Casinos

Casinos By Status

Popular Filters

By Banking Options

Games

All Games

Bonuses

Popular Bonus Filters

Forums

Popular Forums

Forum User Features

Complaints

Submit A Complaint (PAB)

PAB Rules and Guidelines

Browse PABs

Gambling News

Popular News Sections

About Us

About Us

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead at 87

I would say the reason to appoint ginsburg is in a way buried in time; no doubt she had the legal qualifications/standing but also was a hardcore liberal. But to realise that she cannot be replaced by a man regardless if he has a sharper legal mind, it will have to be a woman -due to the tick box pc culture that has slipped in over time- is a bit of a sad state of affairs [I could get egg on my face here but I'm sure it will be a woman who replaces ginsburg]

edit: I missed the boat there, but thought I'd explain how I viewed it when I posted my comment.
 
mack341 said:
I would say the reason to appoint ginsburg is in a way buried in time; no doubt she had the legal qualifications/standing but also was a hardcore liberal. But to realise that she cannot be replaced by a man regardless if he has a sharper legal mind, it will have to be a woman -due to the tick box pc culture that has slipped in over time- is a bit of a sad state of affairs [I could get egg on my face here but I'm sure it will be a woman who replaces ginsburg]
Click to expand...
Almost certainly it will be a woman because it will serve politics either side of the divide.
 
When you set the politics aside of right vs left (she was a liberal), Ginsburg was an American hero to many, not simply because of being a liberal, but for being able to hold and present a strong voice on behalf of an underepresented half of the population.

It's a shame her passing and accomplishments are all taking 2nd seat to a new political land-mine
 
mack341 said:
I would say the reason to appoint ginsburg is in a way buried in time; no doubt she had the legal qualifications/standing but also was a hardcore liberal. But to realise that she cannot be replaced by a man regardless if he has a sharper legal mind, it will have to be a woman -due to the tick box pc culture that has slipped in over time- is a bit of a sad state of affairs [I could get egg on my face here but I'm sure it will be a woman who replaces ginsburg]

edit: I missed the boat there, but thought I'd explain how I viewed it when I posted my comment.
Click to expand...

I don't see any issue with replacing a woman with a woman.
T has what they call a short list, they're all qualified. The announcement is Saturday.

The potential replacement, Amy Barrett, 7 kids, 2 adopted from Haiti, with one of the bio children special needs.
 
dionysus said:
Actually, she held her position because she was quite accomplished and made HUGE strides for women's equality in the male-dominated US

View attachment 142183
Click to expand...

Er..I never said any different did I? You've cut out bits of my post you quoted and made it sound like I said the bolded part. Please read again - I clearly stated that the reports were referring to the inference that a woman in her position was the result of box-checking.

Here is the full context from my own post, just to make it clear to readers I was not in anyway personally doubting here worthiness for the job she held.

The word (vag) isn't an issue, judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit, I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise.
 
dunover said:
Er..I never said any different did I? You've cut out bits of my post you quoted and made it sound like I said the bolded part. Please read again - I clearly stated that the reports were referring to the inference that a woman in her position was the result of box-checking.

Here is the full context from my own post, just to make it clear to readers I was not in anyway personally doubting here worthiness for the job she held.

The word (vag) isn't an issue, judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit, I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise.
Click to expand...
I never said you said differently - it was snipped for simplicity as I wasnt addressing any element about Ben :)
I was bringing the post back on track.
I highlighted some points of her accomplishments because you said youd never heard of her :)
 
dionysus said:
Actually, she held her position because she was quite accomplished and made HUGE strides for women's equality in the male-dominated US

View attachment 142183
Click to expand...

I'm not a liberal but I'd agree with most, if not all of these rights, I just tend to associate her more with the abortion laws, where she was a bit 'out there' in my (conservative) opinion.

On the ban front, I don't see why the ice hockey approach couldn't work, so 24/48/72hr bans for an infraction - bad language and that kind of thing. Accepting that people can't always judge a post's offensiveness to others, But it might make the forum seem more censorious if lots were handed out, just wondered as it seems weekly/monthly or lifetime bans are mainly used
 
mack341 said:
I would say the reason to appoint ginsburg is in a way buried in time; no doubt she had the legal qualifications/standing but also was a hardcore liberal. But to realise that she cannot be replaced by a man regardless if he has a sharper legal mind, it will have to be a woman -due to the tick box pc culture that has slipped in over time- is a bit of a sad state of affairs [I could get egg on my face here but I'm sure it will be a woman who replaces ginsburg]

edit: I missed the boat there, but thought I'd explain how I viewed it when I posted my comment.
Click to expand...

