• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

One of the oddest summaries of yesterday's presser: a young WaPo reporter criticized Biden's use of the word "lavatories."
Showing his age, it claimed.
Am I missing something? What do the cool kids call the public restroom these days?
 
Veloise said:
One of the oddest summaries of yesterday's presser: a young WaPo reporter criticized Biden's use of the word "lavatories."
Showing his age, it claimed.
Am I missing something? What do the cool kids call the public restroom these days?
Click to expand...
Sh!tters. I mean the kids are crass.
 
Maister said:
Because maybe they hate the same people he does? I honestly don't have any idea.

Click to expand...
Didn't Howard Dean fall out the running because of his exclamatory, "wahoooo!!!!? Yet people still supported, and continue to support, F@ck Nuts Trump after his mocking.

I think Trump supporters are all bullies who are happy that they can finally let their inner insecure bully out.
 
Veloise said:
One of the oddest summaries of yesterday's presser: a young WaPo reporter criticized Biden's use of the word "lavatories."
Showing his age, it claimed.
Am I missing something? What do the cool kids call the public restroom these days?
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is odd. Given the current Shabby Chic zeitgeist, including a return to cast iron skillets in the kitchen, using Olde Tyme words like lavatory would seem to be in vogue.
 
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are regarding Lia Thomas, who is a transgender swimmer and the controversy? How do you think the NCAA should handle situations like this to maintain an equitable playing field for all athletes?
 
Several thoughts...

It would be nice if people stopped shooting police just because of the uniform they wear, and not have BLM spout anti-police rhetoric in response to an officer being shot in DC.

I am torn on the Ukraine. Is this our fight, and if not should we really be getting involved?

Interest rants are up, stock market is down. I am wondering how much I trust the Federal Reserve. (No I am not, I haven't trusted them in years)

We really need to figure out this voting thing. It should be much simpler to vote, but there should also be a way to make sure that a person is who they say they are and is eligible to vote. The other is we need districts that make sense and are not gerrymandered.
 
Given that Harvard and Yale have so many legacies, why do they only get to be on the Supreme Court? I know some Big 10 schools that have some pretty good law schools as well as others. There should be more attention paid to that sort of diversity and the Harvard law incest going on there now. I get why Biden wants to appoint a black woman based on lack of representation there, but the media really should call this out sometime. I am sorry but Brett Kavanaugh isn't all that.
 
michaelskis said:
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are regarding Lia Thomas, who is a transgender swimmer and the controversy? How do you think the NCAA should handle situations like this to maintain an equitable playing field for all athletes?
Click to expand...

Trans people should get their own categories is my feeling. Trans born male or Trans born female categories. That is the most fair IMO.
 
Class Act -

Gov tells Bette Midler to kiss dog’s ‘heinie’ - and shows it
apnews.com

Gov tells Bette Midler to kiss dog's 'heinie' - and shows it

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) — Gov. Jim Justice has a message for singer and actress Bette Midler, who called West Virginians “poor, illiterate and strung out” in a tweet after Sen. Joe Manchin refused to support President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better Act.
apnews.com apnews.com

article has picture
 
Hawkeye66 said:
Trans people should get their own categories is my feeling. Trans born male or Trans born female categories. That is the most fair IMO.
Click to expand...

Do you think there should be four or a new third that combines trans females and trans males into one category?

I personally don't have an answer, but I do think there should be something done to make it fair for female athletes and still allow for trans people to compete.
 
michaelskis said:
Here is an interesting one...

abcnews.go.com

Majority of Americans want Biden to consider 'all possible nominees' for Supreme Court vacancy: POLL

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as a body motivated by partisanship.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

I understand the desire for a diverse court, and if an African American Woman is the best candidate, then absolutely appoint her. But should we refrain from looking at other candidates based on their race or gender?
Click to expand...

We refrained looking at anyone but white men from Harvard or Yale for a long time. I am hoping the Judge from South Carolina gets in, because she brings diversity in another way; She is a state law school grad and not from Harvard or Yale. I agree with your general premise in the long term. Biden was stupid for stating it out front. He should have just done it.
 
