be segregationists) into the Republican Party.

For starters, there are many people that argued that Democrats were the party of slavery historically.

Second of all, the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Bill with 80% support compared to the 60% support of the Democrats. Byrd had a 14 hour fillibuster against it.

At some point, we have to start calling a spade a spade.

And, to be fair, before referring to obvious factual historical data, you can see where the party (Democrats) of moral superiority and everything identitarian HAS to have history be this way, right?

And yet, the Republicans in spite of all the actual claims that they are racist, are not out there committing racist acts en masse.

What you will find are people who are very far left trying to classify what are either very loose interpretations or flat out over reaching to find examples of racism.

For example, people called building a wall racist. How exactly is building a wall racist? Is there like a little doggy door that says "No insert-race-name-here allowed"?

Or is this the part where special liberties are taken to tell people what they actually meant when they aren't the ones who said it?

Anyways, I don't think Republicans are perfect though. Being the "good guys" relative to a horrendously corrupt and racist counterpart still can leave a lot to be desired.

For example, I hated the 90s Bush administration. It was easily the lowest point for the Republican party as a whole (yes, worse than Trump).

However, I still think that we will look back upon this time period historically with the Democrats having been on the wrong side of history. Their quickness to censor free speech and exercise control over dissenting opinions will not age well. Their extreme dedication to absolutism and purity is not going to age well. Their inability to acknowledge that they lost in 2016 because they simply were out of touch with America and not robbed will not age well.

There are a lot of things that will not age well with the Democrats. Donald Trump's mouth and what comes out of it, much of which, probably won't age spectacularly well. As an instigator in chief, I think we could have better leadership on that front. I think he would have had to be the bigger man but, in the end, I am convinced he didn't have to be the enemy of the media. I'm convinced he did not have to be so abrasive to Democrats.

That being said, I believe most honest working class and tax paying Americans are going to look at this historical segment and chalk this period up to a bad look for Democrats. Republicans can still poop the bed later on in history though. Anything is possible.

[Elegiac]

Can some.one clarify a few questions i have

1. Why do you let president pick you heads of the judiciary when it supposed ot be a separate branch, and not have in independent judicial commission that makes appoints like most other places ?

2. Why is you judiciary political at all ?

Simplest answer: A bunch of formerly English white slaveowners wanted to live in an aristocratic society very much like England, but without the pesky nuisance of having to pay taxes to the Crown.

[Machismo]

For starters, there are many people that argued that Democrats were the party of slavery historically.

Second of all, the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Bill with 80% support compared to the 60% support of the Democrats. Byrd had a 14 hour fillibuster against it.

At some point, we have to start calling a spade a spade.

And, to be fair, before referring to obvious factual historical data, you can see where the party (Democrats) of moral superiority and everything identitarian HAS to have history be this way, right?

And yet, the Republicans in spite of all the actual claims that they are racist, are not out there committing racist acts en masse.

What you will find are people who are very far left trying to classify what are either very loose interpretations or flat out over reaching to find examples of racism.

For example, people called building a wall racist. How exactly is building a wall racist? Is there like a little doggy door that says "No insert-race-name-here allowed"?

Or is this the part where special liberties are taken to tell people what they actually meant when they aren't the ones who said it?

Anyways, I don't think Republicans are perfect though. Being the "good guys" relative to a horrendously corrupt and racist counterpart still can leave a lot to be desired.

For example, I hated the 90s Bush administration. It was easily the lowest point for the Republican party as a whole (yes, worse than Trump).

However, I still think that we will look back upon this time period historically with the Democrats having been on the wrong side of history. Their quickness to censor free speech and exercise control over dissenting opinions will not age well. Their extreme dedication to absolutism and purity is not going to age well. Their inability to acknowledge that they lost in 2016 because they simply were out of touch with America and not robbed will not age well.

There are a lot of things that will not age well with the Democrats. Donald Trump's mouth and what comes out of it, much of which, probably won't age spectacularly well. As an instigator in chief, I think we could have better leadership on that front. I think he would have had to be the bigger man but, in the end, I am convinced he didn't have to be the enemy of the media. I'm convinced he did not have to be so abrasive to Democrats.

