Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
rscott
Dec 10, 2009

Jaxyon posted:

I think it's a combination of race and gender that makes it likely she's had to do this type of thing before and it's something I recognize from women of color literally pointing out, to me, themselves, when they're doing it.

I agree that I too strongly said I know for sure what she's doing but I do believe there's a good chance that's what's going on. I think it's more likely than her just pretending to care about rights at all, or Thomas just so dang charming.

Her life isn't, but she's also not completely free from having to navigate workplace politics, and you can't simply remove race and gender when someone is really powerful.

People constantly sound like they're expecting her to go off on a coworker to the media when she's the member of a tiny group of powerful people that are basically decorum elementals, as someone else put it.

The fundamental flaw I'm seeing in this argument is that the supreme court decisions that she is trying to influence don't have a material effect on her conditions in the same way that a woman has to smile and pretend that her boss is funny to make sure she doesn't get fired. Sotomayor has no boss, can not be removed from her office short of 66 senators who think she should be impeached, in short she's been removed from nearly every societal condition that would reduce her agency in deciding how to speak publicly about her peers. I think it's far more likely that she sincerely believes what she is saying about Clarence Thomas than that she is making some calculated marginal decision to influence her peers, especially one that is as dedicated to reasoning backwards from a preferred decision as Clarence Thomas is.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

rscott
Dec 10, 2009
I don't see how moving the first primary to Michigan from New Hampshire or Iowa is abandoning the Midwest. Hell even new Jersey is technically in the Midwest since Rutgers joined the Big 10

rscott
Dec 10, 2009
Had to stand in line for an hour to vote today in Kansas, I think turnout is going to be quite a bit higher than they were expecting, but I have no idea what that means for the amendment

rscott
Dec 10, 2009
I think it's going to be close either way. Republican elected officials are way more conservative as a whole than the electorate, except maybe out west so I think the threat of a complete ban is driving a lot of lower propensity voters to the polls

rscott
Dec 10, 2009
Well I'm glad I was wrong about it being close :unsmith:

rscott
Dec 10, 2009
https://twitter.com/JonahFurman/status/1570381535139991553?t=fjc7G57KKdlPRqA5RQSApA&s=19

Obviously this could be a vocal minority and the deal will pass without any issues but there's seemingly a lot of rank and file workers who don't think they got what they were asking for

rscott
Dec 10, 2009
https://twitter.com/hodgesmr/status/1570586190256156672?t=jC5p7vdv6tHx9dBj16US3g&s=19

It turns out doing things is good for your approval rating after all

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

rscott
Dec 10, 2009

Bar Ran Dun posted:

The current situation very much suggests the opposite, that yes it does.

Yeah I have quite a few acquaintances that have spiraled from nominally liberal or somewhat conservative into full blown fascists, largely due to the propaganda they've consumed on the internet

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply