• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Racism And Kamala Harris

Emily Lake said:
Shadowy Man said:
Emily Lake said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Yes, I agree racism and sexism are potentially problems. Will Democrats vote for a Black / South Asian female?
Click to expand...
I've heard repeated arguments that Harris really needs to pick a white male VP to win. So apparently Dems are pretty well convinced that a substantial portion of their own party are racist and sexist turds.
Click to expand...
That logic doesn’t follow. As you yourself admit, elections are more decided by the so-called undecideds and independents. Recognizing that many of them may be racist and/or sexist does not mean they are “well convinced that a substantial portion of their own party are racist and sexist.”
Click to expand...
Sure, sure, because it's so clear and obvious that the Dems are putting a lot of effort into winning over moderates and independents, and has such a clear understanding of what's important to the majority of voters.
Click to expand...
So, you admit the flawed logic then?

It’s like Trump picking JD Vance is only going to appeal to his base and he didn’t show any interest in reaching out to other kinds of voters. If Kamala picks a Whitmer or a Booker it isn’t going to grow the potential voting base.

I don’t see how the acknowledgment that a white man may be the best VP pick actually addresses the racism or sexism of the Democratic base. It doesn’t make sense.

That doesn’t mean that Dems are addressing the needs of the independents but it doesn’t support your contention either.
 
Emily Lake said:
Can you point me to the arguments being made by the DNC, as well as by dem supporters, that are doing this?
Click to expand...
No.
You can lead a horse to water …
If there is ANY sincerity to that request you should listen to Harris’ latest speech then listen to Trump’s in the same light.
It’s stark.
 
Emily Lake said:
I find the arguments regarding Trump vs Harris (and the prior Biden vs Trump) to be incredibly myopic. True-Blue progressives are spending all their energy demonizing Blood-Red religious righties. Elsewhere I see the opposite. And that's just a silly thing to do. Progressives are never, ever, ever going to vote for Trump; the religious right are never, ever, ever going to vote for Harris. Both of those groups are partisans, who will always vote for their party, regardless of who is platformed. Dems could platform an outright communist who is literally campaiging to abolish the entire polcie force and all law enforcement and remove all immigration barriers in their entirety... and progressives will vote for them because they're not a republican. Reps could platform a religious zealot who campaigns to persecute homosexuality, remove the right of women to vote, and reinstate racial segregation and the religious right will vote for them because they're not a democrat.
Click to expand...
Well, the Conservatives literally did with Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. SCOTUS Justice Scalia and Thomas voted to keep gay sex criminalized in 2000.

The Democrats have not voted for a communist.

I'll agree that I've generally voted for the Democrat, but it has been because in large part, I support a woman's right to the body. And that before I was married or had a daughter. The Democrats generally support the expansion of rights, not the retraction of them. These days, public sentiment against stuff not actually taught in school (CRT) is getting GOP'er put into high places of office while I'm desperate to get people elected to restore a woman's right to herself, contraception, etc..., and to hopefully maintain a right to privacy. The other party has been waging a war against those rights for decades. This isn't a conspiracy theory.

Sadly, this is the agenda, instead of shoring up Social Security, Medicare, ensuring adequate access for aging Americans to competent and caring nursing homes, and managing the impact real AI will have on employment. No, instead, we need to stop the other party from requiring women to keep menstrual calendars. Fuck!
Emily Lake said:
Why is so much effort being put on vilifying the other side instead of wooing the very large, very quiet, very moderate group of people who are actually going to determine the outcome of this election?
Click to expand...
I don't need to vilify anyone. The GOP tried to actually steal an election in 2020. A notably smaller portion of the GOP stopped them, and that smaller portion is sunsetting. Project 2025 is in place to return the Federal Government to the late 19th Century, but pre-14th Amendment expansion by SCOTUS. And that isn't a conspiracy theory, it is the table of contents!
 
