175
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
175 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19356 readers
1795 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Did Joe Biden nominate Clarence Thomas? Because that's the issue.
Do you really think Obama or Biden would have installed justices to end Roe if they had the chance? Be serious.
Biden is Catholic so... yes.
Biden has repeatedly said that he was pro-choice. Why don't you even know that?
politicians are notorious for lying and backstabbing.
What evidence do you have that he was in favor of outlawing abortion? Because "he's a Catholic" is not it. There are whole Catholic organizations that want legal abortion.
https://www.catholicsforchoice.org/who-we-are/our-case-for-support/pro-choice-catholicism-101/
he's a politician. that's literally all the evidence I need to believe he might be lying.
Ah, so he "might be" lying and that's why he would have put Supreme Court Justices in place that would have ended Roe.
Question- Is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson anti-abortion?
how many of those justices did Biden vote to confirm?
That's not an answer.
your question is a red herring
What makes it a red herring? I don't think you know what a red herring is. He has nominated a judge to the Supreme Court and she got voted in. If she is anti-abortion, it will prove your point. I'm not sure how giving you the opportunity to prove your point makes the question a red herring.
she wouldn't say whether she was pro or anti abortion during confirmation
biden voted for Thomas. he DID install him.
Is Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson pro- or anti- abortion?
this is a red herring.
The only example of a Supreme Court justice he nominated is a red herring?
yes. she would not say what she thought about abortion in her confirmation hearings. but we know he did confirm justices who have ruled to vacate roe v wade.
Please name the Supreme Court justice that was open about their view on abortion before being confirmed. Just one name please.
I don't know of any.
Then I guess you have no point.
my point is that Joe Biden is more responsible for the makeup of the current supreme Court than any president in history.
Yes, his predecessor who nominated three justices and got all three confirmed is far less responsible for the makeup of the court. Fact.
without the judgement that resulted from his decades of rubber-stamping nominees in the Senate, the jurisprudence and caselaw could have been radically different by the time Donald j Trump was in a position to nominate anyone. in fact, it's possible trump never would have been president if Biden had ever once in his life done the right thing.
So it's "possible" Trump would never have done that if Biden had done something else and that's why Biden is definitely worse than Trump. Gotcha. Go vote for Trump then. Problem solved.
I'm torn between Jill Stein and Cornel West at the moment
That'll sure make a difference. Definitely vote for a person who has no chance of winning. Your anonymous vote will definitely change things. Good plan.
I don't vote for someone unless I want them to win.
And there's definitely a possibility of either Jill Stein or Cornel West winning. That is something that has at least as high a chance of happening as me winning the Powerball. And I've never bought a lottery ticket.
I didn't say anything about probabilities. I'm talking about who is right for the job.
This is what you said:
So I guess you mean you only vote for people you fantasize about winning even if they have absolutely no chance?
What does that achieve?
sometimes the people I vote for win.
but why would I ever have over someone if I didn't want them to win?
Because if you vote for a person who actually has a chance of winning, you actually make a difference.
But sure. Jill Stein definitely has a chance of winning this time around. Not the last two times, but definitely this time.
what do I care what their chances of winning are if I don't want them to win? why would I have over someone if I don't want them to win?
So neither Trump nor Biden will do a single thing you want to happen or a single thing you want to stop happening that the other will not? Not one?
that isn't my standard. my standard is whether I want someone to win. that's why I vote for people.
Again- what does that achieve if they have no chance of winning?
I vote for the person that I want. that's what it achieves it's an end in itself.
No, that's circular reasoning. That doesn't explain why you do it. Although it sounds like you're saying your vote is symbolic. I'm not sure why you bother voting at all in that case. No one will know you voted.
circular reasoning is internally consistent.
Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.
Why are you bothering to vote at all beyond mental masturbation?
I have a right to vote. I don't need to justify it to anyone. I vote for the person I want to win.
That is irrelevant to my question. Please answer my question.
it's the only answer you're going to get. I'm allowed to vote for anybody I want. I've over people I want to win.
don't be petulant.
circular reasoning is not necessarily fallacious.
Yes it is.
Please answer the question.
when an action is an end in itself, saying so is not circular reasoning.
as you can see on the page that you just linked, it is not a formal fallacy. circular arguments are internally consistent.