History tells us when Thomas was nominated, it was said we needed an African-American on the Supreme Court to replace Strom, then when ACBarrett was nominated, it was said we needed a woman to replace RBGinsberg. There was no big outcry then. Why is it so now? Oh, nevermind. I get it. :cool:
 
michaelskis said:
Here is an interesting one...

abcnews.go.com

Majority of Americans want Biden to consider 'all possible nominees' for Supreme Court vacancy: POLL

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as a body motivated by partisanship.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

I understand the desire for a diverse court, and if an African American Woman is the best candidate, then absolutely appoint her. But should we refrain from looking at other candidates based on their race or gender?
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court is clearly broken. I vote to have 15-20 people on it, with diverse backgrounds that actually represent the Country. When the US is made up of a diverse group of people, why should 5/9 be white men?

Are you saying that there is a better candidate than what Biden is considering? Because Merrick Garland was a better candidate than Gorsuch, but that didn't seem to matter at that time to the political Right. The idea that Biden can't pick whom he wants is stupid. He can and should. He has made a commitment to select a Black Woman, and so he shall. Why even question that, or is it that you don't like that Biden wants to select a black woman?

I also think we all need to prepare for Mitch McConnell and his river of hypocrisy. I am sure we should wait 5 years until we place another judge now for some BS reason.

The SC should be larger as it would then protect the Country from activists on both sides. It would also protect the country from one President picking multiple unqualified judges who will change the country forever.

It will be interesting though with this SC if we finally see enough push to have Congress start passing Constitutional Amendments to fix many of the issues we see. With over 65-70% of the Country supporting Roe v. Wade if that SC decides to be an activist court and overturn decades of precedent, maybe that will be enough to start changing the aged constitution a bit to work in the 21st century. Probably not though, as I am sure the framers never thought that the document would be amended. Except for all the amendments they pushed. But otherwise it was perfect.
 
michaelskis said:
Here is an interesting one...

abcnews.go.com

Majority of Americans want Biden to consider 'all possible nominees' for Supreme Court vacancy: POLL

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as a body motivated by partisanship.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

I understand the desire for a diverse court, and if an African American Woman is the best candidate, then absolutely appoint her. But should we refrain from looking at other candidates based on their race or gender?
Click to expand...
This is not a job opening for a Planner II for a second tier metro suburb. A job posting isn't put out there to elicit applications from interested job seekers.

This has always been a political process. The initial list of possible people to ask is always built from a predetermined list of individuals and/or an Administration's desired characteristics.
 
Last edited:
Planit said:
History tells us when Thomas was nominated, it was said we needed an African-American on the Supreme Court to replace Strom, then when ACBarrett was nominated, it was said we needed a woman to replace RBGinsberg. There was no big outcry then. Why is it so now? Oh, nevermind. I get it. :cool:
Click to expand...

"Do as I say, not as I do."
 
Keep the odd number, keep the appointment process, start a change with the term.

I think we should change it from lifetime appointment to 20 or 25 years.
 
Hawkeye66 said:
We refrained looking at anyone but white men from Harvard or Yale for a long time. I am hoping the Judge from South Carolina gets in, because she brings diversity in another way; She is a state law school grad and not from Harvard or Yale. I agree with your general premise in the long term. Biden was stupid for stating it out front. He should have just done it.
Click to expand...
So because we were stupid in the past by limiting the pool to a select few, we should continue to do it? I think if he just selected someone who was an African American Female, then there wouldn't be an issue.

Planit said:
History tells us when Thomas was nominated, it was said we needed an African-American on the Supreme Court to replace Strom, then when ACBarrett was nominated, it was said we needed a woman to replace RBGinsberg. There was no big outcry then. Why is it so now? Oh, nevermind. I get it. :cool:
Click to expand...
The history of the GOP and my beliefs are not the same. I am all for the best candidate.

Hink said:
The Supreme Court is clearly broken. I vote to have 15-20 people on it, with diverse backgrounds that actually represent the Country. When the US is made up of a diverse group of people, why should 5/9 be white men?

Are you saying that there is a better candidate than what Biden is considering? Because Merrick Garland was a better candidate than Gorsuch, but that didn't seem to matter at that time to the political Right. The idea that Biden can't pick whom he wants is stupid. He can and should. He has made a commitment to select a Black Woman, and so he shall. Why even question that, or is it that you don't like that Biden wants to select a black woman?

I also think we all need to prepare for Mitch McConnell and his river of hypocrisy. I am sure we should wait 5 years until we place another judge now for some BS reason.

The SC should be larger as it would then protect the Country from activists on both sides. It would also protect the country from one President picking multiple unqualified judges who will change the country forever.

