Try more…
I’m sure you will understand your mistakes
Please explain it to me.
Haven’t made any.
Jackson’s name is on any list because she is qualified Motte
Jackson’s name is on Brandon’s List because she is a black woman. Bailey.
The qualified piece is important because the trope is that qualified whites are passed over for unqualified blacks. So if we can agree that the candidate pool is filled with qualified candidates, why not pick a black woman?
What is the option? Put all the names in a bingo tumbler and nominate the random draw?
Not more “quailified”, more liberal.
why not pick a black woman?
Why promise it beforehand? Why bully the incumbent out to do it? Why virtue signal over it?
Put all the names in a bingo tumbler and nominate the random draw?
Increase our objectivity and odds of success. I like it.
1 Like
This is an incorrect use of the fallacy.
First… the Bailey comes first. The Bailey is the controversial, indefensible position.
For example.
“Jackson was only selected because she is black” that is the Bailey.
(When the Bailey is challenged)
“Of course Jackson was qualified” that is the motte. The easily defensible position.
I’ll grade you on a curve…
Why does the bailey have to come first?
When you build a castle, do you build the castle first, or try to farm the fields without a defensible fort to run to?
From what do you venture out of to farm the field?
I said the motte was “qualified” and you marked it wrong.
Because it’s the switch that makes it a fallacy.
Inside of defending the controversial, indefensible, position… you switch to an easily agreeable and defensible position.
In other words, instead of defending your Bailey… you switch to the motte for easier defense.
However you never really defended the Bailey.
So are you disputing her qualifications or not? And of course she is more liberal. It is not out of pocket to nominate someone that shares political philosophy.
Politics. Have you forgotten elections are vote getting exercises?
Okay, you guys go first in a show of good will. In the meantime, we’ll nominate a candidate in line with our politics.
Jackson was selected because she is a black woman.
Same thing I said. And Brandon said.
I see what you’re trying to do. You’re trying to farm the courtyard of the castle and call it a bailey. And claim a bumper crop of objectivity.
Plant identity and package it as merit.
Problem is, your nation will starve doing that. People will move on and ignore your little castle.
Exactly what I said you did, and you did.
Brandon brings up her race and sex and you immediately retreat to “qualified” and just keep repeating it (slinging arrows from the ramparts).
You’re slick, in a clumsy, amateurish way.
I’ll say it again; I have no problem with Jackson being nominated.
I have a problem with Brandon (and you) blowing smoke about it.
You’re© out of the closet now. Primetime. Mainstream. No need to hide and deny.
wait just a dammed minute… where is our resident supposed court expert who likes to claim as part of his “qualified” criteria a nominee must have experience as a judge? I hadn’t realized kagan had none. but our great pontificator on all things court says they supported all recent picks. how can that be? must be (d)ifferent
But was she a “public defender”?
1 Like
You are lost.
What was my controversial position? My position, not Biden’s.
Then when challenged, what easily defensible position, did I retreat to?
worst ■■■■■■■ lawyers ever.
1 Like
That Brandon is not a racist and the black nation didn’t sell its soul.
Qualified!
Where did I say this?
I said Biden selected a qualified black woman. All three.
That’s not controversial. Those are the facts.
You even put them in order of inside to outside.
