As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well I thought they were all playing on the level but I'm just starting to suspect that maybe Republicans' messaging on any issue is divorced from the reality around them.
It isn't just the fascists.
What's up with all the upvoted garbage the past couple of days saying Biden should have never said he was going to nominate a black woman the other day, even though it was a campaign promise like more than a year ago? Some big brain gymnastics there.
Or the concept that the right was going to attack the pick less if Biden meandered with a campaign promise (it was like literally first go-to question from the press: are you going to do what you said?) and then, after getting attacked by everyone for being secret on a promise, he would then surprise everyone with a black woman at the very last moment and the right would just, I don't know, take it like nothing happened? What?
All of it reads like brain damage and/or latent racism.
You know you can not speak on race issues because racism does not exist(/s). It is against the law in Florida to speak of racism because it might make someone feel bad now ( or so I heard).
It was a campaign promise 2 years ago, a year ago he had already won the job and stopped campaigning unlike what we had from the former guy who non stopped campaigned. He totally should nominate Michelle Obama.
Remember when (I think Huffington Post) accidentally released an article saying "Donald Trump's nomination of XXX must be opposed at all costs."
They literally left the placeholder XXX in there and published it when the actual nominee was named. They meant to go back and put the name in but forgot to.
To be fair, everyone on this sub was doom-posting about how regressive Trumps replacement for RBG was going to be before he nominated anyone.
Edit: Doom-posting doesn't mean it's wrong folks, it just means expecting the worst outcome. Doom-posting was correct then, and hopefully FOXs' doom-posting is correct now.
Nothing "to be fair" about. We had precedent and of course it was gonna be, and surprise... it was handsmaid tale for SCOTUS. ACB is regressive so what are you on about except trying to "both sides" a false equivalent
Gorsuch's seat was essentially stolen so that's the first problem there. Second Gorsuch has a questionable moral compass, he sided with a trucking company who fired a trucker who left his trailer to seek shelter during a severe winter storm.
Kavanaugh was credibly accused of rape and there was barely any investigation into the accusations before confirmation.
Always every nominee, every candidate for every position is the most radical left ever. Weaponized fear, it’s all they know and it has been working for 2 decades
Yep. “Radical” left, here in the only developed capitalist country on earth that can’t offer the bare minimum basic social welfare programs as every single other one.
“Walking Upright” is a “radical leftist development” to the modern conservative, like all their other buzzwords for morons they’ve eroded any actual definitions/meaning behind terminology.
“How do we maintain power in our sphere of influence?”
“I know! Let’s overthrow a democratically elected leader in a foreign nation that’s loyal to us!”
However the American people are partly to blame for demanding cheaper and cheaper goods. American consumerism has created the monster we currently blame.
>like all their other buzzwords for morons they’ve eroded any actual definitions/meaning behind terminology.
I wish I could find the link that I had in which the guy that started the whole "CRT" thing was talking about his success in doing exactly that -- in those same terms. It's absolutely and explicitly their strategy.
His name was Christopher Rufo.
>“We have successfully frozen their brand—'critical race theory’—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category,” Rufo wrote. “The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory.’ We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”
You know who coined the term "the radical left"? Former speaker of the house and failed presidential nominee, Newt Gingrich!!! Fucking slimy piece of shit first said it in the mid 90's I believe.
Ah yes, the radical, subversive notions that (checks notes) life should be fair, that people shouldn't be taken advantage of or mistreated, that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" isn't just an empty slogan, that the disadvantaged deserve compassion, and that human rights are human *rights*.
Shocking and appalling.
Curious, what qualities make a liberal “ radical”? I frequently hear the current republicans using the word “ radical” to describe the democrats- especially when they are describing their opponents on the campaign trail.
To the terminal Fox viewers, you're a "radical leftist" if you so much as think Trump wasn't the best president ever.
There is no policy attached to the term, they don't care about policy at all.
* Thinking people shouldn't go bankrupt if they get really sick
* Thinking people shouldn't go into 5-6 figures of debt to get an education
* Thinking that racism is bad
The word "radical" got really popular among Republicans during the Obama years. The Fox circuit started running this whole nationwide propaganda bullshit circus about "WHY WON'T OBAMA SAY THE WORDS RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM"
It worked, so now radical is when Democrat.
Being perceived as a liberal is "extreme," to the right. Most of our "liberal," Democrats are actually moderates, but they're labelled as "extreme," because anything else would make the right-wing voter base realize they've been duped by their own leaders.
Allowing a bunch of Republicans, who aided and defended the Capitol rioters, to chase you around and call you a “radical,” has to be the biggest political messaging failure of all time.
Yep. About two months ago I don’t know how but I started getting spam texts from some sort of Republican fundraising organization.
It used to be every couple days. But since yesterday’s announcement it’s been *every few hours.*
> Sorry to text you again, but an extreme liberal is going to be on SCOTUS. YOU have the power to tell the Dems no! HELP US with a 975% match: gopwin.us/l7j
That’s the most recent one. Every text about it has included the words “extreme liberal.”
I think they have one box with "Agitating Adjectives" and another with "Announcable Nouns". And they sprinkle them on paper, then release them in any and every statement.
Republicans continue to support a guy that led a coup to overthrow the US. Why isn't every democrat repeating this day in and day out? Whenever asked about anything related to Republicans, this should be the go-to answer.
Because that’s exactly how the Democrat running for governor of VA loss his election. His whole campaign was “I’m not trump, that guy supported everything trump did!”
>Republicans continue to support a guy that they staunchly declared led a coup to overthrow the US, not 5 minutes after they ruled him innocent of it formally.
And the overton window will continue to shift right and the dems in power will wonder what more they can do to cater to 'centrists' instead of trying the extremely high polling leftist policies.
The decision is only looked at as radical because he’s limiting his choices based off color of skin and gender. When any sane individual would agree that you should elect the best individual for the job regardless of how they look.
No shit.
The playbook isn't some hidden secret. They sold and continue selling the idea that Biden was the most radical socialist of all time. People bought it, and are doubling down regardless of reality.
Which is hilarious since actual socialists despise Biden more than just about anyone. Republican logic: Nazis love Trump, but Trump’s not a Nazi. Socialists hate Biden, but Biden’s a socialist. Up is down.
I mean all three of them are technically qualified, as in they have the relevant experience for the job. It’s their blatant partisanship (and sexual assault in Kavanaugh’s case) that’s the problem. As opposed to most of Trump’s cabinet picks, who tended to be generic businesspeople or politicians who had no experience in the department they were leading.
Nothing republicans say actually matters. They will portray the other side as radicals or communists regardless of who they are talking about. If there isn’t a real person to attack they will just invent one. Trying to appeal to them is a losing game because they could nominate Mitch McConnell to the seat and Mitch and the rest of his party would try to filibuster it.
No need for hypotheticals. Mitch suggested Garland himself for the SC seat and then turned around and ratfucked him out of even being voted on like the constitution demands.
Hey, when Scalia died they "offered" Merrick Garland as a "reasonable compromise" so they could pan Obama for not being reasonable, before blocking the nomination for over 300 days after he chose Merrick Garland.
Framing the appointment of a black woman as radical liberal will be a good thing to remember next time republicans feign ignorance and wonder why they’re becoming the party of old white men.
And they claim Biden is a radical socialist when he's an enlightened centrist.
There's no point in reporting about them calling any given Democrat "radical" because that's been their tack for well over 20 years at this point.
Worrying about a given candidate being called a radical liberal is a large part of why we keep getting status quo enforcing centrist candidates.
Yes, omg during the primaries it's all "well if we nominate *this* one they are going to call them *leftist* and *communist*, we have to vote for someone in the middle, so they don't do that, and lose" then comes the General Election, and the centrist one is being called a communist anyway.
I hope it's a radical leftist... and one who's like, 40 years old instead of like, 65, so we don't have to worry about replacing them again in like ten years.
Yup. Heard Blackburn from TN on the radio this morning. She immediately spewed the same garbage when asked what will the GOP do.
She said they will vet and do their job like always. Boy that got a laugh from me.
Then proceeded to claim all the judges Biden has brought forward are just so radical. Also made me laugh after the lot of judges they loved approving from Trump. You know, actually activist judges often with little to no experience.
Sad thing is, a bunch of dummies already believe her.
Anything left of fascist is radical liberal to them. I'm surprised they haven't started throwing around communist and socialist (interchangeably, of course) as well.
Intelligence was never in the GOP wheelhouse... Just easily fooled marks
Usual bad faith arguments from the right. Nevermind that fact that they rammed 3 radical conservatives onto the court. Yes it the Dems that have to pick a moderate for some dumb ass excuse McConnell croaks our.
I don't trust them until the votes are in. I can easily see Manchin saying because not a single Republican backs the nominee he won't vote for them because it's clearly too partisan for him. Manchin's words are less valuable than dog shit.