It will be interesting though with this SC if we finally see enough push to have Congress start passing Constitutional Amendments to fix many of the issues we see. With over 65-70% of the Country supporting Roe v. Wade if that SC decides to be an activist court and overturn decades of precedent, maybe that will be enough to start changing the aged constitution a bit to work in the 21st century. Probably not though, as I am sure the framers never thought that the document would be amended. Except for all the amendments they pushed. But otherwise it was perfect.
Click to expand...
I agree with expansion over an extended period of time of one new position every 2 years. That way within any single presidential term, they can appoint two. If they get re-elected, then 4. I would agree with your range, but would also agree on an odd number.

As for this pick, it has nothing to do with Biden or an African American woman. It is about a presupposition based on gender and race.

Salmissra said:
Keep the odd number, keep the appointment process, start a change with the term.

I think we should change it from lifetime appointment to 20 or 25 years.
Click to expand...

I agree and would go for 25.
 
I'm for a Supreme Court that looks like America, not nine white men that grew up affluent in gated neighborhoods, went to toney prep schools, earned Harvard Law degrees, and clerked for Justice Scalia. If Biden chooses an African American woman that is qualified and that the Senate advises and consents, who am I to argue?

America owes black women more than it can ever repay, IMO.
 
michaelskis said:
Here is an interesting one...

abcnews.go.com

Majority of Americans want Biden to consider 'all possible nominees' for Supreme Court vacancy: POLL

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as a body motivated by partisanship.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com

I understand the desire for a diverse court, and if an African American Woman is the best candidate, then absolutely appoint her. But should we refrain from looking at other candidates based on their race or gender?
Click to expand...

The problem is that "the best candidate" is an illusion because people have different criteria. I agree with Mendelman; SC appointments -- indeed any court appointment -- has always been a political process.
 
Linda_D said:
The problem is that "the best candidate" is an illusion because people have different criteria. I agree with Mendelman; SC appointments -- indeed any court appointment -- has always been a political process.
Click to expand...
I am not saying that it's not a political process. What I am saying is that I personally think it is wrong to have presuppositions based on gender and race when it comes to things like this.
 
michaelskis said:
I am not saying that it's not a political process. What I am saying is that I personally think it is wrong to have presuppositions based on gender and race when it comes to things like this.
Click to expand...

What you are implying, which I don't think you realize, is that there aren't any Black women in America who are qualified to sit on the SCOTUS. There are more than 44 million African American women in the US, so I'm certain that there's many more than just 1 or 2. In fact, I bet there are at least that many who are much better qualified than some of the current justices.
 
Linda_D said:
What you are implying, which I don't think you realize, is that there aren't any Black women in America who are qualified to sit on the SCOTUS. There are more than 44 million African American women in the US, so I'm certain that there's many more than just 1 or 2. In fact, I bet there are at least that many who are much better qualified than some of the current justices.
Click to expand...

I am not implying anything other than I personally think it is wrong to have presuppositions based on gender and race when it comes to things like this. An organization such as this should be above race and gender. MLK stated that we should be judged on our character, not the color of our skin. I also believe that is extend to gender as well.
 
michaelskis said:
I am not implying anything other than I personally think it is wrong to have presuppositions based on gender and race when it comes to things like this. An organization such as this should be above race and gender. MLK stated that we should be judged on our character, not the color of our skin. I also believe that is extend to gender as well.
Click to expand...
What are your thoughts on Trump requiring his nominee be a women? https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/politics/trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg-vacant-seat-fill/index.html

Or when he said he would nominate someone to overturn Roe v. Wade? https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html (Trump: I'll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case)

I looked back and I couldn't find your outrage for those things. Odd.
 
michaelskis said:
I am not implying anything other than I personally think it is wrong to have presuppositions based on gender and race when it comes to things like this. An organization such as this should be above race and gender. MLK stated that we should be judged on our character, not the color of our skin. I also believe that is extend to gender as well.
Click to expand...
Because of implicit bias based on race/sex/age, etc.

Often we need to purposely seek out diversity as a purely 'blind' system will not result in diversity.

Examples are:
  • Title 9
  • Federal ADA law
  • Federal housing law
  • Voters rights law
  • Davis-Bacon wage requirements for federally funding projects.
At my last job, I purposely favored subject matter expert women and/or people under 50 for our regulatory board appoints. Every one of my suggested appointments (they had be vetted through the Mayor and Council) were appointed unanimously.

