Racism And Kamala Harris

[Emily Lake]

P2025 makes it clear that they want to impose it at the federal level

Project 2025 makes it clear that The Heritage Foundation wants to impose it at a federal level.

The Heritage Foundation has been wanting that for pretty much as long as it has existed, along with several other things that aren't widely supported by americans as a whole, or even by right-leaning people.

 

[Emily Lake]

I find the insinuation that there are only 3 randos who have racist thoughts to be disingenuous since finding a particularly small subset of 3 influencers is representative of many, many orders of magnitude more followers. Not to mention those followers' beliefs are at an extreme point along a continuum of racist ideology that increasingly becomes more common as the point moves slightly toward less extremism but still racist ideology.

Do you hold the same assumption when it comes to far left progressives who want to literally eliminate all police forces, and make the US a communist country? Or is your assumption of vast hordes of secret supporters only applied to people you see as right wing?

 

[Elixir]

Whose “implicit assumption” is Emily talking about?

Well, damned near everyone in this thread who seems to think that Harris is absolutely key to getting black votes, because she is black.

Seems - to you? To me it appears that the fact that black liberal voters like to vote for black candidates, is as much common knowledge as the fact that white conservative voters like to vote for white candidates.

It's all wrapped up in all of the assumptions that are being made - including by you - that race and sex are the single most important things that black and female voters care about.

Why “the most”? Maybe it’s just low-hanging fruit, borne of conservatives’ refusal to consider minorities. That has resulted in an untapped reservoir of minority talent.

On the other hand... white dems and male dems are assumed to care about policy issues and to NOT care about race or sex.

Assumed by whom? White and male Dems who care more about policy issues than about sex or race? Yeah, so?

You might see it differently, but I see it as insulting. The idea that I, as a female, only care about whether or not a candidate is the same sex as I am and that I don't care about other policy issues as my priority is offensive.

Yeah, that would be stupid. So don’t do it, ok? But you really might want to consider the viability of your chosen candidate before you choose them.

And that's the implicit assumption being made by the entire approach.

Approach? The assumption is all yours; “this outcome can only be explained by an inherently racist, biased ‘approach’”
And it’s bullshit. People assume things, approaches don’t assume things. In this case the person is Emily.

My dad is similarly irritated by the assumption that because Harris has brown skin, he will be more inclined to vote for her, simply because she shares a similar melanin content.

If Harris needs your dad, it’s a bad assumption, held by individuals (not approaches) that you can’t identify. If she doesn’t need your dad, why should she care? Only if assuaging his irrational fear of a false “assumption” is worth more than the time it takes to do so.

The underlying premise throughout is that 1) white males who lean right will vote for white people because they're all racist and only care about skin color; 2) black and brown males will vote for black or brown candidates because they only care about skin color; 3) females will vote for female candidates because they only care about sex; 4) white males who lean left care about policies and principles and will vote on that basis regardless of the color or sex of candidates.

This repeated use of the word “only” helps you create a very false but comforting vision of the choices at hand for others.
Find me one individual who “only cares” about one of the things you decry them for “only caring” about, and I’ll show you someone who is unlikely to vote because they are probably in a mental institution.

All in all, it ends up painting white male left-leaning people as being multi-dimensional, well-rounded people with complex views not materially impacted by superficial tribalism... but that everyone else is a shallow, one-dimensional caricature who only cares about a single shallow aspect of their elected officials.

“It” does that, does it? “It” is bad. We must exterminate “it”. Damn “IT”!

Maybe painting just isn’t your forte. Consider how you’re painting whole swathes of the population. If doing that leaves you crying, this is probably not the place to seek consolation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm sharing an opinion piece that I thought made some pretty good points. It says if Harris is a DEI candidate so his Vance.

Agreed--I think most VPs are.

 

[Emily Lake]

The same thing is true with Project 2025, btw. I've seen tons and tons and tons of progressives going on about how it's the end of democracy and a horrible thing (some parts of it certainly are horrible, some are extreme but not horrible, most of it is boring). What I haven't seen is any advocacy for it by actual republican politicians. I'm left trying to figure out why so many progressives are scared shitless of something coming from a conservative think tank that has accomplished nothing of note in its history. It's as irrational as the stupid thing I posted leading to a pile of religious rightists being terrified that the marxists are taking over.

Of course they aren't openly supporting it.

However, note that while The Felon renounces P2025 he has Agenda 47--which is basically P2025 with an extra helping of shit on top.

P2025 is an epic case of saying the quiet part out loud.

I read through Wikipedia's summary of Agenda 47. Whether you consider Wikipedia to be an unbiased source is your own opinion, I think it largely suffices.

Some of it is absurd and ridiculous, some of it is more extreme than I would like, but there's some that I think is worthwhile. Mostly focused around policies toward China. At some point I expect to see policy positions from Harris, so I can compare and contrast.

 

[Emily Lake]

Very good. I’m suggesting that his insistence on a choice that he profiled in advance was an extremely cogent tactic, and the fact that Dems’ detractors (e.g. you)

FWIW, I'm also a Rep detractor. But don't let that slow you down any.

are now having fits over the effect it is now having, is proof of its political genius.
Of course he could have picked some honky white bread lib, but why should he have done that, when there was a talent like Kami just waiting to be plugged in, and the white boy would have fallen relatively flat in this situation?

Nothing quite so satisfying as feeling entitled to toss around racial denigration without consequence, eh?

The grapes are only going to get more sour, Emily. Pucker up.

All of the grapes have been rotten for years, regardless of whose vineyard they're coming from.

 

[Elixir]

Some of it is absurd and ridiculous, some of it is more extreme than I would like, but there's some that I think is worthwhile. Mostly focused around policies toward China. At some point I expect to see policy positions from Harris, so I can compare and contrast.

I actually agree with all of that.
In my case though it doesn’t matter to my vote because Trump is an existential threat to this republic. I truly would prefer a rotten cabbage, for its lack of destructive intent and the difficulty of kompromatting a cabbage.

 

[Emily Lake]

I suspect Emily gets most of her information from right wing social media.

I get the overwhelming majority of my information from HERE. But hey - don't let that stop you from making malicious assumptions in an attempt to poison the well while engaging in just-under-the-line ad hominem attacks.

No offense, but I would not use any message forum as my main source of information. This forum gives me leads if I am unaware of something, and then I go to reputable sources (CNN, the Economist - which is my main source of printed news, NPR, BBC, etc....) for more indepth reporting or academic sites for in depth information.

Lol, I don't actually take what people post here as being gospel truth. That would be idiotic. But I do end up getting the leads here, following them and reading them, and then frequently looking for how those topics are being reported in other sources.

 

[Elixir]

Nothing quite so satisfying as feeling entitled to toss around racial denigration without consequence, eh?

Saying “don’t do that”? Or is there someone I actually denigrated?
lol. The attempt at emphasis seems to have worked.
Too bad it didn’t encourage you to address the point. My fault, I guess.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not going to show you stuff that it thinks you won't like.

I make it a point to get a regular dose of news I don’t like by tuning in to Fox.
It’s not actually information, but it often makes me go try to find the raw materials from which they are weaving a particular falsehood.

MSNBC/CNN sweep shit under the rug too, and it’s good for me to be reminded of that.

While I agree with the concept (and often try to look at what both sides are saying about an issue) the Faux stuff tends to be so disconnected from reality that it's not of too much use.

 

[lpetrich]

The American Conservative on X: "Rep. Harriet Hageman says Democrat presidential candidate Kamala Harris is "intellectually, just really kind of the bottom of the barrel." "I think she was a DEI hire." (vid link)" / X
She primaried Liz Cheney back in 2022.

House GOP leaders urge members: Stop making race comments about Harris - POLITICO - "Leadership warned lawmakers during a closed-door meeting to focus on the vice president’s record, not her race."

During a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning, chair of the House GOP campaign arm Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) and others issued the warning after a series of comments by their members that focused on Harris’ race as well as claims she is a “DEI” pick, according to two people in the room.

...
But several Republicans immediately took the criticism in a different direction. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) said Monday that Harris was a “DEI vice president” and Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) over the weekend questioned if Democrats are sticking by her “because of her ethnic background.” If nominated, Harris would be the first Black and South Asian woman to be a major party nominee.

“This should not be about personalities. It should be about policy. And we have a record to compare,” Speaker Mike Johnson told POLITICO as he left the Tuesday meeting, saying Harris would have to answer for Biden’s record. “This has nothing to do with race. It has to do with the competence of the person running for president, the relative strength of the two candidates and what ideas they have on how to solve America’s problems. And I think in that comparison, we’ll win in a landslide.”

One House Republican, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said Republicans who made comments about Harris being a DEI pick, which stands for diversity, equity and inclusion, needed to stop.

 

[Elixir]

the Faux stuff tends to be so disconnected from reality that it's not of too much use.

True, and that makes it very weak sauce indeed. And my inability to ingest much of it makes it hard. But following some of their fantastic creations right down the rabbit holes from which they emerged can give insight, and is occasionally fascinating.

 

[Rhea]

They're trying to tell us he said "college." Gaslighting at its finest.

