Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Jimmy Higgins]

Of course, the critical words in LP's post are "If the only reason"... then yes, LP would be right. No one should get a position strictly because of their race.

I'm glad somebody gets it.

The issue we have here is that this isn't strictly about race... as much as people want to assume it is. Harris didn't become a VP candidate because she was black. She did stuff, had a career. No one wants to look at anything else in the resume. LP is obsessed with the answer on the ethnicity line.

But here you are wrong. "Black" was a required characteristic, but not the only one. That is discrimination. (But I consider all VP picks to be discriminatory, I'm not singling her out.)

And yet, she’s the only one you’ve mentioned. And not a single word about how, with a single exception, being a white make was a requirement to be POTUS or VP.

Putting any race or sex requirement on the VP position is wrong. It's just that it's normally not done openly so it doesn't get criticized. He openly told the world he was going to discriminate on race and sex and then proceeded to do so.

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

All VPs are DEI picks. It's just Biden was very open about Harris being a DEI pick so he gets more criticism for it.

Not Vance. The ticket already had a douchebag.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

FWIW, the most likely explanation for not voting Dem is that you support the Republican ticket. The fact is that the most likely explanation for that support is ignorance rather than malevolence.

Except it's a big, big dose of blindness to be ignorant.

Look at what's been happening--are the MAGAs recognizing the problem and recanting? Generally, no.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, his love of Trump had nothing to do with Israel or religion, real or fake. It’s that deep down, neither can quite figure out how their lives turned out as they did. Must be someone else’s fault.

Yeah, that's how The Felon won. He and his disinformation sources did a great job of pretending that the Democrats are behind all the things that have gone wrong in their life.

 

[Shadowy Man]

We do not know if she was the best as others were not even considered. That's the reverse discrimination you want to pretend does not exist.

in this kind of thing there’s no such thing as “best”.

 

[southernhybrid]

That "small fraction" is 21 million Americans. The odds are very low that none are close to optimal for the job.

No. The "small fraction" is the handful of elected officials and other prominent political figures from which running mates are picked. With apologies to William F. Buckley, running mates are not picked from phone books.

The odds are roughly zero that none are capable of being above average in any reasonable ranking of past US Vice Presidents.

And yet, this one wasn't. She certainly wasn't up to the task of taking over at the top of the ticket.

Dan Quayle was a VP for fuck's sake.

Dan "I can count to potatoe" Quayle was a miss, and would not have made a good presidential candidate had HW had to withdraw.
How does that justify restricting running mate selection by race and gender?

Seriously? Compared to the idiotic narcissist with psychopathic tendencies, either of my dogs would be much better presidents, and they are both females. They actually care about the people and they would never do anything to destroy democracy. And you have the audacity to say that Harris wasn't up to doing the job. WTF man!

There are plenty of women, including black women who would make good presidents compared to many of the men who have been presidents in my life time. Crooked Dick Nixon? "W"? and now one who is likely to go down in history as the worst president ever and you think Harris wasn't qualified? I've heard so many lies about her prior to the election.

She may not have been my first choice, but considering the alternative, she was more than well qualified and would have been able to do the job without ruining the country. Plus, I'm quite sure she would have chosen good cabinet members and advisers, unlike the current felon who holds the highest office in the land.

 

[barbos]

The issue is that when you restrict yourself to a small fraction of possible candidates, you are unlikely to find anybody close to optimal for the job.

That "small fraction" is 21 million Americans. The odds are very low that none are close to optimal for the job.

The odds are roughly zero that none are capable of being above average in any reasonable ranking of past US Vice Presidents.

Dan Quayle was a VP for fuck's sake.

Are you implying than Dan Quayle was even more empty headed than Harris? Sorry I did not follow US politics closely at the time living in USSR and all.

 

[barbos]

James Buchanan, Lincoln’s immediate predecessor, was wholly incompetent, and did nothing while the south seceded. Lincoln’s immediate successor, Andrew Johnson, was a semi-literate drunkard who got bombed on inauguration day 1865 and had to be escorted from the platform. He was a virulent racist who opposed all post-war civil rights acts and eventually ended up getting impeached

I get that most of your presidents were scum and/or idiots. So why so much attention on Trump?
He is an ordinary for a POTUS.

 

[Toni]

No, his love of Trump had nothing to do with Israel or religion, real or fake. It’s that deep down, neither can quite figure out how their lives turned out as they did. Must be someone else’s fault.

Yeah, that's how The Felon won. He and his disinformation sources did a great job of pretending that the Democrats are behind all the things that have gone wrong in their life.

I think it’s more that their lives have not turned out great ( and not at all certain they’d agree with me) but they feel looked down upon by people who are better off, partnered up, seem more at ease around people from other countries or regions, intellectuals. Who live in fancier houses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You and others like you imply it. I choose not to vote for either side because I refuse to be party of any movement that demands insufferable adherence to constant white knighting while the nation falls into the sewer. Right now, a vote for a Democrat is support for incompetency. A vote for the GOP is support for a rotting shithouse. I don't have to engage in either.