It's perfectly fine to explicitly and purposely avoid implicit bias for a good purpose.
 
mendelman said:
At my last job, I purposely favored subject matter expert women and/or people under 50 for our regulatory board appoints. Every one of my suggested appointments (they had be vetted through the Mayor and Council) were appointed unanimously.

It's perfectly fine to explicitly and purposely avoid implicit bias for a good purpose.
Click to expand...
So, you deliberately discriminated while telling yourself it's totes okay because it was for the better good? FWIW, I've had implicit bias training - that ain't how you do it.

Just saying.
 
Hink said:
What are your thoughts on Trump requiring his nominee be a women? https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/politics/trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg-vacant-seat-fill/index.html (Trump on Supreme Court nominee: 'It will be a woman')

Or when he said he would nominate someone to overturn Roe v. Wade? https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html (Trump: I'll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case)

I looked back and I couldn't find your outrage for those things. Odd.
Click to expand...
I didn't know that he stated ahead of time that they would be a woman.

Here is one, go back and see where I said that I was a Trump supporter. What you will find is that I never voted for him, thought he did a tenable job, and that I stated that he
a horrible person. Just because I don't agree with something that Biden does, does not automatically result in me supporting Trump.


I have stated my position and some people disagree with it. That's ok. I will continue to see people as people and base my thoughts on their actions, and not their gender, race, ethnic background, or pollical affiliation.
 
michaelskis said:
I didn't know that he stated ahead of time that they would be a woman.

Here is one, go back and see where I said that I was a Trump supporter. What you will find is that I never voted for him, thought he did a tenable job, and that I stated that he
a horrible person. Just because I don't agree with something that Biden does, does not automatically result in me supporting Trump.


I have stated my position and some people disagree with it. That's ok. I will continue to see people as people and base my thoughts on their actions, and not their gender, race, ethnic background, or pollical affiliation.
Click to expand...
Didn't say anything about Trump, per se, I said about your outrage. I didn't find you outraged that Trump did those things, like you seem to be outraged about Biden doing it. My point wasn't about Trump, it was about your reaction (or lack of reaction) to such news.
 
Come on guys. I don't think if someone did or didn't express enough support or outrage about a particular issue on this message board really proves anything.
 
Hink said:
Didn't say anything about Trump, per se, I said about your outrage. I didn't find you outraged that Trump did those things, like you seem to be outraged about Biden doing it. My point wasn't about Trump, it was about your reaction (or lack of reaction) to such news.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying. If I knew about it, I would have said the same thing. But Trump did so many stupid things that made the news, sometimes things got missed. I don't care who is the sitting president, I believe they should recommend appointment of the best person, regardless of race or gender. I also think that the games that the house and senate play to delay or push candidates through is a load of crap too. When Biden puts forth someone, I don't think they should wait and should start the hearings right away and have the appointment effective when Stephen Breyer leaves instead of putting forth political delays.
 
Part of me wants to just make a map, send it to the press and to the state, and let the dust settle there. It is not hard to get districts that are not gerrymandered in either direction. But the NCGOP rather put politics ahead of common sense.
 
MD Planner said:
Come on guys. I don't think if someone did or didn't express enough support or outrage about a particular issue on this message board really proves anything.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Which is why the entire discussion about who he wants to pick is silly. He gets to pick whom he wants. And it isn't that big of a deal. I mean it is a big deal, but not for the reason it seems many are outraged.
 
You're talking about qualifications for the SC. Why should Biden look at "all" the candidates. He specifically called for a a view point of a black woman during his campaigning. He was elected. He gets to pick. Also being black, gay, female, muslim, or any other race, religion, etc. is a qualification. That person has a viewpoint that I don't have. In this case it's very important because that person has the same legal expertise (at least they better), but they have that expertise with a view of a black woman. Vastly different from the party of old white men. Stop thinking race is not a qualification for a job. Stop thinking gender is not a qualification. We've shown that it is many times from Hooters only hiring women because who wants to see almost topless men in tight shorts to looking for specific viewpoints.
 