Shadowy Man said:
So, you admit the flawed logic then?
Click to expand...
???
Shadowy Man said:
It’s like Trump picking JD Vance is only going to appeal to his base and he didn’t show any interest in reaching out to other kinds of voters. If Kamala picks a Whitmer or a Booker it isn’t going to grow the potential voting base.
Click to expand...
Oh noes! Trump is also doing the same stupid thing! Do you think this is going to alter my view that it's a stupid thing, just because both parties are being dummies?
Shadowy Man said:
I don’t see how the acknowledgment that a white man may be the best VP pick actually addresses the racism or sexism of the Democratic base. It doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...
The argument I've seen is that Harris *needs* to select a *white male* if she wants to win. It goes hand in hand with people who have argued that Harris didn't get the nom in 2020 because she's a black woman. That's a commentary on the DNC itself.
Shadowy Man said:
That doesn’t mean that Dems are addressing the needs of the independents but it doesn’t support your contention either.
Click to expand...

The hyperfocus on race (and sometimes sex) from dems and progressives is the problem. And it's a turn-off to the independents and moderates, especially Gen-X because we literally don't give a fuck about that.
 
Emily Lake said:
That happens when there are cliffs on both sides and a bunch of falling boulders.

TBF, it would probably seem a lot less haphazard if you didn't assume that I had a party affiliation, and if you could accept that I genuinely believe that both parties should be burned to the ground.
Click to expand...
I know you don't have a party affiliation. You are a very conservative feminist, the Alan Dershowitz of female rights.
 
Derec said:
Oh, give me a break! It's not racist to point out that KH was a DEI pick for veep. Dems were not even hiding that they were looking for a black woman to nominate. Just like with SCOTUS justice or US Senator from California, nobody except black women needed to apply.
Click to expand...

There are several possible meanings when someone uses the word, “DEI.”
  • DEI can mean that yes, systems are being used to undo the previous system that excluded minorities and women. The DEI programs are built to remove existing barriers; resulting in more equitable results and better sense of unity, that positively affects the bottom line. It can include making sure that, of all the qualified candidates, you make sure you include, and do not exclude, minority candidates. And when you hire only one at a time, you acknowledge that when the past 45 have been white men, this one has absolutely no need whatsoever to again be a white man.
  • DEI can also mean, to some, that terrifyingly, the jobs are not protected for one’s own ilk any more, and that this is equivalent to oppression.

But there is really only one meaning when someone says “DEI pick”
  • And that is that there are no qualified minority candidates and therefore any minority candidate that was hired is due to preferring representation over qualifications
  • The underlying admission is that they cannot conceive of a qualified minority hire, and therefore must derisively use the term “DEI pick” or “DEI hire” out loud to showcase their racist belief and seek validation. This speaks not only to their subconscious knowledge that they are wrong, but also their lack of faith in themselves to live among the truth that they were not born better, and they have failed to become better.




Derec said:
Again, it is not even necessary to speculate or suspect that she was a token pick. Biden and the rest of the Dems were quite clear. Biden first pledged that he would not consider any men.
Click to expand...

See bullet one, above.

You testify here to the fact that you cannot undersgtand the idea that there are many qualified people and enough of them are Black that it is easy to break the 45-adminstration-long inequity just by wanting to.
 
Last edited:
Emily Lake said:
Shadowy Man said:
So, you admit the flawed logic then?
Click to expand...
???
Click to expand...

Sigh... You stated that the Dems stating that a desire to pick a white male VP is indicative of a recognition of sexism/racism in their own party. That doesn't follow logically, because the white male VP pick is more likely aimed toward the independent, undecided voters than members of their own party. Do you understand the flaw in your logic?

In fact, you further talk about how Dems will vote Dem no matter what, so you appear to recognize that the identity of the VP pick shouldn't matter to members of their own party. So your later logic goes against your logic as well.

Emily Lake said:
Shadowy Man said:
It’s like Trump picking JD Vance is only going to appeal to his base and he didn’t show any interest in reaching out to other kinds of voters. If Kamala picks a Whitmer or a Booker it isn’t going to grow the potential voting base.
Click to expand...
Oh noes! Trump is also doing the same stupid thing! Do you think this is going to alter my view that it's a stupid thing, just because both parties are being dummies?
Click to expand...

You misunderstood completely. Trump is decidedly *not* doing the same thing. If he were doing the same as the Dems he would be picking Nikki Haley as his running mate because he would be interested in expanding his voters, not catering to his locked-in base.

