Racism And Kamala Harris

[thebeave]

The idea that there is a “left” mainstream media is yet another utter absurdity believed by Trumpkins.

Of course there is. CNN, MCNBC on cable TV. Newspapers like NY Times.

Only to a right-winger.

Just look at the kid glove treatment they have been giving Kamala Harris ever since Biden's announcement.

What did you expect them to do?

AllSides Media Bias Chart

Its exactly what Derec has said, only he understated the situation. He should have included ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, AP...

 

[lpetrich]

(CNN, MSNBC, NYT as left-wing...)

Only to a right-winger.

Only somebody on the far left would deny that these outlets are left of center.

Centrist or center-left, maybe, but not very clearly left-wing.

I don't know what Derec would consider centrist. Fox News?

What did you expect them to do?

Not act like campaign staffers.

Like how? Why do you think that they are some villainous mirror image of the likes of Fox News?

 

[RamblingFool]

I don't know what Derec would consider centrist. Fox News?

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Poor Sources, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station/Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

Fox News (foxnews.com) - Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no

mediabiasfactcheck.com

 

[Jarhyn]

(CNN, MSNBC, NYT as left-wing...)

Only to a right-winger.

Only somebody on the far left would deny that these outlets are left of center.

Centrist or center-left, maybe, but not very clearly left-wing.

I don't know what Derec would consider centrist. Fox News?

What did you expect them to do?

Not act like campaign staffers.

Like how? Why do you think that they are some villainous mirror image of the likes of Fox News?

Because they think centrists would be people who look at "both sides" and decide any sin is acceptable because some is probably acceptable, but certain things aren't.

When it comes to voting, I'm going to vote for the people who say "folks have rights to live without wrongheaded rules".

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

I could be wrong, but I believe he did limit it to black women. And that was perfectly OK.

Why is it "perfectly ok" to exclude people based on race and gender? Especially since he had the same racist and sexist limitation on the SCOTUS justice he appointed.

Elizabeth Warren was on the short list to the very end.

No, she wasn't. I mean some people may have talked about her, but she never had any chance of getting picked even before the George Floyd insurrection and the desire by the Democratic Party to appease the insurrectionists. She was simply too old - there is no way a 77 year old presidential candidate would pick a 71 year old running mate.

Now women like Amy "Mad Hatter" Klobuchar or Gretchen "mir graut's vor Dir" Whitmer would have been on the short list before the race riots happened, but not afterwards.

Yeah, she was.

 

[pood]

I could be wrong, but I believe he did limit it to black women. And that was perfectly OK.

Why is it "perfectly ok" to exclude people based on race and gender? Especially since he had the same racist and sexist limitation on the SCOTUS justice he appointed.

This has already been answered several times, by me and others, but obviously you do not want to listen or are incapable of doing so. Let me try one more time: It is perfectly OK, even admirable, because for 250 fucking years blacks, women, and other minorities have been excluded from high positions of authority and influence BECAUSE THEY WERE BLACK, WOMEN, AND OTHER MINORITIES. It is LONG PAST TIME that QUALIFIED blacks, women, and other minorities be given preference to counterbalance long-standing AFFIRMATIVE ACTION and UNJUSTIFIED PRIVILEGES for white, straight, cisgendered men, many of whom, like Donald Trump and J.D. Vance to name two, are NOT QUALIFIED for the positions they seek, but get a pass because they are WHITE, STRAIGHT, CISGENDERED MEN.

Did the all-caps help? Do you get it now?

No, I’m sure you don’t.

 

[Politesse]

Because they think centrists would be people who look at "both sides" and decide any sin is acceptable because some is probably acceptable, but certain things aren't.

A bit like those "grey jedi" who have to slaughter a busload of younglings every now and then to balance out the excessive village-saving they've been doing lately.

 

[BH]

I'm white and male and have been told no for jobs I have applied or told not to even bother to apply for because I was not a female or a minority. But I always managed to find something to pay my bills, have a few luxuries and save. Other than a short stint having a lawn care business when very young and teaching school for a little white in my 20's I've been in some sort of retail business managment.

Here is thing.

I've dated white women, a hispanic woman, and a black lady. I am dating another black lady now. What will happen is they will apply for jobs and not get them and then find out the person getting it was missing some things that they brought to the table skill wise and start to wonder if maybe they were discriminated against because of race or gender.

I've been a manager at a few retail businesses over the years and have done a lot of hiring and firing. I'm going to admit something to all of you that many of you in management will agree with probably. When you have a job opening and have twenty people apply ten of those people if truth be told could probably be hired and do the job you need done. It's really lots of times just the hiring managers opinion over who has the greater strengths and weaknesses among candidates and when you make a choice sometimes its still a mistake. On paper and in the interview people look good and then they bomb when hired. There is no way for you to infallibly know who is the best qualified candidate.