"Destructive rhetoric." As if this doesn't make my point for me.

Choosing not to vote is saying both sides are equally bad. And I find that very hard to believe.

 

[Elixir]

FWIW, the most likely explanation for not voting Dem is that you support the Republican ticket. The fact is that the most likely explanation for that support is ignorance rather than malevolence.

Except it's a big, big dose of blindness to be ignorant.

Not so much for those inside The Bubble.
They’re still on a sugar high because their guy is owning the libs and the libs are so upset about it. You may be underestimating the depth and breadth of their ignorance.

Look at what's been happening--are the MAGAs recognizing the problem and recanting? Generally, no.

See above - it’s not like they have retained any reasoning ability; they have surrendered it to The Cause, e.g. Swiz.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

Look, you know I disagree with LP on damned near every topic like this, but I think you're stretching things here. It's entirely possible to be quite happy and open to non-white or non-male (or both) leaders while still opposing affirmative action or diversity objectives as the reason why we get non-white or non-male leaders.

Seriously, I would love to have a competent, powerful, intelligent woman in charge of the US. But I'd like her to get there on her own merits, not because some collection of guilt-ridden people decided that we had to have a female president to make some sort of social statement.

Exactly. I want the best people available, do not look at race, gender or such irrelevant things. Putting an irrelevant constraint on a search inherently reduces the chance of finding the best. We do tend to look but outside theatrical roles (although I take a wide view of theatrical--I have no problem with the idea of an ethnic restaurant hiring people that look to be of the correct ethnicity etc) we shouldn't be looking.

That's utopian thinking. The people in charge do look at race and assume that skin color impacts intelligence. Your system will only work after racism no longer exists - if ever.

No, most people do not think race says anything about intelligence. You're getting it mixed up with socioeconomic class which has a strong relationship with the intelligence of people's actions.

 

[Toni]

The issue is that when you restrict yourself to a small fraction of possible candidates, you are unlikely to find anybody close to optimal for the job.

That "small fraction" is 21 million Americans. The odds are very low that none are close to optimal for the job.

The odds are roughly zero that none are capable of being above average in any reasonable ranking of past US Vice Presidents.

Dan Quayle was a VP for fuck's sake.

Are you implying than Dan Quayle was even more empty headed than Harris? Sorry I did not follow US politics closely at the time living in USSR and all.

Dan Quayle was an idiot. Despite Derec and Dear Leader’s claims, Harris is bright and accomplished.

 

[Toni]

Of course, the critical words in LP's post are "If the only reason"... then yes, LP would be right. No one should get a position strictly because of their race.

I'm glad somebody gets it.

The issue we have here is that this isn't strictly about race... as much as people want to assume it is. Harris didn't become a VP candidate because she was black. She did stuff, had a career. No one wants to look at anything else in the resume. LP is obsessed with the answer on the ethnicity line.

But here you are wrong. "Black" was a required characteristic, but not the only one. That is discrimination. (But I consider all VP picks to be discriminatory, I'm not singling her out.)

And yet, she’s the only one you’ve mentioned. And not a single word about how, with a single exception, being a white make was a requirement to be POTUS or VP.

Putting any race or sex requirement on the VP position is wrong. It's just that it's normally not done openly so it doesn't get criticized. He openly told the world he was going to discriminate on race and sex and then proceeded to do so.

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

All VPs are DEI picks. It's just Biden was very open about Harris being a DEI pick so he gets more criticism for it.

It’s that his pick is black and female.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, his love of Trump had nothing to do with Israel or religion, real or fake. It’s that deep down, neither can quite figure out how their lives turned out as they did. Must be someone else’s fault.

Yeah, that's how The Felon won. He and his disinformation sources did a great job of pretending that the Democrats are behind all the things that have gone wrong in their life.

I think it’s more that their lives have not turned out great ( and not at all certain they’d agree with me) but they feel looked down upon by people who are better off, partnered up, seem more at ease around people from other countries or regions, intellectuals. Who live in fancier houses.

I don't see how this is supposed to be "more than", most of what you are describing is simply a matter of life turning out better. Which mostly comes down to the decisions people make but the ones who do poorly want someone/something to blame.

 

[Toni]

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

Look, you know I disagree with LP on damned near every topic like this, but I think you're stretching things here. It's entirely possible to be quite happy and open to non-white or non-male (or both) leaders while still opposing affirmative action or diversity objectives as the reason why we get non-white or non-male leaders.

Seriously, I would love to have a competent, powerful, intelligent woman in charge of the US. But I'd like her to get there on her own merits, not because some collection of guilt-ridden people decided that we had to have a female president to make some sort of social statement.

Exactly. I want the best people available, do not look at race, gender or such irrelevant things. Putting an irrelevant constraint on a search inherently reduces the chance of finding the best. We do tend to look but outside theatrical roles (although I take a wide view of theatrical--I have no problem with the idea of an ethnic restaurant hiring people that look to be of the correct ethnicity etc) we shouldn't be looking.