Emily Lake said:
Shadowy Man said:
I don’t see how the acknowledgment that a white man may be the best VP pick actually addresses the racism or sexism of the Democratic base. It doesn’t make sense.
Click to expand...
The argument I've seen is that Harris *needs* to select a *white male* if she wants to win. It goes hand in hand with people who have argued that Harris didn't get the nom in 2020 because she's a black woman. That's a commentary on the DNC itself.
Click to expand...

Does not follow. It is more likely a commentary on the independent vote, not the DNC base.

Emily Lake said:
Shadowy Man said:
That doesn’t mean that Dems are addressing the needs of the independents but it doesn’t support your contention either.
Click to expand...

The hyperfocus on race (and sometimes sex) from dems and progressives is the problem. And it's a turn-off to the independents and moderates, especially Gen-X because we literally don't give a fuck about that.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, there seem to be many more voters who do give a fuck about that, as evidenced by the pandering to the base by calling Kamala a "DEI" hire, and the hardcore right wing whinging about Usha Vance's race.

It'd be great if we lived in a world where the race and gender of candidates didn't matter, but they still do and to ignore that in an effort to get votes would be politically naive and shortsighted.
 
Emily Lake said:
It goes hand in hand with people who have argued that Harris didn't get the nom in 2020 because she's a black woman. That's a commentary on the DNC itself.
Click to expand...
So? WTF are you expecting?
If Dems are not allowed to placate the racists that pervade every aspect of American life, they have NO CHANCE.
America is racist. Get over it. Dems are, as a group, LESS racist than Republicans, if only by virtue of the fact that Republicans have a lock on the rabid overt racist vote.
It goes hand-in hand with the fact that there are stupid Democrat voters and there are ignorant Democrat voters, but by and large the votes of stupid and the ignorant are already committed to Trumpism.
 
Rhea said:
But there is really only one meaning when someone says “DEI pick”
  • And that is that there are no qualified minority candidates and therefore any minority candidate that was hired is due to preferring representation over qualifications[/s]
    [*]The underlying admission that they cannot conceive of a qualified minority hire, and therefore must derisively use the term “DEI pick” or “DEI hire” out loud to showcase their racist belief and seek validation, speaks not only to their subconscious knowledge that they are wrong, but also their lack of faith in themselves to live among the truth that they were not born better, and they have failed to become better.
Click to expand...

Undoubtably Harris was the most qualified of all the non white women that were under consideration.
 
Elixir said:
Emily Lake said:
It goes hand in hand with people who have argued that Harris didn't get the nom in 2020 because she's a black woman. That's a commentary on the DNC itself.
Click to expand...
So? WTF are you expecting?
If Dems are not allowed to placate the racists that pervade every aspect of American life, they have NO CHANCE.
America is racist. Get over it. Dems are, as a group, LESS racist than Republicans, if only by virtue of the fact that Republicans have a lock on the rabid overt racist vote.
It goes hand-in hand with the fact that there are stupid Democrat voters and there are ignorant Democrat voters, but by and large the votes of stupid and the ignorant are already committed to Trumpism.
Click to expand...
Stupid, ignorant, and I would add selfish. Of course, selfishness is a result of fear. Republicans are definitely the party of fear. Without lots of bogeymen they wouldn't even have a party. It's their identity.
 
Emily Lake said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
I know you don't have a party affiliation. You are a very conservative feminist, the Alan Dershowitz of female rights.
Click to expand...
What views do I hold that you think are "very conservative"?
Click to expand...
Economically you are very conservative, but maybe "out of touch" would be a better description.
 
I know I am late to the party, but a few basic points, if I may.

Accusing Harris of being picked only because of her sex and race is indeed a racist, sexist thing to say. It is utter bullshit to say it to begin with. She wasn’t elected by Californians because of her race or sex but because she reflected their values and campaigned more effectively than her opponents. Elections are definitely not about DEI. They can’t be.

White makes have always been the DEI candidates of the past. To suggest that she is a DEI candidate while ignoring white makes being picked overwhelmingly by voters in the past clearly demonstrates that the accusation is nothing but a racist rant.

Even if Biden picked her because she was a woman of color, so what? All VP picks have to do with getting the support of other interest groups. That has been the case since we first started having elections like that! If she brought to the table the ability to motivate people of color and women to show up and vote for the Democratic ticket, then thanks a damn good reason to pick her.

