Poll Dem VP Pic: your choice?

[Rhea]

“But where are you really from?”

Oh, Kamala's mother was from India and an immigrant to US. But Kamala's father was a Jamaican of African ancestry (at least a part), who also a migrant to US. Kamala was born, brought up, studied, worked in US only. She is a Christian and not a Hindu. Tell me, to what % Kamala is an Indian.

To an AMerican, she is 50% Indian.

 

[Gospel]

She was likely culturally raised 33.33% Jamaican, 33.33% Indian, and 33.34% American. However, she is 100% American. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Shadowy Man]

“But where are you really from?”

Oh, Kamala's mother was from India and a migrant to US. But Kamala's father was a Jamaican of African ancestry (at least a part), who also a migrant to US. Kamala was born, brought up, studied, worked in US only. Does being an American depend exclusively on someone's mother's ethnicity?

First of all, my quote is a bit of a joke that you probably don’t recognize not being an American. Sorry.

As for your question at the end, that’s a weird question and obviously a no.

To other Americans, Kamala would be considered an American whose heritage is half Indian and half Jamaican. Is that difficult to understand?

I guess I’ve been confused by your whole line of questioning.

 

[aupmanyav]

As I see it, the problem is only in the name. If the sisters were named Mary and Anne, then nobody would have asked 'whether they were Indians or Ameicans?'. Then the question may have been 'whether they are Jamaican or American'?

To other Americans, Kamala would be considered an American whose heritage is half Indian and half Jamaican. Is that difficult to understand?

I understand it quite well. The problem is that Trump does not understand it and asks such foolish questions.

 

[Elixir]

 

[aupmanyav]

Heritage, ancestry, bloodlines, etc..

Heritage: American, Jamaican, Indian, in that order.
Ancestry: Probably Ghanian, Indian. Most probably some British ancestry too. Browning.
About same for blood lines.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I understand it quite well. The problem is that Trump does not understand it and asks such foolish questions.

Trump’s idiotic ramblings seem to be about identity rather than heritage.

 

[Shadowy Man]

 

[aupmanyav]

To an AMerican, she is 50% Indian.

She was likely culturally raised 33.33% Jamaican, 33.33% Indian, and 33.34% American. However, she is 100% American. Hope that makes sense.

To me, biologically, she is likely to be 50% Indian, more than 25% African, less than 25% British.
By culture, she is 60% American, more than 20% Indian, less than 20% Jamaican - because she was raised by her mother.
By religion, she is 90% Christian, 10% Hindu.

 

[Derec]

He failed the breath test after failing the balance test, but he had the medical record to substantiate the hearing problem. Balance issues can be linked to a problem with the inner ear. What happened was that he was allowed to plead guilty to reckless driving, and the DUI charge was dropped.

Since he failed the breath test, any vestibular problems that may have caused a false positive field sobriety test are moot. Ear problems don't cause your breath to have EtOH in it.
He must have had good connections with the prosecutor or the judge to get that sweetheart deal.

I totally agree. I was reading some comments on a right wing site where idiots were acting appalled about his one mistake. His test showed the result of .128. When I was a child and up to around the 1980s, the legal limit was .15, so in previous times, Walz wouldn't have even been found to be too intoxicated to drive I'm sure there were times when my late grandfather exceeded that limit, but he never was stopped for DUI. On the other hand, people never used to drive as fast as they do these days.

0.128 is a pretty high BAC - a 180 pound man would need ~6 beers consumed in a short period of time to blow that.

0.15 also seems like a very high BAC to be the legal limit. These days, it is less than that even 0.08 in most places.

 

[Copernicus]

He failed the breath test after failing the balance test, but he had the medical record to substantiate the hearing problem. Balance issues can be linked to a problem with the inner ear. What happened was that he was allowed to plead guilty to reckless driving, and the DUI charge was dropped.

Since he failed the breath test, any vestibular problems that may have caused a false positive field sobriety test are moot. Ear problems don't cause your breath to have EtOH in it.
He must have had good connections with the prosecutor or the judge to get that sweetheart deal.

Who knows? Maybe the judge thought that the evidence was not strong enough to merit a long court battle and decided that the reckless driving charge would be sufficient to set him on a different path. As it turns out, that is what happened. Judge him by his behavior since that day over two decades ago. And, while you're at it, consider whether anyone else on the Republican side can boast a more exemplary pattern of behavior in their past. Do you really believe that J.D. Vance would make a better Vice President than Tim Walz because of this incident that happened when he was 31 years old? Or go ahead and leap to any wild conclusions you want. Just don't expect the rest of us to take the same leap.

 

[Derec]

So what if Harris banged a powerful dude? And got ahead because she did so?

Because it's political corruption. Had JDV gotten ahead by banging a somewhat powerful (let's not exaggerate "Slick" Willie Brown's power) older woman, the Ilk would not shut up about it.
I mean, look at how much they are repeating a completely made up story about him.

It's like Trump explaining that he doesn't pay income tax because "I'm smart".

Trump whataboutism bingo.

 

[Derec]

Who knows? Maybe the judge thought that the evidence was not strong enough to merit a long court battle and decided that the reckless driving charge would be sufficient to set him on a different path.

He blew 0.128. They had him dead to rights.

As it turns out, that is what happened. Judge him by his behavior since that day over two decades ago.

Walz first came to my attention in 2020, when he didn't do much about the very violent riots tearing up Minneapolis. Then he released a child murderer because the mob demanded he do it.

Not that JDV is better, of course. I still plan to vote for Kamala and Walz as the lesser weevils, but I am not enthusiastic about the ticket.

 

[Derec]

But that’s the issue: Some people see all relationships as transactional.

I did not say that all relationships are transactional in the sense that word is commonly used (although in some sense they are, since people enter relationships for some benefit, including emotional and companionship ones).

However, when you have a relationship with an extreme age gap and where the older party provided tangible benefits for the younger party's career, then yes, I would say that it is highly probable that this relationship can be classified as a "transactional relationship".

 

[Derec]

“But where are you really from?”

Olduvai Gorge.

 

[Derec]

Well, Macron comes to mind. I think Derec did not mean it in the sense of 'always'.

No, I never used the words like "always" and "never" here.
Yeah, Macron's story is quite interesting. He was 15 and his wife was 39 when they met. Mon Dieu!

 

[Derec]

You are the last person on this board to judge a woman's nature of her relationship with a man.

Why exactly? Because I do not have positions on state boards to give away to women half my age?

 

[Derec]

Because you have no actual proof of it.

Proof is for math (and liquor). We have evidence.
Again, if the shoe was on the other foot, y'all would not be shutting up about it, and you know it. Same as with the DUI. You'd be making a lot of hay had it been JDV who blew 0.128 and drove 96 mph.

 

[Derec]

And yet here you are, mentioning it over and over and over and over and OVER again.

Only as an example of a double standards. And your (and others here) reaction proves my point.

So what, exactly, does “anathema” functionally change about what you do?

I wasn't censored (yet) if that's what you mean. But the reaction of the Ilk was quite apoplectic.

Is this just someone complaining about not being popular while he makes assumptions about women’s sex lives and screeching endlessly about women making their own choices about who they sleep with?

Interestingly, it is the dominant part of the feminist left that does not think women should be able to make choices about who they sleep with as long as they do it for money.
My objection is not her choosing to have sex with somebody. My objection is for one unethical trading of political positions.
Also, my point was to contrast how your Ilk finds made up stories about JDV's sex life acceptable or even laudable, while losing your shit about something KH actually did.

And people tell you that they think your opinion on the matter is warped and wrong.

People who are partisan hacks. People who are all over any story of sexual impropriety by a Republican, even if they have to invent it out of whole cloth (as with JDV).

Can we end that loop now? Or is there a reason you need to repeat it again and again and again and again?

If not for y'alls reaction, it could have ended a long time ago.

What do you get out of that? Are you trying to make people disdain the woman you plan to vote for? Are you trying to get someone else to vote against nher so you can cleanse yourself of voting for her?

I was merely pointing out a double standard. Ideally your Ilk would stop rejoicing in spreading the false story about JDV.

I am plumb flummoxed.

It does seem so. I hope I provided some clarification to straighten your plumb.

 

[Derec]

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So far not a single woman of any color has been elected POTUS. Having Harris on the ticket was indeed ground breaking.

My problem is that Biden excluded anybody not of her gender or color from consideration. Just like he did for the SCOTUS seat. Just like Newsom did with his US Senate appointment.

I realize that to you, all male/female relationships are transactional, and that what men want from women is primarily sex and what women want from men is primarily money (or reasonable facsimile).

I did not say that. But even you must admit that there are many relationships that are transactional in that sense. Especially when we are dealing with an extreme age gap. And we have a transaction - he placed her on state boards. So it is highly likely that theirs was a transactional relationship in that sense.

Senior members of any team often advocate for future advancement of more junior members. I was given a promotion because my boss liked me and thought I had more potential. He was male, I was very young and probably at peak attractiveness but nope, not a hint of anything even close to attraction or transactional.

But had you slept with him, and he advocated for your future advancement, don't you think that it would have been transactional then?

He was nice and he was right. I was better in the next position than in the one I was hired for and indeed, was better suited as I moved up. People tend to recommend people they know for jobs and positions as they open up. Indeed, as a position opens up, those looking to hire someone usually ask if anyone knows anyone who would be suitable...

That is not in dispute here. Nobody is saying otherwise. It is the sexual relationship combined with him helping her political advancement that makes their relationship transactional with very high degree of certainty. Can we read their minds? No. But you would not demand that degree of certainty if it was JDV who slept with an older woman who placed him on state boards.

I am also vehemently against drunk driving. Driving 90 in a 50 is indeed awful, alcohol or no. People do stupid things when they are young or drunk or both.

Walz was 31. Not that young.