Also, keep in mind the government tracks things like female and minority hire ratios in the private sector and so do insurance firms covering potential lawsuits. If your ratios are out of order too much the government may look into you violating civil rights laws and your insurance may drop you.

Keep in mind too that there are times whte people benefit from EEOC hires. If you live in parts of the country where the people are mostly minority EEOC has helped whites find work and protected them.

I've never been told by corporate to hire someone just because they were a minority or female. My city is diverse enough it always ends up I match my demographics fine without doing that and honestly hiring who I think is best. But there are companies that through back channels will tell the hiring manager to interview a bunch of people but your hiring a woman or hiring a minority.

But keep this in mind. Suppose we lived in the world where race and gender were not discriminated against in the workforce. Now go back to what I said in my paragraph about being in management. In this world there was not any discrimination to hold back women and minorites in education and skill set. They would have been free to learn and know as much as any white male could. If everyone got hired based on their merit, even though there is a lot of opinion being used on the hiring managers side, you may still lose out to a woman simply because they are half of the population and she may have done or learned something that might have given her an edge anyway. And if you live in an area with a large population of minorities you may still lose out on the opinion side of things simply because there are so many minorities applying for the job that may have something that stands out against you in the hiring managers opinion anyway.

I hate talking about economics and things like job hiring. It brings out the animal instincts and survival instincts in everyone and gets ugly. The bottom line is that lots of people can do lots of the jobs out there, even well paying ones, but there often times just isn't enough positions available for everyone able to do them to have one. It's just a reality of life and it is a sad one. I really do feel empathy for people who don't think they have gotten what they think they deserve jobwise.

 

[laughing dog]

I could be wrong, but I believe he did limit it to black women. And that was perfectly OK.

Why is it "perfectly ok" to exclude people based on race and gender? Especially since he had the same racist and sexist limitation on the SCOTUS justice he appointed.

Elizabeth Warren was on the short list to the very end.

No, she wasn't. I mean some people may have talked about her, but she never had any chance of getting picked even before the George Floyd insurrection and the desire by the Democratic Party to appease the insurrectionists. She was simply too old - there is no way a 77 year old presidential candidate would pick a 71 year old running mate.

Now women like Amy "Mad Hatter" Klobuchar or Gretchen "mir graut's vor Dir" Whitmer would have been on the short list before the race riots happened, but not afterwards.

I realize you feel it is clever to make disparaging epithets for people you don’t sgree with, but to some it seems demeaning both towards the targets and to you.

 

[laughing dog]

I'll reiterate a point I had made after Diane Feinstein's death and Laphonza Butler was temporarily appointed to substitute her.

And Goodhair only considered black women (it's a trend in the contemporary Democratic Party it seems) even though they comprise only ~2.7% of the population of the state.

The issue of qualifications only comes up when the person is a minority and then it's "they're not qualified!!!111!"

The issue of qualifications always comes up, for any appointment.
But when the appointing officer artificially restricts the consideration to a And as Veep, she failed in the task she was given, that of the border czarina.

The idea that there is a “left” mainstream media is yet another utter absurdity believed by Trumpkins.

Of course there is. CNN, MCNBC on cable TV. Newspapers like NY Times.

Only to a right-winger.

Just look at the kid glove treatment they have been giving Kamala Harris ever since Biden's announcement.

What did you expect them to do?

AllSides Media Bias Chart

Its exactly what Derec has said, only he understated the situation. He should have included ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, AP...

Any site that rates the Wall Street Journal as "center" cannot be trusted.

 

[Elixir]

When I was hiring and firing lots of people, every decision rested upon who I and my 2 co-owner partners thought would be best for the Company in whatever position it was. There were several Latina and Latino hires that worked out well but there was always a paucity of black applicants. If we had been quota-bound we’d have been screwed.
OTOH, our IT contractor had worked for DoD and CIA in cybersecurity, and had (has) a team of a half dozen or more highly qualified employees. (All that I met were white).
Best contractor EVER. Never had a problem they couldn’t address. The day I met the owner, I was rather surprised that he was a 6’6” 280lb black guy. Within minutes he explained what he intended to do, how he was going to get it done and why it had to be done. I think I never reflexively thought of him as a black guy again. He and his crew totally took care of us for years, and actually helped create the window that let me retire. He and his family are still friends, but the only black friends I have in the area.
I think his work added some high six figure value to our Company when we sold it.