DVD said:
You're talking about qualifications for the SC. Why should Biden look at "all" the candidates. He specifically called for a a view point of a black woman during his campaigning. He was elected. He gets to pick. Also being black, gay, female, muslim, or any other race, religion, etc. is a qualification. That person has a viewpoint that I don't have. In this case it's very important because that person has the same legal expertise (at least they better), but they have that expertise with a view of a black woman. Vastly different from the party of old white men. Stop thinking race is not a qualification for a job. Stop thinking gender is not a qualification. We've shown that it is many times from Hooters only hiring women because who wants to see almost topless men in tight shorts to looking for specific viewpoints.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the mental image there DVD. Thanks a lot. :cursing:
 
Can't be all serious. Plus, it's the other end of qualifications. It is what it is and we all need to get over it instead of being triggered by it.
 
BTW, the Saint of Conservative Republican Politics, Ronnie Raygun, announced that, given the opportunity, he would nominate a woman to the USC. And when the opportunity presented itself, he did: Sandra Day O'Connor (even if she didn't know a damn thing about eminent domain ...).
 
Gedunker said:
BTW, the Saint of Conservative Republican Politics, Ronnie Raygun, announced that, given the opportunity, he would nominate a woman to the USC. And when the opportunity presented itself, he did: Sandra Day O'Connor (even if she didn't know a damn thing about eminent domain ...).
Click to expand...

1643835620527.png
 
dandy_warhol said:
Didn't Howard Dean fall out the running because of his exclamatory, "wahoooo!!!!? Yet people still supported, and continue to support, F@ck Nuts Trump after his mocking.

I think Trump supporters are all bullies who are happy that they can finally let their inner insecure bully out.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it was such a shame. Howard Dean was a better candidate than most of the field.
 
michaelskis said:
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts are regarding Lia Thomas, who is a transgender swimmer and the controversy? How do you think the NCAA should handle situations like this to maintain an equitable playing field for all athletes?
Click to expand...
She's something of a special case in that she competed on the men's swimming team LAST SEASON. She switched to the women's team this year and has just been crushing records and other women swimmers. Winning by HUGE margins. I feel bad for the other women swimmers.
 
DVD said:
You're talking about qualifications for the SC. Why should Biden look at "all" the candidates. He specifically called for a a view point of a black woman during his campaigning. He was elected. He gets to pick. Also being black, gay, female, muslim, or any other race, religion, etc. is a qualification. That person has a viewpoint that I don't have. In this case it's very important because that person has the same legal expertise (at least they better), but they have that expertise with a view of a black woman. Vastly different from the party of old white men. Stop thinking race is not a qualification for a job. Stop thinking gender is not a qualification. We've shown that it is many times from Hooters only hiring women because who wants to see almost topless men in tight shorts to looking for specific viewpoints.
Click to expand...
Well said. :up:

It's not like by making race and gender parameters for the job search limits the pool of candidates to just a handful of individuals. There are 44 million Black women in the US. Even if only .01% of them would be minimally qualified to serve on the SCOTUS, that's still more than 4000 potential candidates. From that pool, other considerations/requirements, especially politics, whittle the final candidates down to the handful who are then evaluated to get the nominee.
 
...see pasted result of goads by party members that got wind of my facility's for word salad.

Final copy of letter to local weekly, up to 300 wds or so.

Dear editor,

The wise and collective voice of over 80 million voters spoke loud and clear in November of ‘20.

That voice reminded us that most of the populace yearns for a return to decency in public discourse, to dignity of public office itself, and to honest and open deliberation by holders of public office. No more jeering, leering, sneering and nose-thumbing name calling by occupants of public office.

That voice demands an end to intransigence, a stop to stonewalling, a goodbye to broad brush, slapdash mudslinging memes and denigrating made-up misinformation.

That voice says we can all get along, without walls and guarded gates, without chain-link and concertina wire, without cages for children. We can let people in instead of shutting them out.

That voice confirms my belief in a rational, secular, and scientific approach to problem solving in the face of common threats to public health. It reflects my confidence in public institutions that guide leadership toward effective public policy decisions.

That voice affirms the idea that the more voters we include the closer we move toward the common goal of a democratic society.

I hear that voice echoed in all the messages coming from the Biden White House.

Some dismiss that voice as just another clamor from the crowded dank hold of a certain kind of ship, just another wilderness wail from some Hansel or Gretel, abandoned in the deep woods of the day to day.

Others hear that voice as a clarion call, a shout from the rooftops, a yodel across the vale, or as the ringing peals of the big brass bell of liberty.


Jim Baird

Comer
 
I was goaded into making up a letter in support of Biden, and several days of incubation birthed this fun with language.
 
Back
Top