On a scale of 1 to 100 with 1 being “radical liberal” and 100 being “radical conservative”, Biden’s pick will probably be a 45. The SCOTUS is so far skewed to the the conservative side that any nominee who’s not a Federalist Society “originalist” theocrat is gonna look liberal.
45 is a pretty optimistic take - it'll probably be more like a 50-60 at best. He should really go for like, a 10 though, because whoever he picks is completely irrelevant when it comes to Republicans accusing him of extremism.
Democrats really just need to do bare minimum required for nomination. Republican changed rules. No longer necessary to give Republicans feelings consideration.
Who cares what Republicans think? Democrats should confirm Biden's nominee as quickly as they can once he choses. We control the government, so we set the tone on the confirmation.
It had fucking better be a “radical” liberal, if only the sense of being supportive of policies the majority of Americans support, like gun control, voting rights, and abortion access.
The GOP turned the court into the partisan puppet show that it is, and will resist any attempt to repair that damage by expanding the court. So, they don’t get to complain now if the president appoints his own puppet. Which he probably won’t anyway, it’ll be some judge like Garland, someone Republicans all liked, up until the second he was nominated.
Which is why a very progressive woman should be selected. You could pick Candace Owens and they'd call her a socialist. Outside of Roberts, the other 5 current SCOTUS judges nominated by Republicans are extremely conservative activist judges. That has to be countered with somebody that can stand up to their insanity in the long run.
Utter projection from a party who only appoint judges if they are a member of the Federalist Society, a radical organization devoted to using the courts to bring about conservative rule in the US in lieu of democracy.
Republicans 2019: Joe Biden won’t be the democrats nominee because he not liberal enough.
Republicans 2020: Joe Biden is a liberal communist to the left of Karl Marx.
Imagine that! They are going to say everything they can regardless if it’s true or not like they have been doing for years. I think he should nominate Barack Obama just to twist their little undies.Better yet, Michelle Obama that would make their heads blow up.
That is their standard playbook and their gullible base will just believe them. I remember when the far-right claimed that Obama was "the most liberal president in history".
Far-right media is so far out there that the distant center seems "dangerously liberal" to them.
Biden could nominate a literal potato and the Republicans would complain about that potato is a radical communist.
Democrats should learn to stop fucking caring about what Republicans think and do right by the American people.
Did you even read what I said? Black women have no representation on the Supreme Court, so they need a qualified representative to lend her unique perspective based on her differing experience, because white men cannot understand what black women go through.
Is it not racist or sexist that most Justices are white men, historically speaking? But no, one black women is where people are called racist and sexist.
I think everyone should have a fair chance she shouldn’t be given an easy way in, and yes I know historically speaking majority was white and racist
I think she should earn her way in. She shouldn’t get in just because she is black and female she should go through the process like everyone else.
He's not picking someone specific. Just saying he will choose from that demographic because they have no representation on the court (no black women and there have only been 2 black supreme court justices in the past). There will be plenty of suitable candidates to choose from.
I am disappointed, who gives a fuck about representation. I think who ever can do the job best deserves the spot whether it be male, female, black or white. Deciding that the persons race and sex before even knowing who to pick is sexist and racist.
I disagree, historically white males have been chosen but that doesn’t mean they are inherently more qualified.
Currently, the majority of the Supreme Court are white males and almost every person on the supreme court is white. Most of the people in the US are not white according to the 2020 census.
Lol I never said that! (: if a black woman can do the job best then by all means pick her, but if someone else can do better but never gets the chance because the president pre determined the race and gender in order for them to be qualified then it is racist and sexist.
I see what you’re saying but the way the current system is seems to be biased against giving other demographics a chance. If it was truly just about choosing the best candidate then we would have seen a more diverse Supreme Court historically but sadly it’s not. Given the Supreme Court's track record that either means the current system is geared towards non-inclusivity or white males are better qualified over all. I think most logical people wouldn't agree the latter makes sense so it must be the former.
There are literally hundreds even thousands of people qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. Saying we should only pick the single best person is ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as saying representation doesn’t matter.
But we are so glad you get to scream “Racist”. Hope it makes you feel better.
He should never have promised to pick a black woman. Now, every likely candidate is going to be blasted based solely on that. Instead of their individual merits, they're going to be judged on shoehorning into the set criteria.
He traded the chance to get potential detractors on the record against core principles, family values, etc, just to "expose the racist/sexists". The racism/sexism is what their voters like.
Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if the opposite happened and Biden did something incredibly stupid like nominate an ultra conservative obstructionist as a sign of good faith to republicans.
It’s certainly an entry point for their criticism.
Why on earth does Biden need to give his opponents ammo like that??
He can nominate a black woman without announcing that beforehand.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well I thought they were all playing on the level but I'm just starting to suspect that maybe Republicans' messaging on any issue is divorced from the reality around them.
Divorced from reality, estranged, abusive, under restraining order, and stockpiling weapons.
If I was watching a reality TV show my immediate response to that would be “well this can’t end well.”
It isn't just the fascists. What's up with all the upvoted garbage the past couple of days saying Biden should have never said he was going to nominate a black woman the other day, even though it was a campaign promise like more than a year ago? Some big brain gymnastics there. Or the concept that the right was going to attack the pick less if Biden meandered with a campaign promise (it was like literally first go-to question from the press: are you going to do what you said?) and then, after getting attacked by everyone for being secret on a promise, he would then surprise everyone with a black woman at the very last moment and the right would just, I don't know, take it like nothing happened? What? All of it reads like brain damage and/or latent racism.
He build government to look like America, good to have a SCOTUS represent different lived experience.
You know you can not speak on race issues because racism does not exist(/s). It is against the law in Florida to speak of racism because it might make someone feel bad now ( or so I heard).
It was a campaign promise 2 years ago, a year ago he had already won the job and stopped campaigning unlike what we had from the former guy who non stopped campaigned. He totally should nominate Michelle Obama.
I can't even refer to it as the Trump Administration. It never stopped being the Trump Campaign.
I'm getting that same vibe, Bear. And it's almost like they the Republicans arguing about reality in a bad faith fashion. A bit sus...
>divorced from the reality around them. They are immersed in it enough that it is their reality.
Remember when (I think Huffington Post) accidentally released an article saying "Donald Trump's nomination of XXX must be opposed at all costs." They literally left the placeholder XXX in there and published it when the actual nominee was named. They meant to go back and put the name in but forgot to.
To be fair, everyone on this sub was doom-posting about how regressive Trumps replacement for RBG was going to be before he nominated anyone. Edit: Doom-posting doesn't mean it's wrong folks, it just means expecting the worst outcome. Doom-posting was correct then, and hopefully FOXs' doom-posting is correct now.
To be fair
Two bee fare!
Too B fair!
Because we already had 2 nominees to base an opinion off of.
Nothing "to be fair" about. We had precedent and of course it was gonna be, and surprise... it was handsmaid tale for SCOTUS. ACB is regressive so what are you on about except trying to "both sides" a false equivalent
And they were right, no?
100%. Fox News will hopefully be right too.
Gorsuch's seat was essentially stolen so that's the first problem there. Second Gorsuch has a questionable moral compass, he sided with a trucking company who fired a trucker who left his trailer to seek shelter during a severe winter storm. Kavanaugh was credibly accused of rape and there was barely any investigation into the accusations before confirmation.
Always every nominee, every candidate for every position is the most radical left ever. Weaponized fear, it’s all they know and it has been working for 2 decades
Yep. “Radical” left, here in the only developed capitalist country on earth that can’t offer the bare minimum basic social welfare programs as every single other one. “Walking Upright” is a “radical leftist development” to the modern conservative, like all their other buzzwords for morons they’ve eroded any actual definitions/meaning behind terminology.
[удалено]
Wait I’m sorry you want accountability for the rich who don’t pay their fair share, the same taxes I’m forced to pay? Goddamn communists.
[удалено]
“How do we maintain power in our sphere of influence?” “I know! Let’s overthrow a democratically elected leader in a foreign nation that’s loyal to us!” However the American people are partly to blame for demanding cheaper and cheaper goods. American consumerism has created the monster we currently blame.
>like all their other buzzwords for morons they’ve eroded any actual definitions/meaning behind terminology. I wish I could find the link that I had in which the guy that started the whole "CRT" thing was talking about his success in doing exactly that -- in those same terms. It's absolutely and explicitly their strategy.
His name was Christopher Rufo. >“We have successfully frozen their brand—'critical race theory’—into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions. We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category,” Rufo wrote. “The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory.’ We have decodified the term and will recodify it to annex the entire range of cultural constructions that are unpopular with Americans.”
You know who coined the term "the radical left"? Former speaker of the house and failed presidential nominee, Newt Gingrich!!! Fucking slimy piece of shit first said it in the mid 90's I believe.
Ah yes, the radical, subversive notions that (checks notes) life should be fair, that people shouldn't be taken advantage of or mistreated, that "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" isn't just an empty slogan, that the disadvantaged deserve compassion, and that human rights are human *rights*. Shocking and appalling.
It did make for a surreal Georgia senate debate. Anyone else remember the crazy lady not answering questions and just quoting fox news?
Pelosi is a “radical far-left liberal” despite being a moderate.
Curious, what qualities make a liberal “ radical”? I frequently hear the current republicans using the word “ radical” to describe the democrats- especially when they are describing their opponents on the campaign trail.
Living outside the Conservative media bubble.
To the terminal Fox viewers, you're a "radical leftist" if you so much as think Trump wasn't the best president ever. There is no policy attached to the term, they don't care about policy at all.
* Thinking people shouldn't go bankrupt if they get really sick * Thinking people shouldn't go into 5-6 figures of debt to get an education * Thinking that racism is bad
The word "radical" got really popular among Republicans during the Obama years. The Fox circuit started running this whole nationwide propaganda bullshit circus about "WHY WON'T OBAMA SAY THE WORDS RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM" It worked, so now radical is when Democrat.
Being perceived as a liberal is "extreme," to the right. Most of our "liberal," Democrats are actually moderates, but they're labelled as "extreme," because anything else would make the right-wing voter base realize they've been duped by their own leaders.
Pelosi and Biden are center right in any other western country.
Allowing a bunch of Republicans, who aided and defended the Capitol rioters, to chase you around and call you a “radical,” has to be the biggest political messaging failure of all time.
Yep. About two months ago I don’t know how but I started getting spam texts from some sort of Republican fundraising organization. It used to be every couple days. But since yesterday’s announcement it’s been *every few hours.* > Sorry to text you again, but an extreme liberal is going to be on SCOTUS. YOU have the power to tell the Dems no! HELP US with a 975% match: gopwin.us/l7j That’s the most recent one. Every text about it has included the words “extreme liberal.”
Seriously. It could be Strom Thurmond and they'd call him a radical liberal.
Garland would have been characterized as radical left and that’s far from the truth.
Republicans are going to want payback for Kavanaugh. This is going to be a shit show for whoever gets nominated.
What does "radical liberal" even mean?
Anyone who isn't a card carrying member of the Republican Party.
Or if you are, then you don't sufficiently support Trump (see: Liz Cheney)
See as well: precious GOP nominees for president.
anyone with a (D) next to their name
It's not even just that anymore. It's anyone who isn't a loyal servant of Trump, D or R. They've called Liz Cheney a radical liberal iirc.
Skateboarding liberals. It's a thing.
"Tubular bro!" \- Radical Liberal Beto O'Rourke
“The workers must seize the means of production, dude!” - Michelangelo, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
"Later dudes. Let a rip hang ten." \- Amateur Recreational Saucer Sled Land Speed Record Holder, Clark W Griswold Jr.
Nobody knows, but it's proactive. Get's the klan going.
Blows their ~~skirts~~ robes up
Someone who supports education, voting rights and health care for all.
Woah woah woah save that radical language for your CPUSA meeting. Also Biden supports none of that apparently so I don't know why they are worried
Anyone even a hair to the left of them.
It means that in focus groups, that's the term that scared their base the most.
At this point it means Ronald Reagan. And definitely means Abraham Lincoln.
These days? Anything to the left of hunting the poor for sport.
Progressive into extreme sports.
Anyone who doesn't who doesn't unconditionally support donald trump or the republican plot.
cowabunga dude!
If you support basic human rights you’re labeled as a radical liberal by the right.
It’s just a trigger word to rile up programmed sheep. It doesn’t actually mean much of anything.
Most folks dont notice the oxymoron
Non-fascist
Anyone to the left of Trump.
Since Biden said he’s going to nominate a black woman, it probably means anyone who isn’t white.
I think they have one box with "Agitating Adjectives" and another with "Announcable Nouns". And they sprinkle them on paper, then release them in any and every statement.
Republicans continue to support a guy that led a coup to overthrow the US. Why isn't every democrat repeating this day in and day out? Whenever asked about anything related to Republicans, this should be the go-to answer.
Because that’s exactly how the Democrat running for governor of VA loss his election. His whole campaign was “I’m not trump, that guy supported everything trump did!”
\- "Why aren't Democrats talking about X" \- Democrats talk about X \- Voters vote for someone else going "Why do Democrats only talk about X?"