Doesn't need to be replaced by a woman. It's republicans' choice. Well Trump's choice I guess :P Nothing to do with pc culture. Trump is famous for absolutely not doing the pc thing...he's free to do that again if he wants to. Democrats can't do anything about it anyway.
I sort of hope they fill the seat before the election. I'd imagine there will be some consequences for that :P
 
vorcirion said:
Doesn't need to be replaced by a woman. It's republicans' choice. Well Trump's choice I guess :p Nothing to do with pc culture. Trump is famous for absolutely not doing the pc thing...he's free to do that again if he wants to. Democrats can't do anything about it anyway.
I sort of hope they fill the seat before the election. I'd imagine there will be some consequences for that :p
Click to expand...

You know he won't, he'll lose votes, but logically/philosophically it should be the best legal mind who gets the role, if all men are excluded, then I can't see how that selection criteria has been applied, not saying a woman couldn't still get it but needs to be better than all willing and available candidates.
 
dionysus said:
I never said you said differently - it was snipped for simplicity as I wasnt addressing any element about Ben :)
I was bringing the post back on track.
I highlighted some points of her accomplishments because you said youd never heard of her :)
Click to expand...

Your 'unfortunate' piece of snipped quote:

dunover said:
(I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise.

The full paragraph:

The word (vag) isn't an issue, judging by the reports, but rather what the inference is - that the woman in question (I admit, I never heard of her in my life until Dion's thread!) held her esteemed position not through personal achievement or ability, but via some kind of PC box-checking exercise.

The first suggests I said she held the position not through ability.

The second gives the whole context, and it's clear I was referring to some reporters being offended by the suggestion (not mine) that she didn't hold the post through ability.

Very different. P.S. I appreciate you amending it - if members read that they would start doubting my right-on credentials and avid dedication to political correctness.
 
mack341 said:
You know he won't, he'll lose votes, but logically/philosophically it should be the best legal mind who gets the role, if all men are excluded, then I can't see how that selection criteria has been applied, not saying a woman couldn't still get it but needs to be better than all willing and available candidates.
Click to expand...

I agree with that it should be the best legal mind. Shouldn't be anything to do with the gender.

Imo the court also should represent the population of the country. But the guy who got the fewer amount of votes gets to select another judge. And that judge will be approved by senators who represent the minority of population. But whatever...I actually don't care about that so much. Will be a problem for the republicans in the election I'd imagine and I'm happy for that. Now people start to realize what's at stake. Including healthcare, Roe v. Wade and gay rights at least.
 
sufferinsilence said:
Now back on topic, I mean the real topic.

Click to expand...

Yeah, all points toward a fairly sure thing it will hit the floor and the seat filled before the current term ends - (barring a MASS defection from the other camp)
 
Just to chime in quickly, Ben has been given more than enough opportunities to be cool in the forum, and he has either disrespected my decisions, flaunted the rules, or ignored my warnings. He has no filter, and you may personally think his comments are not offensive and are funny, but the forum does not belong to a handful of people. It belongs to everyone to include loads of folks who either lurk or don't post much.

I find these conversations divisive and take away from the real power of this community. I have folks complaining about racist comments, misogynistic comments, things that this forum has never tolerated in the past.

I go away for a bit, and it turns into a shitshow with tit for tat comments, or folks pushing the limits, some folks defending those who get spanked, and then there are those who want more spankings.

And it's not all about "report a post". But these are taken into account. I also get emails and PMs - and with the amount of activity in the forum, it is a very small part of what goes on here - but canbe a time suck.

But these toxic posts that encourage misbehavior of others just takes the piss. Ben knew what he was doing and it was suicide by cop. He had written me a few weeks ago about wanting to quit the forum. So there ya have it and Bob's yer uncle.
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • 797D055E-044A-443A-98E3-74883787D892.webp
    797D055E-044A-443A-98E3-74883787D892.webp
    39.2 KB · Views: 67
dionysus said:
Yeah, all points toward a fairly sure thing it will hit the floor and the seat filled before the current term ends - (barring a MASS defection from the other camp)
Click to expand...