That's utopian thinking. The people in charge do look at race and assume that skin color impacts intelligence. Your system will only work after racism no longer exists - if ever.

No, most people do not think race says anything about intelligence. You're getting it mixed up with socioeconomic class which has a strong relationship with the intelligence of people's actions.

No, that’s an extremely flawed way of looking at the world and people. But it does make it easier to not care about poor people if you think they aren’t smart enough to know or do better.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

FWIW, the most likely explanation for not voting Dem is that you support the Republican ticket. The fact is that the most likely explanation for that support is ignorance rather than malevolence.

Except it's a big, big dose of blindness to be ignorant.

Not so much for those inside The Bubble.
They’re still on a sugar high because their guy is owning the libs and the libs are so upset about it. You may be underestimating the depth and breadth of their ignorance.

Look at what's been happening--are the MAGAs recognizing the problem and recanting? Generally, no.

See above - it’s not like they have retained any reasoning ability; they have surrendered it to The Cause, e.g. Swiz.

Yeah, a huge dose of blindness from devotion to the cause.

 

[barbos]

The issue is that when you restrict yourself to a small fraction of possible candidates, you are unlikely to find anybody close to optimal for the job.

That "small fraction" is 21 million Americans. The odds are very low that none are close to optimal for the job.

The odds are roughly zero that none are capable of being above average in any reasonable ranking of past US Vice Presidents.

Dan Quayle was a VP for fuck's sake.

Are you implying than Dan Quayle was even more empty headed than Harris? Sorry I did not follow US politics closely at the time living in USSR and all.

Dan Quayle was an idiot. Despite Derec and Dear Leader’s claims, Harris is bright and accomplished.

If she is so bright (she is not), why are you comparing her to Dan Quayle?

 

[Toni]

The issue is that when you restrict yourself to a small fraction of possible candidates, you are unlikely to find anybody close to optimal for the job.

That "small fraction" is 21 million Americans. The odds are very low that none are close to optimal for the job.

The odds are roughly zero that none are capable of being above average in any reasonable ranking of past US Vice Presidents.

Dan Quayle was a VP for fuck's sake.

Are you implying than Dan Quayle was even more empty headed than Harris? Sorry I did not follow US politics closely at the time living in USSR and all.

Dan Quayle was an idiot. Despite Derec and Dear Leader’s claims, Harris is bright and accomplished.

If she is so bright (she is not), why are you comparing her to Dan Quayle?

I didn’t.

 

[Toni]

Of course, the critical words in LP's post are "If the only reason"... then yes, LP would be right. No one should get a position strictly because of their race.

I'm glad somebody gets it.

The issue we have here is that this isn't strictly about race... as much as people want to assume it is. Harris didn't become a VP candidate because she was black. She did stuff, had a career. No one wants to look at anything else in the resume. LP is obsessed with the answer on the ethnicity line.

But here you are wrong. "Black" was a required characteristic, but not the only one. That is discrimination. (But I consider all VP picks to be discriminatory, I'm not singling her out.)

And yet, she’s the only one you’ve mentioned. And not a single word about how, with a single exception, being a white make was a requirement to be POTUS or VP.

Putting any race or sex requirement on the VP position is wrong. It's just that it's normally not done openly so it doesn't get criticized. He openly told the world he was going to discriminate on race and sex and then proceeded to do so.

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

All VPs are DEI picks. It's just Biden was very open about Harris being a DEI pick so he gets more criticism for it.

Not Vance. The ticket already had a douchebag.

But not a young douchebag. Just an old fart douchebag.

 

[crazyfingers]

Yet you have zero problem with the demonstrated fact that with a single exception every single elected POTUS and VP has been white and male.

Seems like a very very strong preference to me.

Look, you know I disagree with LP on damned near every topic like this, but I think you're stretching things here. It's entirely possible to be quite happy and open to non-white or non-male (or both) leaders while still opposing affirmative action or diversity objectives as the reason why we get non-white or non-male leaders.

Seriously, I would love to have a competent, powerful, intelligent woman in charge of the US. But I'd like her to get there on her own merits, not because some collection of guilt-ridden people decided that we had to have a female president to make some sort of social statement.

Exactly. I want the best people available, do not look at race, gender or such irrelevant things. Putting an irrelevant constraint on a search inherently reduces the chance of finding the best. We do tend to look but outside theatrical roles (although I take a wide view of theatrical--I have no problem with the idea of an ethnic restaurant hiring people that look to be of the correct ethnicity etc) we shouldn't be looking.

That's utopian thinking. The people in charge do look at race and assume that skin color impacts intelligence. Your system will only work after racism no longer exists - if ever.

No, most people do not think race says anything about intelligence. You're getting it mixed up with socioeconomic class which has a strong relationship with the intelligence of people's actions.

I don't believe you.