Are retirees moving to the new DTV visa - anybody done it?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

5 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Blacks only make up 13.4 % of USA population, so very far from being under represented.

No black woman has ever served on the USSC.  So the current nominee would be the first and only one.

 

It's pretty sad when the various new-found "anti discrimination" advocates pop up here protesting the nomination of a black woman to the USSC...

 

But those same folks were entirely silent on the same point thru all the past nominations when minorities and women were largely de facto excluded in favor of white men.....

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

No black woman has ever served on the USSC.  So the current nominee would be the first and only one.

 

Who cares except her, or the other qualified candidates, that weren't black females.

 

Not that she's not qualified, but seemed her race and gender was the deciding factor.  And on gender, she can't seem to tell anyone what a 'woman' is, being she's not a biologist. ????

 

That statement alone would disqualify her from my vote .... if I had one.  Don't care, the SCOTUS sadly is corrupt & political now.  Obvious after the ACA debacle, as they can't write law, only send it back to be re-written.  I lost respect for the USA gov't, and SCOTUS was the last to fall.

 

The day, the music died ..... bye bye

[KanchanaburiGuy]

13 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

In terms of history and precedent, it's worth recalling that Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, who wasn't doing so well with women at the time, specifically promised to put a woman on the Supreme Court, and later did!

 

"Ronald Reagan, striving to refute charges that he is insensitive to women's rights, said today he would name a woman to "one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration."

 

"It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," Reagan said in a prepared statement to a news conference here. ...

Reagan appointed three persons to the state Supreme Court during the eight years he was governor of California. All were men."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/10/15/reagan-pledges-he-would-name-a-woman-to-the-supreme-court/844817dc-27aa-4f5d-8e4f-0ab3a5e76865/

 

--------------------------------------------

 

--Conservatives have attacked Biden for sticking by his promise to name a Black woman to the Supreme Court.

--But President Reagan did virtually the same thing Biden is now doing.

--The history of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's nomination is worth a closer examination.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-women-history-reagan-biden-nominees-2022-1

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

And on the issue of Biden's promise to nominate a black woman for the Supreme Court, given the history and context of things, I'd certainly concur with the author below:

 

"Particularly galling are the whines that white men are being discriminated against, excluded, and degraded by not being considered as Biden’s first Supreme Court nominee. The Court was established in 1789. It has had 115 justices, four have been women, two have been Black men, none has been a Black woman."

 

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2022/02/08/donald-trump-promised-he-wouldnt-nominate-a-black-woman-to-the-supreme-court/

 

 

Reagan said he'd use "one of" his Supreme Court nominations to nominate a woman. Well, with women being slightly more than half the population, there absolutely nothing remarkable about that. If he'd said he'd exclusively nominate women, THAT would be noteworthy.

 

But he didn't.

 

He said he'd use ONE Of his nominations to nominate a woman. 

 

Not the same thing, at all!

 

--------------------

--------------------

 

Second, how many Justices there have been in the past that WEREN'T Black Women is completely irrelevant. If discrimination played a part in Black Women being 0-for-115, virtually all that discrimination occurred well before they could have ever been considered for this lofty office!

 

The simple fact is.......... for mostly ugly reasons........ for most of our 230+ year history.......

there have been exceedingly few women who were even close to being qualified to do this job, let alone Black Women. And the worst thing we could have done in response to that was to lower-the-standards "just because we've never had one before!" 

 

I'm glad women are able to vote. I'm glad women are able to get educated. I'm glad women are able to have careers. I'm glad women are able to run for office. I'm glad women are able to become judges. It took way, WAY too long for these things to come about. 

 

And I'm glad there are SO MANY WOMEN who are qualified to be Supreme Court Justices, today! 

 

But that doesn't change the reality that lacking these things at the time........ made women unqualified to do the job of Supreme Court Justice. And sorry, this covers the time of nearly all of those 115 men who got the job! 

 

Is it fair? No, it's patently unfair! But that was the reality that existed, at the time. 

 

But here's the thing: We can't fix the reality of the past, no matter how unfair it may have been. It's past, it's done. All we can do is move forward and do better. 

 

But we are not even coming close to "doing better"........... if all we do is use the discrimination of the past....... to justify our new forms of discrimination today! 

 

That ain't "doing better!" 

 

Cheers! 

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

6 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

But here's the thing: We can't fix the reality of the past, no matter how unfair it may have been. It's past, it's done. All we can do is move forward and do better. 

And that's exactly what President Biden is doing with the current nominee... Glad you've finally come to appreciate that!

 

[Jingthing]

18 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Who cares except her, or the other qualified candidates, that weren't black females.

 

Not that she's not qualified, but seemed her race and gender was the deciding factor.  And on gender, she can't seem to tell anyone what a 'woman' is, being she's not a biologist. ????

 

That statement alone would disqualify her from my vote .... if I had one.  Don't care, the SCOTUS sadly is corrupt & political now.  Obvious after the ACA debacle, as they can't write law, only send it back to be re-written.  I lost respect for the USA gov't, and SCOTUS was the last to fall.

 

The day, the music died ..... bye bye

That's disingenuous right wing poppycock.

 

You know perfectly well the woman question was an anti trans civil rights gotcha attempt.

 

It would have been moronic of her to fall for that toxic bait.

[Chomper Higgot]

22 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Who cares except her, or the other qualified candidates, that weren't black females.

 

Not that she's not qualified, but seemed her race and gender was the deciding factor.  And on gender, she can't seem to tell anyone what a 'woman' is, being she's not a biologist. ????

 

That statement alone would disqualify her from my vote .... if I had one.  Don't care, the SCOTUS sadly is corrupt & political now.  Obvious after the ACA debacle, as they can't write law, only send it back to be re-written.  I lost respect for the USA gov't, and SCOTUS was the last to fall.

 

The day, the music died ..... bye bye

Clearly you care.

[Jingthing]

She's in the confirmation process now.

She can't help it about what the criteria to be picked were.

That's irrelevant to this hearing.

The question now should be is she qualified or not.

She obviously is.

Meet our new justice.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Jingthing

[Chomper Higgot]

18 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Reagan said he'd use "one of" his Supreme Court nominations to nominate a woman. Well, with women being slightly more than half the population, there absolutely nothing remarkable about that. If he'd said he'd exclusively nominate women, THAT would be noteworthy.

 

But he didn't.

 

He said he'd use ONE Of his nominations to nominate a woman. 

 

Not the same thing, at all!

 

--------------------

--------------------

 

Second, how many Justices there have been in the past that WEREN'T Black Women is completely irrelevant. If discrimination played a part in Black Women being 0-for-115, virtually all that discrimination occurred well before they could have ever been considered for this lofty office!

 

The simple fact is.......... for mostly ugly reasons........ for most of our 230+ year history.......

there have been exceedingly few women who were even close to being qualified to do this job, let alone Black Women. And the worst thing we could have done in response to that was to lower-the-standards "just because we've never had one before!" 

 

I'm glad women are able to vote. I'm glad women are able to get educated. I'm glad women are able to have careers. I'm glad women are able to run for office. I'm glad women are able to become judges. It took way, WAY too long for these things to come about. 

 

And I'm glad there are SO MANY WOMEN who are qualified to be Supreme Court Justices, today! 

 

But that doesn't change the reality that lacking these things at the time........ made women unqualified to do the job of Supreme Court Justice. And sorry, this covers the time of nearly all of those 115 men who got the job! 

 

Is it fair? No, it's patently unfair! But that was the reality that existed, at the time. 

 

But here's the thing: We can't fix the reality of the past, no matter how unfair it may have been. It's past, it's done. All we can do is move forward and do better. 

 

But we are not even coming close to "doing better"........... if all we do is use the discrimination of the past....... to justify our new forms of discrimination today! 

 

That ain't "doing better!" 

 

Cheers! 

 

It’s perhaps not a good idea to raise the point of female nominees to the SCOTUS being unqualified.

The last female appointee was a clear example of lowered standards.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

She's in the confirmation process now.

She can't help it about what the criteria to be picked were.

That's irrelevant to this hearing.

The question now should be is she qualified or not.

She obviously is.

Meet our new justice.

I’m waiting to to pop the cork on a single malt.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

"The U.S. Senate already confirmed Jackson three times for various appointments based upon her stunning credentials, most recently as an appellate judge on the prestigious United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

...

She clerked for three notable members of the judiciary, including Justice Stephen Breyer, whose seat she will fill.

 

Jackson’s experience as a federal judge before becoming a justice rivals if not exceeds that of most of her soon-to-be colleagues, combined."

 

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-women-supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson-20220320-fknltieevngq7o4l2sjdlaynbe-story.html

 

 

 

 

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

25 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

No black woman has ever served on the USSC.  So the current nominee would be the first and only one.

 

It's pretty sad when the various new-found "anti discrimination" advocates pop up here protesting the nomination of a black woman to the USSC...

 

But those same folks were entirely silent on the same point thru all the past nominations when minorities and women were largely de facto excluded in favor of white men.....

 

* How many Native American have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many Chinese Americans have served on the Supreme Court? Thai Americans? Japanese Americans? Philipino Americans? 

 

* How many Indian-Americans have served on the Supreme Court? (From India) 

 

* How many Muslim Americans have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many LGblahblablah Americans have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many Little People have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many Middle-Easterners have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many people with only High School educations have served on the Supreme Court (in modern times?) 

 

******** 

Sorry, the point is, it's a specious argument. If you're going to use who HASN'T been represented on the Supreme Court for the selection process.......... Black Women would wind up pretty far down the list! (Why? Because the "Black" part of that has already been represented, for over 30 years! [Clarence Thomas] And women have clearly had representation also, for several decades! 555!) 

[Chomper Higgot]

39 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Who cares except her, or the other qualified candidates, that weren't black females.

 

Not that she's not qualified, but seemed her race and gender was the deciding factor.  And on gender, she can't seem to tell anyone what a 'woman' is, being she's not a biologist. ????

 

That statement alone would disqualify her from my vote .... if I had one.  Don't care, the SCOTUS sadly is corrupt & political now.  Obvious after the ACA debacle, as they can't write law, only send it back to be re-written.  I lost respect for the USA gov't, and SCOTUS was the last to fall.

 

The day, the music died ..... bye bye

I don’t recall you complaining at all during the last three appointments.

 

Despite clear evidence of the corruption you speak of and ample evidence of other reasons not to appoint.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

* How many Native American have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many Chinese Americans have served on the Supreme Court? Thai Americans? Japanese Americans? Philipino Americans? 

 

* How many Indian-Americans have served on the Supreme Court? (From India) 

 

* How many Muslim Americans have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many LGblahblablah Americans have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many Little People have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many Middle-Easterners have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many people with only High School educations have served on the Supreme Court (in modern times?) 

 

******** 

Sorry, the point is, it's a specious argument. If you're going to use who HASN'T been represented on the Supreme Court for the selection process.......... Black Women would wind up pretty far down the list! (Why? Because the "Black" part of that has already been represented, for over 30 years! [Clarence Thomas] And women have clearly had representation also, for several decades! 555!) 

Welcome on board to the fight for a SCOTUS more representative of the general population.

 

Expanding the number of judges would be an opportunity to achieve more diversity, I’m all for it.

 

Expand the SCOTUS.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

* How many Native American have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many Chinese Americans have served on the Supreme Court? Thai Americans? Japanese Americans? Philipino Americans? 

 

* How many Indian-Americans have served on the Supreme Court? (From India) 

 

* How many Muslim Americans have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many LGblahblablah Americans have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many Little People have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many Middle-Easterners have served on the Supreme Court? 

 

* How many people with only High School educations have served on the Supreme Court (in modern times?) 

 

******** 

Sorry, the point is, it's a specious argument. If you're going to use who HASN'T been represented on the Supreme Court for the selection process.......... Black Women would wind up pretty far down the list! (Why? Because the "Black" part of that has already been represented, for over 30 years! [Clarence Thomas] And women have clearly had representation also, for several decades! 555!) 

Regardless of your objections  we're past that already.

She's nominated.

[KhunLA]

59 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's disingenuous right wing poppycock.

 

You know perfectly well the woman question was an anti trans civil rights gotcha attempt.

 

It would have been moronic of her to fall for that toxic bait.

Didn't bother reading all, just the headliner, and her answer, which was silly also.

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Clearly you care.

Don't live there, don't care, never returning, don't care.

 

Anything that country or any other, except Thailand does, is irrelevant.  Even Thailand is irrelevant to me.  Got everything I want or need, and in a for months, I won't even need the grid.

[Jingthing]

16 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Didn't bother reading all, just the headliner, and her answer, which was silly also.

I watched it.

She avoided being baited by a leading bigoted line of questioning.

Success.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

It would be entirely unfair to reject  her based on how Biden framed the selection process.

You may blame Biden for that.

She deserves none of the blame.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Welcome on board to the fight for a SCOTUS more representative of the general population.

 

Expanding the number of judges would be an opportunity to achieve more diversity, I’m all for it.

 

Expand the SCOTUS.

Actually, I have ZERO interest in SCOTUS mirroring the general population, since accomplishing that inevitably requires using discrimination as part of the selection process!

 

Pffft!

 

Rather, I want people with the intellectual capacity to understand and work through complex issues; the moral integrity to put biases aside and distinguish right from wrong choices, and better from worse choices; and the wisdom to learn from mistakes of the past and keep an eye on the importance of their decisions for not just the present, but for the future. 

 

I want someone who has the fortitude to SUPPRESS the urge to make a decision "because they're black," or "because they're gay," or "because they're a man," or "because they're a woman." Because people who are tasked with the awesome responsibility of making SOCIETAL decisions........ must....... MUST.......... also be able to suppress their personal emotional framework. (Thus, to the standard confrontational question, "Yeah, but what if it was YOUR daughter/granddaughter?" They MUST be able to say, "That's irrelevant. That doesn't matter!") 

 

And you know what? I don't give a flying whoop-dee-doo what color their skin is; where their ancestors came from; what sex they are; or what sex they enjoy spending time with.

 

I don't give a figdeeboo whether they're tall or short; fat or thin; religious or non-religious; grew up rich or grew up poor; had life easy or had life hard.

 

I don't care if they're married or single; divorced or widowed; never had kids or had a rambling brood! 

 

I really ONLY care about their ability to make decisions---intellectual decisions---within the confines of what is and is not Constitutional. That, and that they don't get carried away with the flexibility and opportunity-to-get-crazy-and-stupid............. that inherently resides in the 9th Amendment! 

 

But a Supreme Court that mirrors the general population? Horrible idea. That completely and unequivocally focuses on THE WRONG THINGS! 555

 

Cheers! 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

And that's exactly what President Biden is doing with the current nominee... Glad you've finally come to appreciate that!

 

No, here's what President Biden did:

 

* Black Men - - Won't consider you. 

 

* Non-Black Women - - Won't consider you. 

 

* Non-Black Men - - Won't consider you. 

 

Thus, he eliminated from consideration:

 

* 86% of the population based on Race, and

 

* Another 7% of the poluation based on Sex! 

 

It's wrong when ONLY White Males are given consideration. And it's wrong this way, too! 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

No, here's what President Biden did:

 

* Black Men - - Won't consider you. 

 

* Non-Black Women - - Won't consider you. 

 

* Non-Black Men - - Won't consider you. 

 

Thus, he eliminated from consideration:

 

* 86% of the population based on Race, and

 

* Another 7% of the poluation based on Sex! 

 

It's wrong when ONLY White Males are given consideration. And it's wrong this way, too! 

The politics of white resentment (basically what the republican party is all about) is a an ugly thing to behold.

[Chomper Higgot]

15 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The politics of white resentment (basically what the republican party is all about) is a an ugly thing to behold.

Not just the resentment, the fragility too.

[Chomper Higgot]

27 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

No, here's what President Biden did:

 

* Black Men - - Won't consider you. 

 

* Non-Black Women - - Won't consider you. 

