American Politics Thread: The Hunt for Blue November

[BoLevi]

Why are people getting upset at the observation that Kamala was chosen because she was a woman of color?

Biden explicitly said that. Repeatedly.

[rubecube]

Gotta say, one of the most amusing parts of this campaign has been the right's attempt to paint Biden as a socialist. You can see it right now with the absolute meltdown on right-wing twitter and Fox News about Harris being the VP pick, with clowns like Ben Shapiro classifying her as a radical leftist.

Who is buying this? If anything you're solidifying support for Biden from Bernie Bros. If Bernie was the nom, the socialist slander would make sense. The smart right now if you're Republicans would be to paint Biden as the "same old ####" candidate in order to discourage leftist turnout.

I almost think the progressive left's opposition to Biden is maybe beneficial? If you're debating a MAGA who calls Biden a socialist, the easiest retort is "then why does the left hate him so much?"

[DeluxeMoustache]

Originally Posted by direwolf

https://twitter.com/user/status/1293307198194487297

I laughed but sadly, it will be both.

Both ++

Throw in a sprinkling of responsibility for Coronavirus, pizza parlour pedophilia, email servers, etc.

A mountain of bull####

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Why are people getting upset at the observation that Kamala was chosen because she was a woman of color?

Biden explicitly said that. Repeatedly.

Nobody is getting upset about that. People are “getting upset” at the suggestion it was only because she is a woman of colour.

This is one of those instances where understanding nuance would be helpful. It’s about as dumb as saying “Biden is only the Democratic nominee because he’s a white man” when... you know... there were plenty of other white men vying for the job, so surely someone could assume there might be more to it than that (like history, qualifications, voter appeal, etc).

[Snuffleupagus]

Prediction: Kamala Harris will be the most popular running mate in history and then likely the 47th president

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Nobody is getting upset about that. People are “getting upset” at the suggestion it was only because she is a woman of colour.

This is one of those instances where understanding nuance would be helpful. It’s about as dumb as saying “Biden is only the Democratic nominee because he’s a white man” when... you know... there were plenty of other white men vying for the job, so surely someone could assume there might be more to it than that (like history, qualifications, voter appeal, etc).

Well, those were the only two qualities that we know with 100% certainty would have disqualified her if she didn't have them.

The unfortunate conclusion in this circumstance is that we know she is qualified enough but we don't know if she is the most qualified.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Well, those were the only two qualities that we know with 100% certainty would have disqualified her if she didn't have them.

The unfortunate conclusion in this circumstance is that we know she is qualified enough but we don't know if she is the most qualified.

No, Biden said he’d prefer someone of colour, but the only definitive claim he made was that he would choose a woman. Warren was under consideration and she’s White.

We also don’t know that Trump or Biden are the most qualified candidates for President, either, (Trump certainly wasn’t the most qualified when he ran and won) nor do we know if Pence was the most qualified choice for Trump’s VP. It’s not an unfortunate conclusion, it’s literally the way politics has been for decades.

Harris is as qualified as any other VP or Presidential candidate. Not sure what you find unfortunate about that.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Well, those were the only two qualities that we know with 100% certainty would have disqualified her if she didn't have them.

The unfortunate conclusion in this circumstance is that we know she is qualified enough but we don't know if she is the most qualified.

There's no official metric as to what qualifies one to be president aside from being a natural-born 35-year-old 14 year resident of the US. By any objective measure, Kamala Harris or any of the other front runners are better "politically qualified" than Trump was when he entered office.

You speak of qualification as if there is some definitive metric.

[PsYcNeT]

Trump saying the quiet part loud this morning.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1293517514798960640

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Well, those were the only two qualities that we know with 100% certainty would have disqualified her if she didn't have them.

The unfortunate conclusion in this circumstance is that we know she is qualified enough but we don't know if she is the most qualified.

Did you have this complaint when every previous VP candidate but 1 or 2 had two qualities that in their absence would have disqualified them?

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Painting a relationship Harris had 25 year ago as "sleeping around to get ahead" is sexist, plain and simple. And so is suggesting she only got the VP pick because she was a woman.

If the clear sexism apparent in your descriptions of Harris' old relationship and her qualifications wasn't enough, the fact that you see those and compare Trump, who is infinitely less qualified and has his own history of being handed financial gain he did not earn, as well as an actual history of cheating and claims of sexual abuse, and think "this might make me vote for Trump" makes it pretty clear what you actually value, so stop pretending any time.

There are few things that bother me more than someone creating a quote out of thin air and then trying to attribute it to someone.

Nowhere have I said that "this might make me vote for Trump", so you can stop with the false attribution and high-handedness.

There is nothing sexist about stating a fact, namely, that Harris was in a relationship with man who was married at the time. Her doing so makes me think less of her.

As it would for a man who is involved with a woman (or other man or whatever) while he or she is still married to someone else. Arguing against one (Harris) does not mean that I am in favor of the other (a man doing the same thing).

But it is far easier to claim that someone is sexist than it is to actually think and investigate one’s position, and it is even easier to just make up stuff in a post.

To wit, you wrote that I suggested that “she only got the VP pick because she was a woman.“

What I wrote was “ She got the vp pick because she is a woman and is “of color.” Neither of which she had any personal role in doing.“

Do you see the word “only” in my statement? I don’t, but you certainly used it.

And yet you write that I should “stop pretending any time”? I’m not the one making up things here.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

Did you have this complaint when every previous VP candidate but 1 or 2 had two qualities that in their absence would have disqualified them?

Honestly, this is kind of making his point for him because... yes. People either did, or should have, had this complaint when only white christian men could be VP candidates.

But for the same reason, it's politics. If you think black voters are more likely to turn out and vote if your VP is black, that's a legitimate political reason to select a black running mate regardless of why you think those voters have that preference.

Frankly, I think insisting on a black woman as running mate is actually more of an attraction for middle and upper class educated white people than it is for minorities, though. It's not like black democrats were coming out in force to support Kamala in the primaries. They liked Joe better already.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

There are few things that bother me more than someone creating a quote out of thin air and then trying to attribute it to someone.

Nowhere have I said that "this might make me vote for Trump", so you can stop with the false attribution and high-handedness.

There is nothing sexist about stating a fact, namely, that Harris was in a relationship with man who was married at the time. Her doing so makes me think less of her.

As it would for a man who is involved with a woman (or other man or whatever) while he or she is still married to someone else. Arguing against one (Harris) does not mean that I am in favor of the other (a man doing the same thing).

But it is far easier to claim that someone is sexist than it is to actually think and investigate one’s position, and it is even easier to just make up stuff in a post.

To wit, you wrote that I suggested that “she only got the VP pick because she was a woman.“

What I wrote was “ She got the vp pick because she is a woman and is “of color.” Neither of which she had any personal role in doing.“

Do you see the word “only” in my statement? I don’t, but you certainly used it.

And yet you write that I should “stop pretending any time”? I’m not the one making up things here.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Honestly, this is kind of making his point for him because... yes. People either did, or should have, had this complaint when only white christian men could be VP candidates.

But for the same reason, it's politics. If you think black voters are more likely to turn out and vote if your VP is black, that's a legitimate political reason to select a black running mate regardless of why you think those voters have that preference.

Frankly, I think insisting on a black woman as running mate is actually more of an attraction for middle and upper class educated white people than it is for minorities, though. It's not like black democrats were coming out in force to support Kamala in the primaries. They liked Joe better already.

Not really,

If a person didn’t have this complaint in the past they don’t get to have it now. If the position has always been to select the most politically effective person based on political climate then it is sexist and racist to complain when the most politically effective choice is a women of colour.

Once you accept that the most qualified person to be president if the president dies is not the person who is selected and allow all kinds of other demographic qualifications into it you don’t get to complain when for the first time the person doesn’t look like you. You also don’t get for the first time to say it should be the best person for the job.

It’s never been the best person for the job nor should it be.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

The hypocrisy of complaining that Harris was chosen because she's a black woman, yet never a peep about Pence being chosen because he's a white evangelical man.

Cards on the table, they're both qualified and have the experience to be Vice President (Pence had it before holding the position).

Harris is qualified, would do a the job to the best of her abilities, and frankly I'm gonna have the popcorn ready for the VP Debate.

Harris v. Pence has the potential to be much better than Biden v. Palin or Bentsen v. Quayle.

Loves me a political slaughter on the debate stage.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

but we don't know if she is the most qualified.

This has been the dog whistle for misogynists every time a woman is granted a position of power for the last 100 years. It's so tiring

[Looch City]

First all-female NASA space walk: "omg who cares about their gender as long as they're qualified!!11"

First biracial women VP nominee: "yeah but she's not the most qualified!1"

[Wastedyouth]

As a victim of this a few times before and hopefully having learned my lesson;

I don't understand someone who is clearly in the wrong, with literally EVERY SINGLE person in the conversation is telling them they are in the wrong, continuing to double down on their argument rather than having a little introspection.

Just a random thought I was having. Not sure what triggered it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

It’s never been the best person for the job nor should it be.

I think that in general, I place more importance on the qualifications and "could be president" thing than you do, particularly when the top of the ticket is as old as Biden is. But I agree that other factors matter. The problem is, I DO think that it was a bad thing that you couldn't be VP previously without being a white Christian man, and to be consistent, it seems sensible to object to the proposition that everyone but women of colour are disqualified this time. I understand why Biden felt it was important this time, but my ideal process is certainly one where skin colour and gender are far down the list of important considerations.

That said, Kamala Harris is, for me, clearly qualified to be president if Biden were to die. She might be more qualified than any of the other short listed candidates (hard to say about Susan Rice). So from the perspective of the Biden administration, it's a perfectly fine pick. My objections to it are more about what it does to help Biden win the election, and in that regard I guess I'm totally discarding my Platonic ideal of a VP selection process this cycle anyway due to exigent circumstances in the form of Trump needing to lose.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

This has been the dog whistle for misogynists every time a woman is granted a position of power for the last 100 years. It's so tiring

Pretty much this, you could have given some people (BoLevi) a list of every elected official in America, let him pick any person he wanted, had Biden pick her as VP, and he would have started going off about how its a terrible choice because, Liv Warren is old and lies about her herritage, Amy Klobuchar is a secret republican that has hurt peoples feelings, Susan Rice as never won and election and personally hired terrorists to kill Mericans in Libia...............................

People are just looking for an excuse to both sides this, its stupid and should be called out as such. I've said it before I'll say it again, putting aside the fact that they have age limits and you need to be a naturalized citizen, they litterally could have select my eight year old daughter and she would have been a better choice than Trump/Pense, at the very least if she were told she was the second person in charge of the western world she would take the job a hell of a lot more seriously then those two do.