Paul: re crack pipes

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I'll ask again. Did they say that when Trump said he would only pick a candidate approved by the Federalist Society?

And how about when Reagan said he would only pick a woman? Was it obviously illegal then?

saying you’ll pick one that conservatives will like, is a little different than saying your pick will be a certain gender and color.

does any president pick one whose politics aren’t similar to the presidents?

i was a tad young when reagan made that announcement. but it was a stupid thing for him to declare. it’s blatantly unconstitutional.

You asked this already, and I gave the same answer, which answers your question as it was asked, and is consistent with my view on Biden. If you'd care to ask the same question again, perhaps you can flag my response here and just refer back to it, that'll save us both some time.

Picking someone of a certain gender or race for political reasons (like Trump picking Barrett) is one thing. Declaring way ahead of time that only one race/gender will be considered, is something else. It's stupid when Reagan did it, and it's stupid fo Biden to do it.

Does anyone here, or on Bidens team, ask themselves why his approval ratings are where they are?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

saying you’ll pick one that conservatives will like, is a little different than saying your pick will be a certain gender and color.

does any president pick one whose politics aren’t similar to the presidents?

i was a tad young when reagan
made that announcement. but it was a stupid thing for him to declare. it’s blatantly unconstitutional.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, thus the President may nominate any individual to serve on the Court.

But obviously conservatism is the principle that in groups are protected but not bound by law and out groups are not protected but bound.

Because, originalism…….

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, thus the President may nominate any individual to serve on the Court.

But obviously conservatism is the principle that in groups are protected but not bound by law and out groups are not protected but bound.

Because, originalism…….

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’ll make it as simple as i can…

if it’s ok for Biden to say white men can’t apply for this job, it’s equally ok for someone else to say that blacks can’t apply for another job.

Unless whites are not equal
to blacks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’ll make it as simple as i can…

if it’s ok for Biden to say white men can’t apply for this job, it’s equally ok for someone else to say that blacks can’t apply for another job.

Unless whites are not equal
to blacks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are two types of people in this country.

1. People who see opportunities for minority populations as progress that makes us proud.

2. People who see minority populations gaining equality as a threat.

Group 1 are Americans.
Group 2 are Republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There are two types of people in this country.

1. People who see opportunities for minority populations as progress that makes us proud.

2. People who see minority populations gaining equality as a threat.

Group 1 are Americans.
Group 2 are Republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right. That's why Republicans are in favor of school choice, and why democrats hate school choice. This is why Republicans make the case for the benefit of intact families, and why liberals incentivize fatherlessness.

Second time, why did Democrats get so miserable when Republicans were celebrating the lowest black unemployment ever? If what you posted is even a little bit true, wouldn't congressional democrats celebrate that?

For Gods sake, even the congressional black caucus acted like someone just ran over their dog. Even they couldn't celebrate that. Because democrats care about winning, not about blacks getting ahead.

All you have is hyper-partisan nonsense Pete. Things that make great bumper stickers for thoughtless liberal livestock, but which are laughable.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Right. That's why Republicans are in favor of school choice, Do you mean private schools?and why democrats hate school choice. This is why Republicans make the case for the benefit of intact families, and why liberals incentivize fatherlessness. You mean by increasing benefits for people who have more children?

Second time, why did Democrats get so miserable when Republicans were celebrating the lowest black unemployment ever? If what you posted is even a little bit true, wouldn't congressional democrats celebrate that?That is a lie. You always throw that out but when asked to explain what exactly Trump did for Blacks you say opportunity zone which were shown to have limited benefit to Blacks but more to the developers while ignoring the ways his policies are furthering racial segregation, not to mention stoking racial divisions and violence.

For Gods sake, even the congressional black caucus acted like someone just ran over their dog. Even they couldn't celebrate that. Because democrats care about winning, not about blacks getting ahead.

All you have is hyper-partisan nonsense Pete. That was funny. You're the most divisive person here Things that make great bumper stickers for thoughtless liberal livestock, but which are laughable.

At least you're good for a laugh here.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

At least you're good for a laugh here.

"Do you mean private schools?"

Yes. Allowing inner city kids to choose private schools simply works, and it's wildly popular among people who would benefit. Unfortunately for those families, teachers unions tell democrats what to do in schools.

"you mean by increasing benefits for people who have more children?"

I mean handing out cash to people who have kids, and giving more cash when there's no husband in the picture.

Paul, when you tell people you'll pay them to have babies, and you'll pay them more if there's no husband than you'll pay them if there is a husband, what do you think is going to happen? Is it really hard to predict? I'm fine with giving poor parents subsidized food, diapers, formula, daycare, etc...Giving them cash, is a lucrative incentive to have children that you don't plan to take care of. We can all see the result of that.