 

* Non-Black Men - - Won't consider you. 

 

Thus, he eliminated from consideration:

 

* 86% of the population based on Race, and

 

* Another 7% of the poluation based on Sex! 

 

It's wrong when ONLY White Males are given consideration. And it's wrong this way, too! 

Here’s what he actually did.

 

He nominated a black woman to the SCOTUS, and in doing so triggered a predictable response from the same people who are gerrymandering to reduce the voting rights of minorities pulling books discussing race out of school libraries.

 

Nobody who is not triggered to respond with predictable fragility on matters of race are in the least bit bothered by this appointment.

[Chomper Higgot]

57 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Actually, I have ZERO interest in SCOTUS mirroring the general population, since accomplishing that inevitably requires using discrimination as part of the selection process!

 

Pffft!

 

Rather, I want people with the intellectual capacity to understand and work through complex issues; the moral integrity to put biases aside and distinguish right from wrong choices, and better from worse choices; and the wisdom to learn from mistakes of the past and keep an eye on the importance of their decisions for not just the present, but for the future. 

 

I want someone who has the fortitude to SUPPRESS the urge to make a decision "because they're black," or "because they're gay," or "because they're a man," or "because they're a woman." Because people who are tasked with the awesome responsibility of making SOCIETAL decisions........ must....... MUST.......... also be able to suppress their personal emotional framework. (Thus, to the standard confrontational question, "Yeah, but what if it was YOUR daughter/granddaughter?" They MUST be able to say, "That's irrelevant. That doesn't matter!") 

 

And you know what? I don't give a flying whoop-dee-doo what color their skin is; where their ancestors came from; what sex they are; or what sex they enjoy spending time with.

 

I don't give a figdeeboo whether they're tall or short; fat or thin; religious or non-religious; grew up rich or grew up poor; had life easy or had life hard.

 

I don't care if they're married or single; divorced or widowed; never had kids or had a rambling brood! 

 

I really ONLY care about their ability to make decisions---intellectual decisions---within the confines of what is and is not Constitutional. That, and that they don't get carried away with the flexibility and opportunity-to-get-crazy-and-stupid............. that inherently resides in the 9th Amendment! 

 

But a Supreme Court that mirrors the general population? Horrible idea. That completely and unequivocally focuses on THE WRONG THINGS! 555

 

Cheers! 

Can you point me to your objections to the last two appointees, one of whom was clearly an over emotional alcoholic with a secret benefactor paying off his huge  gambling debts, you might remember him sobbing in outrage at being questioned in the Senate.

 

The other had to be schooled on basic points of constitutional law, a bit of a worry for a SCOTUS judge.

[Chomper Higgot]

Biden is keeping a campaign promise to appoint a Black woman to the SCOTUS.

 

He won the election with that promise:

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/retiring-us-justice-breyer-appear-with-biden-white-house-2022-01-27/

 

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Biden is keeping a campaign promise to appoint a Black woman to the SCOTUS.

 

He won the election with that promise:

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/retiring-us-justice-breyer-appear-with-biden-white-house-2022-01-27/

 

 

If two requirements for that position is being Female  and also Black, that is going to rule out a lot of candidates for that position .

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by onthedarkside
trolling comment removed

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If two requirements for that position is being Female  and also Black, that is going to rule out a lot of candidates for that position .

  

selection has been race/gender biased since the founding of the SC?!

 

But of course, other people’s gender is another one of those fragility trigger things.

[Jingthing]

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Biden is keeping a campaign promise to appoint a Black woman to the SCOTUS.

 

He won the election with that promise:

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/retiring-us-justice-breyer-appear-with-biden-white-house-2022-01-27/

 

 

Biden wouldn't have even won without black women.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Biden wouldn't have even won without black women.

No more so than Stacey Abrams.

 

What a girl, what a fantastic  fight for democracy?!

 

 

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

selection has been race/gender biased since the founding of the SC?!

Yes for most of our history.

 

White REQUIRED

Male REQUIRED

Christian.REQUIRED

Cisgender REQUIRED still

Heterosexual REQUIRED still