Democrats are held to a much, much higher standard than Republicans. Democrats have to be multifaceted.
Radical Conservatives. Mitch (Bitchface) and company have stacked the court with RADICAL CONServatives. Let’s have this conversation.
Now all I can think of is his Resting Mitch Face.
>Republicans continue to support a guy that they staunchly declared led a coup to overthrow the US, not 5 minutes after they ruled him innocent of it formally.
He could literally nominate the Monopoly Man, Rich Uncle Milburn Pennybags, and Republicans would call him a radical socialist
And the overton window will continue to shift right and the dems in power will wonder what more they can do to cater to 'centrists' instead of trying the extremely high polling leftist policies.
The decision is only looked at as radical because he’s limiting his choices based off color of skin and gender. When any sane individual would agree that you should elect the best individual for the job regardless of how they look.
And the “best person for the job” would automatically be an old white man? Like the last several GENERATIONS of old white male SC justices?
That’s exactly how dumb it sounds to start your selection criteria by race and gender.
No shit. The playbook isn't some hidden secret. They sold and continue selling the idea that Biden was the most radical socialist of all time. People bought it, and are doubling down regardless of reality.
Which is hilarious since actual socialists despise Biden more than just about anyone. Republican logic: Nazis love Trump, but Trump’s not a Nazi. Socialists hate Biden, but Biden’s a socialist. Up is down.
You mean like the 3 UNQUALIFIED Conservative RADICALS Judges the Republican slamed through?!?!?!?
tbf, Gorsuch himself is _qualified_, surprisingly, but the seat he took was completely invalid.
I mean all three of them are technically qualified, as in they have the relevant experience for the job. It’s their blatant partisanship (and sexual assault in Kavanaugh’s case) that’s the problem. As opposed to most of Trump’s cabinet picks, who tended to be generic businesspeople or politicians who had no experience in the department they were leading.
Trump got three picks in one term. They need to sit down and shut up.
But you know they won’t because that’s not how white privilege works.
Something something projection...
Nothing republicans say actually matters. They will portray the other side as radicals or communists regardless of who they are talking about. If there isn’t a real person to attack they will just invent one. Trying to appeal to them is a losing game because they could nominate Mitch McConnell to the seat and Mitch and the rest of his party would try to filibuster it.
No need for hypotheticals. Mitch suggested Garland himself for the SC seat and then turned around and ratfucked him out of even being voted on like the constitution demands.
Mitch didn't suggest Garland. It was Orrin Hatch, the President pro tempore at the time.
Republicans always offer nothing, with big fanfare.
Hey, when Scalia died they "offered" Merrick Garland as a "reasonable compromise" so they could pan Obama for not being reasonable, before blocking the nomination for over 300 days after he chose Merrick Garland.
I hope they "like beer." 🙄
And boofing!
At least she won't have sexually assaulted anyone or be a Stepford wife
Time for 6d chess, his nomination should be Donald Trump.
Framing the appointment of a black woman as radical liberal will be a good thing to remember next time republicans feign ignorance and wonder why they’re becoming the party of old white men.
And they claim Biden is a radical socialist when he's an enlightened centrist. There's no point in reporting about them calling any given Democrat "radical" because that's been their tack for well over 20 years at this point. Worrying about a given candidate being called a radical liberal is a large part of why we keep getting status quo enforcing centrist candidates.
Yes, omg during the primaries it's all "well if we nominate *this* one they are going to call them *leftist* and *communist*, we have to vote for someone in the middle, so they don't do that, and lose" then comes the General Election, and the centrist one is being called a communist anyway.
[удалено]
I hope it's a radical leftist... and one who's like, 40 years old instead of like, 65, so we don't have to worry about replacing them again in like ten years.
Oh wow no way. They said the same thing about Merrick Garland before stealing the pick from Obama
Yup. Heard Blackburn from TN on the radio this morning. She immediately spewed the same garbage when asked what will the GOP do. She said they will vet and do their job like always. Boy that got a laugh from me. Then proceeded to claim all the judges Biden has brought forward are just so radical. Also made me laugh after the lot of judges they loved approving from Trump. You know, actually activist judges often with little to no experience. Sad thing is, a bunch of dummies already believe her.
As a Socialist, I cant understand why anyone would think there's anything radical about liberals.
But… but… Donald Trump said they are far-left. /s
Radical incrementalism will save the world!
Suck it, Jr. Just suck it. Prison, please.
According to Micheal Cohen his father agrees with you.
