NYC teen charged with shooting NYPD cop walking free on bond

The evil left winger is back behind bars.

Though he should have never been out from behind them in the first place.

 

Duplicate post (see below).

 

Your argument is non-sequitur. How could this incident reflect at all on "Biden's prospective nominee," who has not been named? Do you have someone in mind, or are you just making beyond-stereotypical assumptions, of all black women?

Don't get me wrong-- I find it incredible that someone who shot a cop, is out on bail (though I did not read the full story). I am only reacting to seeing your clearly prejudicial post (which, even from a purely "debating" perspective, is without substance).
To make my own assumption-- founded on a much more tangible basis than your own-- I am pretty sure that you don't give a damn about my criticism of your argument, and I won't be disappointed if this doesn't lead to a pithy discussion.

In truth, it is only boredom that brought me here, to make a really trivial observation (in the eyes of most people, no doubt), to @apexofpurple (to wit): your headline reflects a punctuational mistake, either by the News Editor, or by you, if you simply omitted the necessary comma, for it to be correct English.

NYC teen charged with shooting NYPD cop walking free on bond

The above words, say that it is the NYC cop, who was free on bond. A comma belongs after the word, "cop," in order for the rest of the sentence to correctly refer to the teen.

I expect that you couldn't care less, either, about my pointing out incorrect English. And I admit that this seems like a niggling comment, from me. I do not make it, to be confrontational. I am relating some true, and I would maintain, relevant information. But, in all honesty, I wouldn't be doing so, if I weren't a bit bored, and in "procrastination-mode." Sorry for the interruption.

 

AJ, thanks for the link and I do recall those days and I think it’s more than likely that Trump had a nominee in mind before making that statement.

 

https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_trump...n-succeed-ginsburg-supreme-court/6196123.html

 

What difference ? Each represents an experience that is a pre qualifier to achieve the ideological goal of the president/party.

 

If you can't grasp the concept from my previous post, I doubt there's any way I could explain it that you would.

 

How on earth did you wiggle that out of what I posted?

 

Yeah I remember all that Trump said. When he was running, he stated he would pick all nominees for the SCOTUS from a specific list. In June of 2020, he reiterated that. He updated it a few times, including releasing a new one shortly before RBG passed. Guess what? He was considering more than just women. ACB was on the list along with several other women, but the list was mostly men. He did make an announcement that he is picking a woman, but that’s after he already said he was picking a nominee from an already prepared list. She was on that list.

Look at it like this:

Trump: I’m going to use this list. Hey, I picked a woman off the list.

Biden: I’m just going to pick a person of color who is not a man, get me a list of those.

Seriously, please tell me you can spot a difference….

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/09/trump-releases-new-list-of-potential-supreme-court-nominees/

 

Why would you possibly think that democrats want rulings in a "fair manner"? They want to win.

Take a look at when Supreme Court justices seemingly "cross the aisle", that is vote for a position not consistent with them being liberal or conservative. It is the conservative justices crossing the aisle 100% of the time. The liberals never do it.

 

Simple, you and I agree, and I am certain you would call me left, even though I am neither political party speaking, and you railed on not believing the left on what they say while the person you disagree with is not considered left at all.

The president can choose whomever they want, and almost always its from a prevetted list of candidates.

I have pointed out numerous times how Reagan promised in his campaign to nominate a female to the USSC back in 1980 and did, the 1st chance he got. But that doesn't stop the RW from whining about Biden doing what Reagan did. And I am sure countless others.

 

You do understand that most every if not every candidate is already on the list to USSC? It's not a name out of the blue. For they need to be vetted before chosen and someone likely to get Senate approval.

 

Your surrender is accepted

 

Nope. He's walking around because he's innocent until proven guilty and because he made his bail. JUst like any anyone else.

 

There is NO difference. You guys keep going back to “black woman” without actually understanding what that means. You then get called out because Trump did the same thing, and then justify what he did, and try to chastise what Biden is doing.

For sake of discussion, lets leave out what Trump said about a woman, and just leave it at “Federalist Society”.

What is the difference between “Black woman” and “Federalist Society member”. Both are ideological choices based on their experiences, are they not ?

 

Then you are lost and one cannot have an honest discussion with you if you can’t tell the difference. Have a wonderful weekend.

Political ideology vs race and sex characteristics. How do you not see that? One is standard. The other is supposed to be against the law.

 

What does “race and sex” have to do with her ideological position:

Answer: EVERYTHING. Thats why he is picking a black woman because of her experiences that influence her decisions

Those federalist society members are their because of their experiences. They didn't wake up one day and say “ I think I’m a conservative”. It’s life experiences that drive your ideology. Why do you think party affiliations are fairly obviously divide by social economic class?

 

It's not surrender, merely a recognition that some ignorance can't be fixed.

 

Race and sex have nothing to do with it so maybe you can explain why that was Joe’s stated criteria for picking a SCOTUS nominee? Our discrimination laws make something like that illegal.

 

Because you have no proof. I understand proof is a foreign concept in the cult….but it is required

 

Do you even read what I posted ? What part of EXPERIENCES eludes you ?

It’s not illegal. FFS

 

Which part of my post did you need "proof" of? That race and sex are protected classes? That membership in the Federalist Society is not? What, precisely, are you asking for "proof" of?

 

"Who said he wasnt going to nominate based on ideology ?

FFS man. What is the difference between a Trumps qualifier of a Federalist, and Bidens qualifier of a Woman ?"

Keep showing how clueless you are when you type two conflicting things in your own post.

Take your racist projecting shove it!

 

He would rather call members here racist.. Sad thing is the ******* has gotten away with it for years.

 

Ahhh, cant defend your position so you attack the poster.

The real answer is that their is NO difference. But you knew that and you attacked me because you cant defend that there is no difference.