This bullshit about meritocracy is utter bullshit. It never has existed and never will. Ranting about it is quite frankly a symptom of racism.

And that is also why it is best for her to pick a white male to balance the ticket. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that! It would be stupid of her not to. People on this board complaining that means that democrats are therefore racist and sexist miss the point. People are racist and sexist. All of us! We are tribal creatures and in an election you play to your audience regardless. She needs a white male to balance her ticket. Just like Biden needed a black female to balance his. So fucking what.

I predict that the Democrats will never have another ticket of two white males, and it will bring them victory after victory in the coming years.
 
T.G.G. Moogly said:
Stupid, ignorant, and I would add selfish.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s a glaring omission, mea culpa.
The selfish, imo are few in number, not significantly different from their frequency in the general population. But in the Republican Party they are exclusively running the show.
 
blastula said:
Derec said:
Oh, give me a break! It's not racist to point out that KH was a DEI pick for veep.
Click to expand...

When they call her a DEI hire they mean unqualified, which is false.
Click to expand...
No, they mean "nigger". Probably also "cunt".

Because they may be vile scumbags, but they're not brave vile scumbags, and they dare not say what they're thinking, in case decent-but-naïve people identify them as the racist misogynist scum that they are.
 
Emily Lake said:
BH said:
Ever black person over 18 and eligible to vote better get out and do it this election. The stakes are too high.
Click to expand...
Or what? Are you under the impression that black conservatives are "race traitors"? Do you hold the opinion that the only issue that black voters should ever care about is race?
Click to expand...
Where the fuck did that come from???
 
Emily Lake said:
I find the arguments regarding Trump vs Harris (and the prior Biden vs Trump) to be incredibly myopic. True-Blue progressives are spending all their energy demonizing Blood-Red religious righties. Elsewhere I see the opposite. And that's just a silly thing to do. Progressives are never, ever, ever going to vote for Trump; the religious right are never, ever, ever going to vote for Harris. Both of those groups are partisans, who will always vote for their party, regardless of who is platformed. Dems could platform an outright communist who is literally campaiging to abolish the entire polcie force and all law enforcement and remove all immigration barriers in their entirety... and progressives will vote for them because they're not a republican. Reps could platform a religious zealot who campaigns to persecute homosexuality, remove the right of women to vote, and reinstate racial segregation and the religious right will vote for them because they're not a democrat.

But those cohorts are not representative of the nation. They're not even reasonably representative of registered party voters. Most registered republicans are moderate conservatives; most registered democrats are moderate liberals. And close to a third of the voters in the country are moderate pragmatic independents.

Why is so much effort being put on vilifying the other side instead of wooing the very large, very quiet, very moderate group of people who are actually going to determine the outcome of this election?

Do you guys really think that "Oh, you wouldn't want to be associated with those kinds of people" is a winning argument?
Click to expand...
Oh Nooos!!! There are partisans in the US!
 
Emily Lake said:
Shadowy Man said:
Emily Lake said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Yes, I agree racism and sexism are potentially problems. Will Democrats vote for a Black / South Asian female?
Click to expand...
I've heard repeated arguments that Harris really needs to pick a white male VP to win. So apparently Dems are pretty well convinced that a substantial portion of their own party are racist and sexist turds.
Click to expand...
That logic doesn’t follow. As you yourself admit, elections are more decided by the so-called undecideds and independents. Recognizing that many of them may be racist and/or sexist does not mean they are “well convinced that a substantial portion of their own party are racist and sexist.”
Click to expand...
Sure, sure, because it's so clear and obvious that the Dems are putting a lot of effort into winning over moderates and independents, and has such a clear understanding of what's important to the majority of voters.
Click to expand...
What makes you think they aren't? Specifics, please.
 
Emily Lake said:
Elixir said:
Emily Lake said:
Why is so much effort being put on vilifying the other side
Click to expand...
Who are you asking that of?
It’s the only arrow in the Republican quiver, so there’s that.
Dems responding in kind probably has plenty to do with the amazing fecundity of that ground.
Click to expand...
Dude, do you read this site, like at all? Do you read any social media at all?
Click to expand...
Is social media where you get your information? I suspect it is so since you have in the past been, shall we say, unaware of certain political affairs and had to be schooled about them.

Social media will only confirm your concerns and biases. You're stupid to use it for information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom