If I were forced to admit it,  my suspicion is that this is an excuse.  A valid one, IMO,  but if it were their main objection,  where was the opposition to Trump vowing to appoint a female to the supreme court. It smells of hypocrisy, among other things.

I have never supported diversity for the sake of diversity.  I believe merit and qualifications are the only criteria, and sex/race do not enter the equation. 

I don't recall if we had a discussion on Trump's appointment here or not,  but I know I voiced oppostion at the time. 

you want a good objective look at several of Biden's just go to youtube and watch many of Senator Kennedy's Q' and A's with these people. Most any fundamental question is met with a blank stare and total inability to answer

I don't recall if we had a discussion on Trump's appointment here or not,  but I know I voiced oppostion at the time.

The actual discussions say otherwise Tim. You are welcome to find something outside of the discussions that shows what you say to be true.....since you KNOW this.

                Ruth Ginsburg            

                            24 responses |        

                Started by mcfarm - Sept. 18, 2020, 7:51 p.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/59276/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/59276/#59365

                By TimNew - Sept. 20, 2020, 8:20 p.m.            

                                 Biased as I am,  I can't support pubs rushing to an appointment.  It's political suicide.  Pelosi saying the house will do everything they can to stop it is illegal.  The house has no legal arrows in SCOTUS appointments.  All they have is illegal obstruction.   Ginsberg's dying wish of having the next president appointing her replacement is an argument that she does not understand the constitution.   The Supreme Court is apolitical by design.  Their job is to interpret the constitution, and Ginsberg failed to do that throughout her career, so I am not surprised,,

But in the final..    If the pubs push through the appointment,  it will cost them crucial votes. AT this point,  Trump has a better than even chance.   This will cost him, possibly more than he can afford.  In the court of public opinion, they don't have time to make valid arguments.

Just my two cents.  

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                GOP Hypocricy            

                            3 responses |

                Started by joj - Sept. 21, 2020, 8:30 p.m.        

    https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/59414/

                By TimNew - Sept. 22, 2020, 4:14 a.m.            

                                        I'll note the plethora of Dem quotes supporting the appointment 4 years ago are excluded from your list.  There is hypocrisy on both sides and only a hypocrite would fail to notice.

One step further.  You have Pelosi opening threatening to use Impeachment as a form of obstruction and you see statements like "If they rush this through,  we're gonna burn the whole MFer down" receive acceptance, if not support.   I don't care how much you oppose republicans.   Those reasons can't be good enough to support things like these.  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

                Amy Coney Barrett nomination speech            

                            9 responses |      

                Started by metmike - Sept. 27, 2020, 2:21 p.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/59550/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/59550/#60037

                By TimNew - Oct. 13, 2020, 2:39 p.m.            

                                           Yes,  but she has, and will base her judgments on a literal interpretation of the constitution.  That's one of the top objections liberals have to any SCOTUS appointee.  (Forget that it's the basis of the job description).

There are some things, to this day,  that they can't get through the legislative process.  They need activist judges.

                Senate Hearings?            

                            3 responses |           

                Started by joj - Sept. 23, 2020, 8:57 p.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/59465/#59480

                By TimNew - Sept. 24, 2020, 4:33 a.m.            

            Why is it spineless for Trump and the senate to do their jobs.

Forget the fact that a flaming liberal will be replaced by a staunch conservative  who will  use the constitution to form conclusions and rulings* and that this will change the makeup of the court for at least a generation making it impossible for liberals to use judicial activism to write laws that could never have survived the legislative process. 

That's all irrelevant.    How is this spineless?

*You know, the actual job description of a supreme court justice.

Edit Note:  Changed Republican to Conservative as we know they are not always (often) the same thing.

 "I believe merit and qualifications are the only criteria, and sex/race do not enter the equation." 

Tim, I'm glad you are so unbiased.  Do you believe that the overwhelming representation of white males in positions of power (corporate, government and judiciary) throughout our history continuing to the present day indicates that we have been, and continue to be, favoring white males in our selection process (and ignoring the merits of candidates)?  Or, is that representation evidence that white males are superior on the merits?    

Wow MM. Thanks for doing all that research. This is obviously very important to you  :-)

I probably should have mentioned my beliefs on appointments like that in the discussions you referenced,  but by the time of those discussions, the appointment had been made and we were mostly talking about the battle being waged between dems and pubs.  It's possible it came up in another discussion,  but I am not going to waste my time proving to myself what I have believed for the majority of my adult life.  As it appears to be very important to you,  you are welcome to continue digging.  I'm willing to bet large sums that you will never find a statement from me saying that it was fine for Trump to limit his selection to a particular sex/race.

JOJ,  we could spend weeks on that discussion,  but as mentioned above,  I know what I believe on this.  I have hired and promoted many times over the last few decades and I have never used sex or race as a criteria.  I do have a disadvantage in that  software development, as in most STEM careers,  is male dominated.  That's changed a lot since I started, but I think it's still well over 60%.

Speaking of change, the demographics in most industries have changed dramatically over the last few decades, and as technology advances, it will probably keep changing.

But in the final,  I am in no position to answer for the entire world.  I can only tell you what I think/believe.

Tim,

I new you'd find a way to not answer the question directly.  I just didn't know exactly how you would avoid the 2 choices.

JOJ,  you offered a True/False option for an essay question.

I'm sorry if you did not understand my answer.

"Wow MM. Thanks for doing all that research. This is obviously very important to you  :-)"

Everybody should know by now that I always give ALL the weighting to facts, data, evidence and truth and will always,  regardless of which side it supports,  go the extra mile to provide it in order to definitively prove/disprove or confirm/debunk any or all points from anybody............in a world that features people manufacturing, distorting and misleading others.

It's critical in the battle AGAINST DISinformation to have authentic information to combat that.

You didn't know that about me already???

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 "I'm willing to bet large sums that you will never find a statement from me saying that it was fine for Trump to limit his selection to a particular sex/race."

Wow, Tim! Talk about totally moving the goal posts!

Let me remind you, this was your original statement:

"I don't recall if we had a discussion on Trump's appointment here or not,  but I know I voiced oppostion at the time."

Like many discussions here, I'm now in the phase that, as a scientist, analyzes why you respond this way. ......which comes after the data/facts were shown and the debate was already settled but you keep twisting things because your objective is often  to have arguments and to keep your undefeated record of winning every time intact........even when the scores are something like XX-0 and time ran out 5 minutes earlier.

I don't recall if we had a discussion on Trump's appointment here or not,  but I know I voiced oppostion at the time."

I'm sorry if that was not clear.

Let me rephrase.

I don't recall for certain if I stated it here, but I did tell people that I know that I opposed an appointment based on sex at the time.

Reading the original the way you appear to have would mean I said that I knew for sure that I made a statement here in a conversation I'm not sure we had.     That would not make much sense would it.

"I'm sorry if that was not clear......I don't recall for certain if I stated it here, but I did tell people that I know that I opposed an appointment based on sex at the time."

And he digs the hole deeper by doing exactly what I just showed earlier!

Keep changing the original statement until it matches up with a definition that means Tim was always correct from the beginning, after I conclusively show the definitive evidence that the original statement was WRONG. 

Since we can't ask PEOPLE THAT I KNOW what you said...........it means that Tim can never be wrong.

Just my continued analysis of what you are doing. We had 4 threads discussing this here that I showed and you made comments in each of them, which I showed. So while you were NOT making that comment here, when it would have been extremely relevant.........you were telling other people NOT here what you originally said you stated here but didn't?

And now you want me to find statements that say you were for it and if I can't that means you must have been against it????

I'm willing to bet large sums that you will never find a statement from me saying that it was fine for Trump to limit his selection to a particular sex/race.

Geez. Just be honest and admit that you reacted totally different to when a republican nominated a justice because she was a woman to when a democrat nominated a black woman because of her gender/race.

You've objected over a dozen times to Biden doing it but in 4 conversations about Trump,. was as quiet as a mouse about it.........a dead mouse. 

I just showed the facts HERE AT MARKETFORUM.

You can say that you were different outside of here but we're basing everything on your words here, just like I expect others to judge me on my words here.

I don't doubt that you even have this position Tim but YOU ACTED TOTALLY DIFFERENT HERE based on what party the president was/is from.

MM.  You don't even realize how silly you're being.

This is what I said.

I don't recall if we had a discussion on Trump's appointment here or not,  but I know I voiced oppostion at the time."

This is what you read.

I don't recall if we had a discussion on this,  but in this discussion that I don't recall,  I know for a fact that I voiced opposition.

Do you not see how that makes no sense?   

Maybe you should step back and take a few relaxing breaths  :-)

I just deal in facts Tim but if you want to try to twist it into metmike just being silly  to dig your hole even deeper..........let me clarify the non silly facts for you.

* There were 4 threads/conversations here about this topic at MarketForum when Trump told us he was going to pick a woman for the Supreme Court.

*You posted opinions in all 4 of those previous threads.

*Not a mention or objection by you about Trump declaring that it  would be a woman.

*Earlier in this thread, you declared  "I know I voiced opposition at the time"

*This is the only reason that I retrieved those threads to see if you really did voice opposition......you didn't.

*What you said to other people in other places at other times is between you and them. We can only use what people say here in conversations after they claim they said it. In 4 threads on the topic, you had plenty of opportunity to say what you claimed you said.........but not a word from you when it was Trump declaring he was picking a woman.

* When Biden did the exact same thing, only race was also included for him........you became extremely outspoken, objecting strongly to it from the get go (even before knowing who the person was) in a dozen posts.

So there are 2 main reasons that I can think of to explain this and joj basically summed them up with a question to start this thread:

"Is the GOP opposition racism or just more of the same being opposed to anything Biden does?"

One of the previous discussions on this:

                supreme court            

                            44 responses |                

                Started by mcfarm - Jan. 26, 2022, 4:13 p.m.      

      https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/80852/

I am not doubting that you are sincere about your reason to object to Biden picking a black woman in 2022. But you are applying different standards for Biden and for Trump.

Denying it today,  when it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt with your own words is only fooling yourself and others that don't want to base their opinions on facts but would rather live in a tribal bubble where they just repeat things to reinforce what they want to be true and when the rhetoric is proven false.......respond by twisting it, then repeating it and calling those that question it, things like silly or pathetic.....instead of embracing enlightenment.

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/72971/#73068

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#77012

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#78974

Taking a break here and introducing a completely unrelated subject.

Have you seen that meme floating around that says something like "The key to happiness is to avoid arguing with stupid people" ?

Anyway..  Back to the subject at hand..

You are absolutely right MM.  I  absolutely clearly stated that I typed, IN BOLD LETTERS   right here on the forum that I objected to Trump limiting his selection to a women.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Moving along once again.

Notice,  I made a statement above that most would not find offensive. And altho I know it's absolutely not,  in the worst case, it would be a mistake.   You have turned it into a multi-post trivial dispute and in the process, once again, called me a liar.

So quick question.  Do you think, perhaps, that instead of "moderator", you're title might be "instigator"?  Seems of late,  you are right in the middle of the majority of protracted disputes around here.   Don't get me wrong.   I am right in the middle of many as well, and as of yet.   you have not started deleting all of my posts.  Perhaps that will change, and then once again "There shall be Peace in the valley".  At least until you add someone else to your "enemies list"

Anyway,  assuming you don't delete this post,  in the future,  I'll make  my statements and be done.  Far too much wasted energy here. 

"Have you seen that meme floating around that says something like "The key to happiness is to avoid arguing with stupid people" ?

Exactly Tim and that's what I keep trying to emphasize to you and have repeatedly been insisting when that I've moved beyond arguments many times and am just analyzing your behavior as a scientist after the debate was settled along time ago based on the facts.

In fact, earlier in this very thread.........