That being said, I believe most honest working class and tax paying Americans are going to look at this historical segment and chalk this period up to a bad look for Democrats. Republicans can still poop the bed later on in history though. Anything is possible.

How do you explain Stephen Miller?

[Kellhound]

I mean sure but I don’t want the poor decrepit country that would be Dixieland to exist...it’s a breeding ground for terrorists.

And forcing the millions of people that would be in Dixieland to live under laws they see as directly attacking their personal freedom wouldn't be a breeding ground for terrorist because they would have more reason to fight?

[Elegiac]

And forcing the millions of people that would be in Dixieland to live under laws they see as directly attacking their personal freedom wouldn't be a breeding ground for terrorist because they would have more reason to fight?

At least you're admitting that the attack on personal freedom is entirely in their heads, lol.

[Gestopft]

Can some.one clarify a few questions i have

1. Why do you let president pick you heads of the judiciary when it supposed ot be a separate branch, and not have in independent judicial commission that makes appoints like most other places ?

2. Why is you judiciary political at all ?

1. They have to be confirmed by the other branch of government, so it's not just the president picking.
1a) We have a system that is in many ways outdated, and badly needs reforms in many key areas
1b) Many places here have elected judges, so...it could be worse than having presidential/Senate appointments for the Federal courts?

2. Because, as you have seen, due to 1a), whether or not a particular octogenarian lives or dies can make a profound difference on the laws of the country
2a) Congress has been very, very feckless for a long time
2b) Also because of 1a), the courts have the final say unless their decision gets overturned by a Constitutional Amendment, which is very hard to do (again see 1a)).
2c) Also because of 1), the nominations are inherently political because those doing the appointing and confirming are themselves political

[Kellhound]

At least you're admitting that the attack on personal freedom is entirely in their heads, lol.

The very concept of personal freedom is in our heads. Morality is subjective, politics is subjective, pretty much all human thought is subjective.

[Eviscero]

For starters, there are many people that argued that Democrats were the party of slavery historically.

Second of all, the Republicans passed the Civil Rights Bill with 80% support compared to the 60% support of the Democrats. Byrd had a 14 hour fillibuster against it.

At some point, we have to start calling a spade a spade.

And, to be fair, before referring to obvious factual historical data, you can see where the party (Democrats) of moral superiority and everything identitarian HAS to have history be this way, right?

And yet, the Republicans in spite of all the actual claims that they are racist, are not out there committing racist acts en masse.

What you will find are people who are very far left trying to classify what are either very loose interpretations or flat out over reaching to find examples of racism.

For example, people called building a wall racist. How exactly is building a wall racist? Is there like a little doggy door that says "No insert-race-name-here allowed"?

Or is this the part where special liberties are taken to tell people what they actually meant when they aren't the ones who said it?

Anyways, I don't think Republicans are perfect though. Being the "good guys" relative to a horrendously corrupt and racist counterpart still can leave a lot to be desired.

For example, I hated the 90s Bush administration. It was easily the lowest point for the Republican party as a whole (yes, worse than Trump).

However, I still think that we will look back upon this time period historically with the Democrats having been on the wrong side of history. Their quickness to censor free speech and exercise control over dissenting opinions will not age well. Their extreme dedication to absolutism and purity is not going to age well. Their inability to acknowledge that they lost in 2016 because they simply were out of touch with America and not robbed will not age well.

There are a lot of things that will not age well with the Democrats. Donald Trump's mouth and what comes out of it, much of which, probably won't age spectacularly well. As an instigator in chief, I think we could have better leadership on that front. I think he would have had to be the bigger man but, in the end, I am convinced he didn't have to be the enemy of the media. I'm convinced he did not have to be so abrasive to Democrats.

That being said, I believe most honest working class and tax paying Americans are going to look at this historical segment and chalk this period up to a bad look for Democrats. Republicans can still poop the bed later on in history though. Anything is possible.