 

[Elixir]

The Democratic Party might represent inclusion and compassion on paper... but its supporters don't seem even remotely shy about wearing their hatred on their sleeves.

Hatred of what? Bigots like Trump?
Are their sleeves hurting you?

Good for them. Bigots - or at least their bigotry- SHOULD be hated.
Maybe you disagree?

 

[laughing dog]

The issue of qualifications always comes up, for any appointment.
But when the appointing officer artificially restricts the consideration to a demographic group comprising only ~2.7% of the population, it is unlikely that anything close to the best candidate for the job is being picked. That's because more than 96% of potential candidates have been excluded based on nothing more than having the wrong skin color and wrong plumbing.

There is no single best candidate for the job of VP. 2.7% of the population is a little under 891,000. It is pretty narrow thinking to believe that a good VP candidate could not be found from the demographic of black women.

That supposed "liberals" are defending this bullshit just shows how far American liberalism has fallen.

Take a look at George W Bush and remember it was all about anti-intellectualism and how the right despised "intellectual elites" of which they portrayed Gore and W was the guy you'd like to drink a beer with and maybe snort some coke with off of a hooker's back.

The "have a beer with" is a shorthand for likability, not "anti-intellectualism". Although W was quite dumb, admittedly.
Biden and Obama are not "anti-intellectual" and yet they have that quality too.

So, yeah, of course, Kamala Harris was more qualified than J.D. Vance...just like QOP accusations are their confessions.

KH is running for president, JDV for vice president - why are you comparing them?
That said, both of their qualifications look good on paper, but are far less impressive "on tarmac".
For example, KH showed utter lack of judgment during her ill-fated 2020 campaign that fizzled out even before 2020 rolled around. And as Veep, she failed in the task she was given, that of the border czarina.

Oh contraire. The job of the border czar was to draw the critiicism off the President for the inevitable criticism for the lack of "action" that a bureaucrat hindered by laws and the lack of resources and bipartisan support, and perhaps even basic human decency. As a target, Ms. Harris has done that well, as your post demonstrates.

There really are only two ways to "migrant invasion". Deportation doesn't stop the "flood", it just changes the faces. Either kill them as they try to enter or make the USA a shittier hole than the one they are trying to escape.

 

[SLD]

First black woman named to SCOTUS and people still get their panties in a bunch over it.

The problem is that Biden vowed to only consider black women for the position as part of his corrupt bargain with Clyburn, who delivered South Carolina to him in the primaries.

Who gives a fuck? Politics has been played like this for millennia. Back room deals and picking partners to please constituencies happens every fucking time. You live in a fantasy world. We’ve had white male DEI for 250 years and now you get concerned about it? Suddenly you claim to believe in a meritocracy. Bullshit. Seriously you are utterly full of shit.

But I still like you.

 

[TomC]

There really are only two ways to "migrant invasion". Deportation doesn't stop the "flood", it just changes the faces. Either kill them as they try to enter or make the USA a shittier hole than the one they are trying to escape.

There's another way to stop illegal immigrants. Give as many green cards as we're willing to give jobs. That's the heart of the issue, American people will give millions more jobs than documents.
Tom

 

[thebeave]

I'll reiterate a point I had made after Diane Feinstein's death and Laphonza Butler was temporarily appointed to substitute her.

And Goodhair only considered black women (it's a trend in the contemporary Democratic Party it seems) even though they comprise only ~2.7% of the population of the state.

The issue of qualifications only comes up when the person is a minority and then it's "they're not qualified!!!111!"

The issue of qualifications always comes up, for any appointment.
But when the appointing officer artificially restricts the consideration to a And as Veep, she failed in the task she was given, that of the border czarina.

The idea that there is a “left” mainstream media is yet another utter absurdity believed by Trumpkins.

Of course there is. CNN, MCNBC on cable TV. Newspapers like NY Times.

Only to a right-winger.

Just look at the kid glove treatment they have been giving Kamala Harris ever since Biden's announcement.

What did you expect them to do?

AllSides Media Bias Chart

Its exactly what Derec has said, only he understated the situation. He should have included ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, AP...

Any site that rates the Wall Street Journal as "center" cannot be trusted.

AllSides is considered to be fairly reliable and accurate. Another media bias site Adfontes also rates WSJ as center. Allsides does break the WSJ into a separate "news" category, which it ranks as "center" and and their "opinion" pieces which they rate as "lean right". That sounds about right to me (no pun intended).

They do the same thing with the NY Times. NYT-news is "leans left", while NYT-opinion is solidly "left". That is also consistent with the NYT content that I have read. Adfontes also adds a reliability rating. WSJ has about the top score (49). NYT is substantially lower (42).

 

[laughing dog]

I'll reiterate a point I had made after Diane Feinstein's death and Laphonza Butler was temporarily appointed to substitute her.

And Goodhair only considered black women (it's a trend in the contemporary Democratic Party it seems) even though they comprise only ~2.7% of the population of the state.

The issue of qualifications only comes up when the person is a minority and then it's "they're not qualified!!!111!"

The issue of qualifications always comes up, for any appointment.
But when the appointing officer artificially restricts the consideration to a And as Veep, she failed in the task she was given, that of the border czarina.

The idea that there is a “left” mainstream media is yet another utter absurdity believed by Trumpkins.

Of course there is. CNN, MCNBC on cable TV. Newspapers like NY Times.

Only to a right-winger.

Just look at the kid glove treatment they have been giving Kamala Harris ever since Biden's announcement.

What did you expect them to do?

AllSides Media Bias Chart

Its exactly what Derec has said, only he understated the situation. He should have included ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, AP...

Any site that rates the Wall Street Journal as "center" cannot be trusted.

AllSides is considered to be fairly reliable and accurate. Another media bias site Adfontes also rates WSJ as center. Allsides does break the WSJ into a separate "news" category, which it ranks as "center" and and their "opinion" pieces which they rate as "lean right". That sounds about right to me (no pun intended).

They do the same thing with the NY Times. NYT-news is "leans left", while NYT-opinion is solidly "left". That is also consistent with the NYT content that I have read. Adfontes also adds a reliability rating. WSJ has about the top score (49). NYT is substantially lower (42).

The Wall Street Journal is not center. It is center right at best. Sorry, any site that says it is center cannot be trusted.

 

[Elixir]

KH showed utter lack of judgment during her ill-fated 2020 campaign

Good thing she has campaign managers to deal with that sort of thing this time. And having a thirty something times convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, insurrectionist, fraudster and sexual abuser to run against can't shouldn't hurt either.
It's also a good thing that she's a prosecutor by training and trade, not a campaigner/bloviating liar like Trump. It will probably serve her well in handling the demands of the office, if not of the campaign. If she loses, be sure and bring it up again though.
I do wonder what the problem is with excluding 90 something percent of the population from a search for a running mate. Apparently some Republicans think Dems are duty-bound (and Republicans are not) to vet all 330 million Americans. The fact is that only one of them is gong to be VP.
I bet Trump didn't consider more than a dozen people, "excluding" more than 99.99999% of all Americans right off the bat. The pool of black women is way more than a dozen, in fact there must be several hundred thousand of them that are hypothetically at least as qualified as The Felon. But for some reason that's no good because black women are all, every single one of them .. uh ... black women. Right @Derec?
Why are you not complaining that every one of Trump's picks is a cookie cutter white male evangelitard? Because that's a bigger pool to choose from than "black women"?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I'll reiterate a point I had made after Diane Feinstein's death and Laphonza Butler was temporarily appointed to substitute her.

And Goodhair only considered black women (it's a trend in the contemporary Democratic Party it seems) even though they comprise only ~2.7% of the population of the state.

The issue of qualifications only comes up when the person is a minority and then it's "they're not qualified!!!111!"

The issue of qualifications always comes up, for any appointment.
But when the appointing officer artificially restricts the consideration to a And as Veep, she failed in the task she was given, that of the border czarina.

The idea that there is a “left” mainstream media is yet another utter absurdity believed by Trumpkins.

Of course there is. CNN, MCNBC on cable TV. Newspapers like NY Times.

Only to a right-winger.

Just look at the kid glove treatment they have been giving Kamala Harris ever since Biden's announcement.

What did you expect them to do?

AllSides Media Bias Chart

Its exactly what Derec has said, only he understated the situation. He should have included ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, Washington Post, AP...

Any site that rates the Wall Street Journal as "center" cannot be trusted.

AllSides is considered to be fairly reliable and accurate. Another media bias site Adfontes also rates WSJ as center. Allsides does break the WSJ into a separate "news" category, which it ranks as "center" and and their "opinion" pieces which they rate as "lean right". That sounds about right to me (no pun intended).

They do the same thing with the NY Times. NYT-news is "leans left", while NYT-opinion is solidly "left". That is also consistent with the NYT content that I have read. Adfontes also adds a reliability rating. WSJ has about the top score (49). NYT is substantially lower (42).

WSJ has long had a Jekyll - Hyde reputation. Good reporting, moron editorial page.

 

[Elixir]

Good reporting

... yes, on what they actually report on. They're pretty picky in that regard. They tend to focus on shit that doesn't run afoul of or challenge their VERY BIASED editorial policy.