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/81658/#81684

metmike: "Like many discussions here, I'm now in the phase that, as a scientist, analyzes why you respond this way. ......which comes after the data/facts were shown and the debate was already settled but you keep twisting things because your objective is often  to have arguments and to keep your undefeated record of winning every time intact........even when the scores are something like XX-0 and time ran out 5 minutes earlier"

So continuing on with that moderating philosophy:

On your last post, we see with the quote at the top, that you are now using a not very thinly veiled personal attack and condescension to respond to facts. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condescension

If you are actually sincere about following wonderful quotes, here are some for you Tim:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/72971/

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/68879/

"You are absolutely right MM.  I  absolutely clearly stated that I typed, IN BOLD LETTERS   right here on the forum that I objected to Trump limiting his selection to a women.  Thanks for clearing that up."

The debate part has long ago already been settled but now, you've resorted to blatantly making things up.  I'm analyzing why you've resorted to even more blatantly making things up with the last statement. Maybe you think there are far right readers that won't check?

I'll help them with that:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/81658/#81669

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/81658/#81694

You will note that I never made any personal attacks on you Tim or made things up..........nothing but facts, then a continued analysis of your behavior. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.  The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning occurs where the validity of an argument is not based on an attribute of the person putting it forward, but on deduction or syllogism.

Abusive Ad hominem lies near the bottom end of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

See also: List of fallacies

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is categorized as an informal fallacy, more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.^[11] Several types of ad hominem fallacies exist. All of these follow a general scheme where instead of dealing with the essence of someone's argument or trying to refute it, the interlocutor attacks the character of the proponent of the argument and concludes that the attack refutes the argument

Remember Tim, this discussion between us only resulted because of a fact check of your claim:

"I don't recall if we had a discussion on Trump's appointment here or not,  but I know I voiced oppostion at the time."

As everybody knows, I always fact check everything here, regardless of the source and hold myself accountable to the same standards.

Just some advice from somebody that sincerely wants to help you. When this sort of thing happens........acknowledge it immediately and it will quickly turn into something in the rear view mirror that goes away.

Taking the path that you've chosen can work if the other side has no facts or is wrong or is stupid as you insinuated.

If they aren't..............you greatly amplify the damage to yourself and in essence, to any position that you are trying to take at that time.

Fighting the obvious truth or defending a lie is never a good path.

This also applies to the topic that we are discussing here:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/81536/

I totally get that you are against Biden picking a black woman before deciding who it is. 

Pretending that you had the same standard with Trump.........when you obviously did not,  wrecks your credibility.

The way to go would be to admit that you are a republican that ALSO sees things from a political position and that caused you to give Trump a free pass on this important issue(because the judge in his case was a CONSERVATIVE woman and party affiliation TRUMPS gender and race for you.

Just acknowledging what everyone on the planet, including you know, would allow you to continue to argue that qualification should always be considered before race and gender............(unless its a republican).

It's perfectly  ok to admit that because you are a republican you see things thru the eyes of a republican. Pretending otherwise and that you always look at things objectively and they always end up 100% being supportive of republicans is pretty insane when you actually think about it. 

Republicans do have some great agenda and are right some of the time.

Since you showed us earlier that you like quotes..........here a good one for you:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#77012

Biden interviews with Supreme Court candidates have begun

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-supreme-court-interviews/

Democrats Expect Smooth Nomination for Jackson, Despite GOP Opposition

https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-expect-smooth-nomination-jackson-despite-gop-opposition-1682939?utm_source=PushnamiMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=automatic&UTM=1645891424028&subscriberId=60906021e94838e5a1071a4c

GOP Sen. Marsha Blackburn says it was 'extremely inappropriate' for Biden to announce SCOTUS pick 'just days after an unprovoked full scale invasion by Russia'

https://www.businessinsider.com/marsha-blackburn-extremely-inappropriate-supreme-court-biden-ukraine-ketanji-jackson-2022-2

metmike: Politicians, because of politics sometimes say the dumbest things about people in the other party.