I actully think he may have said college, but since he’s an asshole every day, I will just laugh and let him suffer from being taken out of context.

My wife was across the room when I played it and she heard colored too.

This might be your lucky day. There is a 2 for 1 deal going on right now at CVS for hearing aids. Sale ends Monday, though.

LOL, Beave, that might not be the flex you think it is, to claim I’m right and Mrs. Ziprhead needs hearing aids.
I’m hard of hearing.

 

[Emily Lake]

I use the service AllSides; I don't always agree with their divying up of which papers have what political affiliations, but they do ensure that I get something of a spread, and helpfully point out when an entire story is being harped on by one side of the divide and ignored by the other altogether.

Oooh, thank you.

The "liberals" on this forum like to insist that I do not understand conservative views. This is untrue. I just don't agree with them. Ten thousand Breitbart articles are not going to convince me that diversity is a danger to rather than a strength of a majority-immigrant nation, sorry.

Actually, I think this is evidence of a lack of understanding of conservative views, Poli.

Diversity isn't a danger; the prioritization of diversity above competency and acument is a danger. Prioritizing the hiring of certain skin colors or sexes over others is the danger - and that's a view that up until about a decade ago would have been a solidly liberal position.

 

[Emily Lake]

The thing is The Felon and associates keep talking about rolling the clock back.

Rolling back the clock to when? It seems like a lot of progressives have decided that he means to roll it back to the mid 1800s, whereas a lot of conservatives think he means to roll it back to the early 2000s.

 

[Emily Lake]

The same thing is true with Project 2025, btw. I've seen tons and tons and tons of progressives going on about how it's the end of democracy and a horrible thing (some parts of it certainly are horrible, some are extreme but not horrible, most of it is boring). What I haven't seen is any advocacy for it by actual republican politicians. I'm left trying to figure out why so many progressives are scared shitless of something coming from a conservative think tank that has accomplished nothing of note in its history. It's as irrational as the stupid thing I posted leading to a pile of religious rightists being terrified that the marxists are taking over.

Of course you haven't. No one wants to speak out before the election about their deplorable future plans. These people are fascists but they are not stupid.

Publishing P2025 was stupid.

Why are you surprised? The Heritage Foundation has always been... challenged.

 

[Elixir]

Diversity isn't a danger; the prioritization of diversity above competency and acument is a danger.

I believe that danger is intentionally overblown (not necessarily that it doesn’t exist). What makes you think it’s not?
What’s the worst case scenario?
Incompetent government officials?
More incompetent than Trump’s last crew of criminals?
IS THAT EVEN FUCKING POSSIBLE?

 

[Emily Lake]

Some of it is absurd and ridiculous, some of it is more extreme than I would like, but there's some that I think is worthwhile. Mostly focused around policies toward China. At some point I expect to see policy positions from Harris, so I can compare and contrast.

I actually agree with all of that.
In my case though it doesn’t matter to my vote because Trump is an existential threat to this republic. I truly would prefer a rotten cabbage, for its lack of destructive intent and the difficulty of kompromatting a cabbage.

And there's the difference. I don't think that Trump (or almost any other feasible republican candidate) is any more of an existential threat to our republic than Harris (or almost any other feasible democratic candidate). Both far-right conservatives and far-left progressives hold views that I think are material threats to liberty and our nation's stability; both of those cohorts have far more influence over the parties than I would like. And whether you want to admit it or not, both of those cohorts also hold views that I think are beneficial to the country.

Neither party is acting for the interests of the citizens and the country. They are both acting in the interest of the party.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nothing quite so satisfying as feeling entitled to toss around racial denigration without consequence, eh?

Saying “don’t do that”? Or is there someone I actually denigrated?
lol. The attempt at emphasis seems to have worked.
Too bad it didn’t encourage you to address the point. My fault, I guess.

The only point you appear to have been making is "white people bad". I see no value in addressing that point.

 

[Politesse]

Diversity isn't a danger; the prioritization of diversity above competency and acument is a danger.

And yet, they attack people like Kamala Harris, whose credentials and record are both well known and above reproach, accusing them of only having been elected for their "vagina and skin color" even though that is obviously not the case. Just using "DEI" as a slur in the first place gives the game away. This isn't about real, measurable qualifications, or we'd be having a conversation about those.

If I were your coworker, and I thought you were unqualified for a promotion you had recently applied for, I would start by listing off the reasons I felt you were underqualified. These might include things like your academic attainments, lack of experience in a given role, or demonstrated incompetency in the area of core job requirements. There would be no reason to talk about your genitals at all, and I wouldn't. For reasons of relevancy and decorum. If I did, it would be more than appropriate to call me out for blatant sexism.