I understand that the R's want a conservative Justice and don't want to wait until the next term of Trump, which might not come, to move ahead on it. In the end Trump has nothing to lose with this move: his supporters will stand by him no matter what and conservatives who were starting to doubt Trump might see this as a very brave move and vote for him after all whether the Justice is confirmed or not come election day.
 
greylady said:
You assume a lot but know very little!
Click to expand...

Doubtless that is very true but I'm afraid I must insist that in the future you begin, or end, any such statements with "little grasshopper". :p
 
Last edited:
mack341 said:
You know he won't, he'll lose votes, but logically/philosophically it should be the best legal mind who gets the role, if all men are excluded, then I can't see how that selection criteria has been applied, not saying a woman couldn't still get it but needs to be better than all willing and available candidates.
Click to expand...

IIRC he's losing with the suburban mums, one reason for picking a female.
 
slotplayer said:
IIRC he's losing with the suburban mums, one reason for picking a female.
Click to expand...

I thought the riots, and mobs assailing people while they dined innocently at restaurants, minding their own business, boosted his appeal with suburbia?

But yes the sample of female voices I hear this side of the pond, doesn't seem overly keen on donald I must say, so if he can get Amy Barrett appointed, who looks the part and would likely appeal to modern women, then it'll do his ratings with soccer mom types good no doubt.
 
Last edited:
mack341 said:
I thought the riots, and mobs assailing people while they dined innocently at restaurants, minding their own business, boosted his appeal with suburbia?

But yes the sample of female voices I hear this side of the pond, doesn't seem overly keen on donald I must say, so if I can get Amy Barrett appointed, who looks the part and would likely appeal to modern women, then it'll do his ratings with soccer mom types good no doubt.
Click to expand...

The news cycle in the US changes ridiculously fast... Nobody's talking about riots anymore, everybody's focused on this.

Picking someone who's very anti-abortion and pro-housewives-in-the-kitchen might not go over well to the more modern suburban housewive tho... We'll see.
 
sufferinsilence said:
The news cycle in the US changes ridiculously fast... Nobody's talking about riots anymore, everybody's focused on this.

Picking someone who's very anti-abortion and pro-housewives-in-the-kitchen might not go over well to the more modern suburban housewive tho... We'll see.
Click to expand...

I'm mostly relying on tim pool and youtube clips to keep me informed :laugh: so I'm probably well behind the issues :(

[ shame the news cycle on russia/trump and ukraine didn't move fast, that would've been appreciated ! no media manipulation goes on at all, I'm convinced of that :p]
 
mack341 said:
I thought the riots, and mobs assailing people while they dined innocently at restaurants, minding their own business, boosted his appeal with suburbia?

But yes the sample of female voices I hear this side of the pond, doesn't seem overly keen on donald I must say, so if he can get Amy Barrett appointed, who looks the part and would likely appeal to modern women, then it'll do his ratings with soccer mom types good no doubt.
Click to expand...

Suffer is right, the news cycle changes fast here. I don't when I heard he was behind with the suburban mums. Maybe he's gained. Although Boris/UK made the news cycle here today, more than once actually.

I think the riots are still going on but hardly covered on national news (CNN/FOX etc..) The local affiliates might be still covering it.

I got 4 sisters, they all hate Trump to varying degrees.
 
Kroffe said:
Wonder whats happened since i last looked at the thread.
Secret report-groups, Mods fighting, Max making jokes.
Ok.
Click to expand...
secret report CABAL...eesh, and they even bought the cloaks and rings and everything
 
slotplayer said:
Suffer is right, the news cycle changes fast here. I don't when I heard he was behind with the suburban mums. Maybe he's gained. Although Boris/UK made the news cycle here today, more than once actually.

I think the riots are still going on but hardly covered on national news (CNN/FOX etc..) The local affiliates might be still covering it.

I got 4 sisters, they all hate Trump to varying degrees.
Click to expand...

Just looking at the odds, and they don't look massively different to before, Joe still favourite, but tellingly one source of info states 80% of bets have been on donald to win, if true that's got to be a significant sign the feeling on the ground is trump will win. The first debate should tell us more, next wednesday, can't wait :cool: ...ahh just seen it's old chris wallace doing the questions, what a surprise :rolleyes: I've no doubt he'll manoeuvre things to help Joe and try to keep it slow.