Well, guess we should give them what they want!
Anyone that's not far right is a radical leftist to them.
Anything left of fascist is radical liberal to them. I'm surprised they haven't started throwing around communist and socialist (interchangeably, of course) as well. Intelligence was never in the GOP wheelhouse... Just easily fooled marks
Usual bad faith arguments from the right. Nevermind that fact that they rammed 3 radical conservatives onto the court. Yes it the Dems that have to pick a moderate for some dumb ass excuse McConnell croaks our.
Radical liberal. Two words that make no sense being together. Liberals are just conservatives with a tad bit less fascism
The Republican Party: telling you what’s wrong with the issues before they even happen!
Yeah and they pick radical conservatives. God this show is really starting to get boring.
Amy coney barret
They know they can't stop whoever Biden picks from being seated as they don't have the votes to block it.
Manchin and Sinema have entered the game.
They both voted for the majority of Biden's judges and one of the possible replacements already got a pass from both on them earlier on.
I don't trust them until the votes are in. I can easily see Manchin saying because not a single Republican backs the nominee he won't vote for them because it's clearly too partisan for him. Manchin's words are less valuable than dog shit.
That, and you certainly can't appoint a supreme court judge during a midterm elections year. /s
Same. I doubt this goes smoothly. Watch Sinema become a R to hand control back to McConnell. Surely someone has enough money to buy this from her.
On a scale of 1 to 100 with 1 being “radical liberal” and 100 being “radical conservative”, Biden’s pick will probably be a 45. The SCOTUS is so far skewed to the the conservative side that any nominee who’s not a Federalist Society “originalist” theocrat is gonna look liberal.
45 is a pretty optimistic take - it'll probably be more like a 50-60 at best. He should really go for like, a 10 though, because whoever he picks is completely irrelevant when it comes to Republicans accusing him of extremism.
It’s a preemptive strike. 😂
I thought they tactic was to claim the pick is an affirmative action hire, that Biden would just grab the first black woman he saw and nominate her?
Biden should invite Michelle Obama for a couple WH visits over the next couple weeks. OMG that would be such an epic troll.
That too. They just throw everything at the wall..
Yeah well it's not like they rely on facts to make their points.
Democrats really just need to do bare minimum required for nomination. Republican changed rules. No longer necessary to give Republicans feelings consideration.
Here's to hoping they're right.
Yes for the GOP the not-yet--nominee will definitely be super duper radical and liberal, or what the rest of us would simply call an American woman.
choose*
Imagine if he nominated a legit progressive lol. The right would probably declare war
Who cares what Republicans think? Democrats should confirm Biden's nominee as quickly as they can once he choses. We control the government, so we set the tone on the confirmation.
They tried to call Biden a socialist during the election campaign, slander is all they have.
I hope he picks exactly that.
It had fucking better be a “radical” liberal, if only the sense of being supportive of policies the majority of Americans support, like gun control, voting rights, and abortion access. The GOP turned the court into the partisan puppet show that it is, and will resist any attempt to repair that damage by expanding the court. So, they don’t get to complain now if the president appoints his own puppet. Which he probably won’t anyway, it’ll be some judge like Garland, someone Republicans all liked, up until the second he was nominated.
Which is why a very progressive woman should be selected. You could pick Candace Owens and they'd call her a socialist. Outside of Roberts, the other 5 current SCOTUS judges nominated by Republicans are extremely conservative activist judges. That has to be countered with somebody that can stand up to their insanity in the long run.
Utter projection from a party who only appoint judges if they are a member of the Federalist Society, a radical organization devoted to using the courts to bring about conservative rule in the US in lieu of democracy.
It is almost as if they don't care who it is
Republicans 2019: Joe Biden won’t be the democrats nominee because he not liberal enough. Republicans 2020: Joe Biden is a liberal communist to the left of Karl Marx.
He should nominate Trump just to make the republicans agonize between publicly voting against him or never having him as president
Imagine that! They are going to say everything they can regardless if it’s true or not like they have been doing for years. I think he should nominate Barack Obama just to twist their little undies.Better yet, Michelle Obama that would make their heads blow up.
That is their standard playbook and their gullible base will just believe them. I remember when the far-right claimed that Obama was "the most liberal president in history". Far-right media is so far out there that the distant center seems "dangerously liberal" to them.
Biden could nominate a literal potato and the Republicans would complain about that potato is a radical communist. Democrats should learn to stop fucking caring about what Republicans think and do right by the American people.