"That is a lie"

You're saying I'm lying that democrats didn't celebrate low black unemployment at Trumps SOTU?

Here...go to the 1:00 mark or so, and you tell me I'm lying. The Congresional Black Caucus are all in their attire, all sitting there, miserable. Proof that they don't care about black well-being.

You tell me I'm not 100% correct there.

"what exactly Trump did for Blacks"

See if you can follow...He gave businesses massive incentive to hire. That helps people who aren't currently working, a disproportionate number of whom are black.

He also advocated for criminal justice reform (which liberals have wanted for many years, and which Obama chose not to deliver), increased funding for black colleges, advocated for school choice, things that disproportionately help blacks.

Blacks did great under Trump.

"You're the most divisive person here "

You have the ability to keep scrolling. Or to toughen up a little.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Right. That's why Republicans are in favor of school choice, and why democrats hate school choice. This is why Republicans make the case for the benefit of intact families, and why liberals incentivize fatherlessness.

Second time, why did Democrats get so miserable when Republicans were celebrating the lowest black unemployment ever? If what you posted is even a little bit true, wouldn't congressional democrats celebrate that?

For Gods sake, even the congressional black caucus acted like someone just ran over their dog. Even they couldn't celebrate that. Because democrats care about winning, not about blacks getting ahead.

All you have is hyper-partisan nonsense Pete. Things that make great bumper stickers for thoughtless liberal livestock, but which are laughable.

School choice is about moving my tax dollars to private institutions, just like for profit prisons.
Republicans claim to be for intact families but oppose any help that doesn’t have a cliff at the upper end.
Republicans consistently oppose healthcare reform, claiming that it will cost too much, but we already pay for it, I just want the money to pay for health care not an insurance executive's third mansion.
That the Republican Party thinks that a minuscule number of black candidates is worth bragging about should tell you all you need to know
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

seems like paul and pete are hitting the crack pipe pretty hard....

leftists will be full racism till november...should be fun and uniting

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

School choice is about moving my tax dollars to private institutions, just like for profit prisons.
Republicans claim to be for intact families but oppose any help that doesn’t have a cliff at the upper end.
Republicans consistently oppose healthcare reform, claiming that it will cost too much, but we already pay for it, I just want the money to pay for health care not an insurance executive's third mansion.
That the Republican Party thinks that a minuscule number of black candidates is worth bragging about should tell you all you need to know
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In my case, it would be about "my" tax dollars, not "your" tax dollars. Liberals are adamantly opposed to my being able to choose which school I spend my tax dollars on.

Because they care about appeasing teachers unions, more than they care about helping poor black children achieve their dreams.

"Republicans consistently oppose healthcare reform"

Wrong. They just oppose Obamacare. Although even Trump says that covering pre-existing conditions (which I've always said is morally obvious) is a good idea.

You just make stuff up. Constantly.

"Republicans claim to be for intact families but oppose any help that doesn’t have a cliff at the upper end."

Tell me what bill that would have kept families intact, the republicans opposed because there wasn't a cliff at the end? Or did you just fabricate that to suit your narrative, too?

"That the Republican Party thinks that a minuscule number of black candidates is worth bragging about should tell you all you need to know "

You have Hank Johnson, who said that he was worried Guam would tip over if we built a base there, and that's exactly what he said. You can keep him, and Maxine Waters. We'll keep Tim Scott.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

School choice is about moving my tax dollars to private institutions, just like for profit prisons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No it's not..

School choice allows public education funds to follow students to the schools or services that best fit their needs —whether that’s to a public school, private school, charter school, home school or any other learning environment families choose.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There are two types of people in this country.

1. People who see opportunities for minority populations as progress that makes us proud.

2. People who see minority populations gaining equality as a threat.

Group 1 are Americans.
Group 2 are Republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

saying you’ll pick one that conservatives will like, is a little different than saying your pick will be a certain gender and color.

does any president pick one whose politics aren’t similar to the presidents?

i was a tad young when reagan made that announcement. but it was a stupid thing for him to declare. it’s blatantly unconstitutional.

You asked this already, and I gave the same answer, which answers your question as it was asked, and is consistent with my view on Biden. If you'd care to ask the same question again, perhaps you can flag my response here and just refer back to it, that'll save us both some time.

Picking someone of a certain gender or race for political reasons (like Trump picking Barrett) is one thing. Declaring way ahead of time that only one race/gender will be considered, is something else. It's stupid when Reagan did it, and it's stupid fo Biden to do it.

Does anyone here, or on Bidens team, ask themselves why his approval ratings are where they are?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump said he would pick someone "choosen" by the Federalist society. Reagan said a woman. You and your ilk (I think that is a scummy word but one you throw out there frequently so I'll use it) shows the hypocrisy of the Rs.