Might as well bring out the cognitive test as he had a big interest in that before :p
 
mack341 said:
Just looking at the odds, and they don't look massively different to before, Joe still favourite, but tellingly one source of info states 80% of bets have been on donald to win, if true that's got to be a significant sign the feeling on the ground is trump will win. The first debate should tell us more, next wednesday, can't wait :cool: ...ahh just seen it's old chris wallace doing the questions, what a surprise :rolleyes: I've no doubt he'll manoeuvre things to help Joe and try to keep it slow.

Might as well bring out the cognitive test as he had a big interest in that before :p
Click to expand...

80% of the bets but how much % of the actual money? In the end the odds will fluctuate because of the amount of money coming in not the amount of bets. 20% of the bets could easily be 60% of the money. But definitely more money has come in on Trump because Biden was a bigger favourite before.

If I'd bet on politics I would've put some money on Trump just because of the odds, you won't get a return over evens on a sitting president that often in the future I reckon ;)
 
sufferinsilence said:
80% of the bets but how much % of the actual money? In the end the odds will fluctuate because of the amount of money coming in not the amount of bets. 20% of the bets could easily be 60% of the money. But definitely more money has come in on Trump because Biden was a bigger favourite before.

If I'd bet on politics I would've put some money on Trump just because of the odds, you won't get a return over evens on a sitting president that often in the future I reckon ;)
Click to expand...

I should have worded that differently, it said 80% of the money wagered, but that is a good point about the odds being tempting, normally they wouldn't be for a sitting pres.
 
mack341 said:
I should have worded that differently, it said 80% of the money wagered, but that is a good point about the odds being tempting, normally they wouldn't be for a sitting pres.
Click to expand...

So if 80% of the money is on Trump and yet the odds are still in favor of Biden the bookies seem to believe Trump will be beaten. Means absolutely nothing ofcourse, if I remember correctly in 2016 Trump was 10/1 during livebetting on election day :laugh:
 
For once we actually have a valid reason for discussing Trump as he's actively participating in nominating Ginsburg's successor!

Though one could see how the in-house appointments might grate with opposition parties, given that there should be a more level voting system, or failing that, a rotation of candidates erring towards their preferred political standing
 
sufferinsilence said:
So if 80% of the money is on Trump and yet the odds are still in favor of Biden the bookies seem to believe Trump will be beaten. Means absolutely nothing ofcourse, if I remember correctly in 2016 Trump was 10/1 during livebetting on election day :laugh:
Click to expand...

For these always willing to check exchanges instead of betting sites who always count their own edges, manipulate odds little bit to make them more tempting etc... like at Betsson, Trump was favorite last week etc... They also do that own they own, some bookies might have got much more % of money to other candidate than some other bookie etc...

I guess most of money in this as well is at BF exchange, there people don't get their accounts limited and odds are based on money to be in balance instead of multiple different controlling things bookies use.

Wonder if judge is not going to be there before elections, it was democrats who during the Obama period got frustrated that have to listen other side as well and removed it that now it's much more simple if you have senate (don't want to start to express personal opinions of that great constitutional law which is almost old as bible, nobody not willing to renew it even little bit up to date and therefore it's really easy to read how you wish, rebublicans and democrats both have their own translation about it, is it still really court when decisions are so purely correlating with number of more judges from "correct" party?).
 
goatwack said:
For once we actually have a valid reason for discussing Trump as he's actively participating in nominating Ginsburg's successor!

Though one could see how the in-house appointments might grate with opposition parties, given that there should be a more level voting system, or failing that, a rotation of candidates erring towards their preferred political standing
Click to expand...

Stop talking so much sense, who are you?
 

Similar threads

D
Well UK players 200% Being ripped off!
Replies
49
Views
2K
Roll_TheDiceX
R
dionysus
Joe Ruby, dead, 87
Replies
17
Views
970
Playford7
Playford7
dionysus
Little Richard Dead at 87
Replies
2
Views
475
Luckyscouser45
L
S
Deadspins on Playngo Slots
Replies
10
Views
749
spindoctor99
S
R
Whistleblower Exposes Unethical Practices at Rabidi N.V. - Time for Justice?
Replies
1
Views
1K
dunover
dunover

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top