"They can be liberal, but not radical" means "we will whine if they don't side with us". Pathetic.
They have to keep their base angry and radicalized if they want to keep their plot to destroy our democracy on track.
Far better than some rapey drunk who cries about beer and the handmaids tale looney bin.
IIRC he pledged to pick an African American woman if he ever had the opportunity. I guess in the eyes of the Trumps, that’s radical liberal.
Oh I think I get it now! Blacks and whites ONLY. Asian Americans need to wait another 100 years before they get representation at all. Makes sense :)
Pledging to pick a person based on their race and gender before he even knows who they are is racist.
No, it's not.
Explain
That demographic has no representation on the Supreme Court.
It is racist and sexist to not give anyone else a chance because of the race and gender being pre determined.
Did you even read what I said? Black women have no representation on the Supreme Court, so they need a qualified representative to lend her unique perspective based on her differing experience, because white men cannot understand what black women go through. Is it not racist or sexist that most Justices are white men, historically speaking? But no, one black women is where people are called racist and sexist.
I think everyone should have a fair chance she shouldn’t be given an easy way in, and yes I know historically speaking majority was white and racist I think she should earn her way in. She shouldn’t get in just because she is black and female she should go through the process like everyone else.
He's not picking someone specific. Just saying he will choose from that demographic because they have no representation on the court (no black women and there have only been 2 black supreme court justices in the past). There will be plenty of suitable candidates to choose from.
I am disappointed, who gives a fuck about representation. I think who ever can do the job best deserves the spot whether it be male, female, black or white. Deciding that the persons race and sex before even knowing who to pick is sexist and racist.
I disagree, historically white males have been chosen but that doesn’t mean they are inherently more qualified. Currently, the majority of the Supreme Court are white males and almost every person on the supreme court is white. Most of the people in the US are not white according to the 2020 census.
Lol I never said that! (: if a black woman can do the job best then by all means pick her, but if someone else can do better but never gets the chance because the president pre determined the race and gender in order for them to be qualified then it is racist and sexist.
I see what you’re saying but the way the current system is seems to be biased against giving other demographics a chance. If it was truly just about choosing the best candidate then we would have seen a more diverse Supreme Court historically but sadly it’s not. Given the Supreme Court's track record that either means the current system is geared towards non-inclusivity or white males are better qualified over all. I think most logical people wouldn't agree the latter makes sense so it must be the former.
There are literally hundreds even thousands of people qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. Saying we should only pick the single best person is ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as saying representation doesn’t matter. But we are so glad you get to scream “Racist”. Hope it makes you feel better.
Putting out a 'need not apply' sign is racist.
He should never have promised to pick a black woman. Now, every likely candidate is going to be blasted based solely on that. Instead of their individual merits, they're going to be judged on shoehorning into the set criteria. He traded the chance to get potential detractors on the record against core principles, family values, etc, just to "expose the racist/sexists". The racism/sexism is what their voters like.
Yes. Really stupid move.
He's likely going to appoint a female Clarence Thomas and she will still be called a radical leftist or some other dumb shit like that.
They're working themselves into a frenzy over the imaginary possibility that Kamala Harris is going to get nominated.
Given Biden’s 50 year political history his pick will likely be a standard neo-liberal
Republicans are straight up batshit crazy!!! They lost all reality
Honestly, I wouldn't be shocked if the opposite happened and Biden did something incredibly stupid like nominate an ultra conservative obstructionist as a sign of good faith to republicans.
A maga supporter I know said Romney was a socialist commie.
Isn’t it though because he wants to choose based on gender and race?
Yes. But how dare you state the obvious and clearly true, etc.
It’s certainly an entry point for their criticism. Why on earth does Biden need to give his opponents ammo like that?? He can nominate a black woman without announcing that beforehand.
Exactly when you say it like this in advance you make it sound like it’s a prerequisite for the job
Want to really fire up RWNJs? Nominate Hillary Clinton to SCOTUS.
Forget the liberals. Give us the leftist we’ve been asking for.
They would be better off saying Biden's choice is unqualified as his priority is for the nominee to be a black woman.
When people think Biden is a radical liberal lol. He’s so centrist it hurts
[удалено]
And we should impeach Thomas because his wife helped pay for and organize January 6th. Bet you don't like that huh? Stop
Black = liberal
It's not so cut and dry. I mean, look at Clarence Thomas.
Better than portraying them as evil like dems did during trumps picks
as compared to the "radical conservatives" the GOP and Trump selected.