|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 26, 2020 19:15:14 GMT -5
Another Trump promise kept.
|
|
|
Post by james on Oct 26, 2020 21:04:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 26, 2020 21:08:45 GMT -5
Not really. But I actually live here.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 27, 2020 6:20:06 GMT -5
Nothing pisses off the liberals like a conservative woman winning. Congratulations to her.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2020 7:11:31 GMT -5
Interesting that, in this era of identity politics that a woman justice nominee is sworn in by a black justice...and the left goes bonkers.
The identity stuff is a smokescreen.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 27, 2020 7:20:07 GMT -5
Kavanaugh.
Gorsuch.
Barrett.
K...G...B...
KGB?
Hmmmmm....
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 27, 2020 7:39:49 GMT -5
Interesting that, in this era of identity politics that a woman justice nominee is sworn in by a black justice...and the left goes bonkers. The identity stuff is a smokescreen. The cultural left is fully invested in Critical Social Justice, which is itself built on what they call "Standpoint Theory". Standpoint Theory says there is no such thing as truth, reason, scientific inquiry, or objective fact. All truth is socially constructed, and the concept of "right and wrong" is a function of the speaker's identity, rather than his or her words. (This is what is meant when they say things like "decolonize science".) They have taken the genetic fallacy and turned it into an epistemology. Dig a little deeper (I'm tapping this out on my phone and don't have time to break it all down), and you'll see how in a manner identical to how Critical Social Justice has erased the concept of "woman"*, they will erase the identity of any individual who rejects their oppression narrative. That is how they conclude that Thomas isn't black, and Barrett isn't a woman. Which, of course, makes no sense and is ridiculous. But that's literally how Critical Social Justice works. How could anything built on a logical fallacy be otherwise? * "woman" is now a meaningless designation. It doesn't represent an expression of a biological binary construct.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 27, 2020 7:55:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 27, 2020 8:12:15 GMT -5
I thought "decolonize science" meant get your head out of your ass and look at the facts. I could be wrong. It's pretty much the opposite of that. It's a process of replacing facts (and reason, logic, and objectivity) with identity.
|
|
|
Post by kbcolorado on Oct 27, 2020 8:21:31 GMT -5
A nice win for the other team. Congrats.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 27, 2020 8:22:39 GMT -5
I do wonder if ACB hurts Trump's chances in an unexpected way.
Never mind the unhinged wailing from the left. They were never going to vote for him anyway.
What I wonder about is my good friend Lane from Utah. Lane is an observant Mormon, and he swallowed hard to vote Trump in 2016. Trump's vulgarity was hard to get past.
What settled it for Lane was the certain prospect of SCOTUS nominations. He trusted Trump to nominate Originalists. That was it.
(The manifest vulgarities in the House of Clinton made it easier to swallow.)
With a low probability of SCOTUS vacancies in the next term, that rationale is off the table for the most part. I wonder how many "hesitant but SCOTUS" voters Trump loses.
Today, Lane etal can look at their 2016 vote, observe that they got the SCOTUS they wanted, and declare "mission accomplished".
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Oct 27, 2020 8:31:50 GMT -5
I thought "decolonize science" meant get your head out of your ass and look at the facts. I could be wrong. It's pretty much the opposite of that. It's a process of replacing facts (and reason, logic, and objectivity) with identity. My comment was a joke, Jeff. De-Colon-ize, sort of like colonoscopy prep.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 27, 2020 8:40:59 GMT -5
Interesting that, in this era of identity politics that a woman justice nominee is sworn in by a black justice...and the left goes bonkers. The identity stuff is a smokescreen. The cultural left is fully invested in Critical Social Justice, which is itself built on what they call "Standpoint Theory". Standpoint Theory says there is no such thing as truth, reason, scientific inquiry, or objective fact. All truth is socially constructed, and the concept of "right and wrong" is a function of the speaker's identity, rather than his or her words. (This is what is meant when they say things like "decolonize science".) They have taken the genetic fallacy and turned it into an epistemology. Dig a little deeper (I'm tapping this out on my phone and don't have time to break it all down), and you'll see how in a manner identical to how Critical Social Justice has erased the concept of "woman"*, they will erase the identity of any individual who rejects their oppression narrative. That is how they conclude that Thomas isn't black, and Barrett isn't a woman. Which, of course, makes no sense and is ridiculous. But that's literally how Critical Social Justice works. How could anything built on a logical fallacy be otherwise? * "woman" is now a meaningless designation. It doesn't represent an expression of a biological binary construct. My, my, my. Aren't we off in right field this morning. I suspect the Thomas/Barret show was carefully constructed for political purposes.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 27, 2020 8:51:00 GMT -5
I do wonder if ACB hurts Trump's chances in an unexpected way. Never mind the unhinged wailing from the left. They were never going to vote for him anyway. What I wonder about is my good friend Lane from Utah. Lane is an observant Mormon, and he swallowed hard to vote Trump in 2016. Trump's vulgarity was hard to get past. What settled it for Lane was the certain prospect of SCOTUS nominations. He trusted Trump to nominate Originalists. That was it. (The manifest vulgarities in the House of Clinton made it easier to swallow.) With a low probability of SCOTUS vacancies in the next term, that rationale is off the table for the most part. I wonder how many "hesitant but SCOTUS" voters Trump loses. Today, Lane etal can look at their 2016 vote, observe that they got the SCOTUS they wanted, and declare "mission accomplished". You should let your friend know that this is only the groundwork (very necessary groundwork) for the breaking of the Administrative State which will be the highlight of the second term and indeed the entire Trump presidency. He needed this majority to reverse Massachusetts v. EPA. Despite all the left's sturm and drang about ACA, Roe v. Wade, etc., they completely missed that one.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 27, 2020 9:11:15 GMT -5
My, my, my. Aren't we off in right field this morning. When architects start losing their licenses because they shared the "wrong" Facebook post, come see me.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Oct 27, 2020 9:17:18 GMT -5
You'll be the first one I visit. Make sure you have some Pedleton on hand.
|
|
|
Post by theevan on Oct 27, 2020 10:51:22 GMT -5
Buyer's remorse is why I hate early voting
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 27, 2020 11:06:50 GMT -5
From what I understand you can. Show up at the polls on election day and you can choose whether you want the early vote thrown out so you can do it again.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Oct 27, 2020 11:24:25 GMT -5
The "Left" I encounter doesn't have any idea what whatever it was Jeff was talking is about. Alien gooblygook. And most have no problem with Barrett either as a person or a judge.
McConnell, on the other hand, is another story.
The sourness is over McConnell's power play, not Barrett. Barrett is clearly qualified and will probably be just fine (and may well end up being a disappointment to some that had great hopes).
(and yes, the method was perfectly legal, just not cricket)
((and yes again, given the same hand, the Democrats may have played it exactly the same. Unknown or knowable. But given the same hand in the future, yeah, probably))
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Oct 27, 2020 12:08:28 GMT -5
The "Left" I encounter doesn't have any idea what whatever it was Jeff was talking is about. Alien gooblygook. Of course it is. That's by design. And it's coming for you, whether you know about it or not. A good primer from Heather Heying, a personal heroine of mine.
|
|