Man this guy is going to get an A+ in Trump's Reeducation Courses. Can I copy off your essay about the true meaning of Trumpmas?

[Gestopft]

People in this thread really be making the Crash argument.

You'll have to remind me what that is; I saw it in high school and all I remember of it was Jennifer Esposito's nipples.

[seashell86]

More importantly the system itself is one of white supremacy.

People in this thread really be making the Crash argument.

No, I'm really not.

Calling someone a white supremacist cuts both ways.

Many Democrats suffer from the bigotry of low expectations. That, in itself, is a form of white supremacy. It's an equally valid form of subconscious racism as what you might propose.

It takes a great deal of arrogance to assume that African Americans' only path to success lies through the Democratic party. They never have and never will need the Democrats. Historically, they would have been better off without them honestly.

It's only a white supremacist who believes that their outstretched hand entails the pathway to the promised land for people based on a possessed abundance of melanin. Don't believe me? Look at the large portion of the African American community which assembled peacefully during the George Floyd protests only to have their honest intentions misrepresented by bored white liberals with no skin in the game and nothing on the line.

I'm not saying I agree with this overinflated narrative of police brutality but I will always support people's right to protest. Although, I will scratch my head as to how we cannot peacefully assemble at the voting booth but we can for another cause, but I suppose that's a conversation for another time.

Just silliness.

For what it's worth, I think the best outcome is for Democrats to lose this election, the party to implode, and a new party of logic and reason that is dedicated to justice to emerge like a phoenix from the Democratic ashes. It will be free of the historical failings of its predecessor (even if in name, which is still a lot in my book).

[Elegiac]

The very concept of personal freedom is in our heads. Morality is subjective, politics is subjective, pretty much all human thought is subjective.

That's nice but it really doesn't change the fact that "rural oppression" is a fiction and your only evidence for it existing is people believe in it really hard.

As opposed to actual oppression, which I take it y'all are unfamiliar with given your eagerness to be victimized.

[Machismo]

No, I'm really not.

Calling someone a white supremacist cuts both ways.

Many Democrats suffer from the bigotry of low expectations. That, in itself, is a form of white supremacy. It's an equally valid form of subconscious racism as what you might propose.

It takes a great deal of arrogance to assume that African Americans' only path to success lies through the Democratic party. They never have and never will need the Democrats. Historically, they would have been better off without them honestly.

It's only a white supremacist who believes that their outstretched hand entails the pathway to the promised land for people based on a possessed abundance of melanin. Don't believe me? Look at the large portion of the African American community which assembled peacefully during the George Floyd protests only to have their honest intentions misrepresented by bored white liberals with no skin in the game and nothing on the line.

I'm not saying I agree with this overinflated narrative of police brutality but I will always support people's right to protest. Although, I will scratch my head as to how we cannot peacefully assemble at the voting booth but we can for another cause, but I suppose that's a conversation for another time.

Just silliness.

For what it's worth, I think the best outcome is for Democrats to lose this election, the party to implode, and a new party of logic and reason that is dedicated to justice to emerge like a phoenix from the Democratic ashes. It will be free of the historical failings of its predecessor (even if in name, which is still a lot in my book).

You still cannot explain Stephen Miller.

[Elegiac]

You'll have to remind me what that is; I saw it in high school and all I remember of it was Jennifer Esposito's nipples.

Long and short of it is Crash is a terrible for-your-consideration Oscar bait movie that somehow won Best Picture despite being a terrible movie. I bring it up because Crash is a classic example of media that deals with race relations in a very clumsy way by painting racism as a function of people being mean to each other rather than like, a system.

The same thing applies to Bright, if you're looking for a more contemporary example.

[Kellhound]

That's nice but it really doesn't change the fact that "rural oppression" is a fiction and your only evidence for it existing is people believe in it really hard.

As opposed to actual oppression, which I take it y'all are unfamiliar with given your eagerness to be victimized.

That is your opinion, which is the whole point.