The Race For 2024

[Ford]

You think I’m picking on you? Look, I’m just sick of wading through bullshit nonsense in your posts to figure out if you actually have anything of value to say, I assume anyone writing here wants to be heard and I assume people have points or think they do and pretty often, the points are valid, even when I don’t agree.

Yes, I think you are picking on me. Especially when you are not picking on other uses of nicknames for politicians and public figures.

I’m going to waaaaaay overstep boundaries here and say that I think that you, and a lot ( but certainly not all and probably not most) of white men find it upsetting to realize that sometimes other people—not white, maybe female, get jobs and recognition and admissions to all sorts of good schools and get a lot of good things when a particular person who is white and male did not.

I think people should be treated as individuals when it comes to admissions to schools or getting jobs. So-called "affirmative action" and "DEI" are antithetical to that, as they treat people not as individuals but as interchangeable
I do not have a problem with somebody non-white, or female, etc. getting "jobs and recognition and admissions to all sorts of good schools and get a lot of good things" if they did it by merit and did not gain an advantage over others because of their race or genitalia. You, on the other hand, are fine with discriminating by race and gender as long as non-whites and women get the advantage. And you accuse those who are opposed to such discrimination of sexism and racism, which is truly Orwellian.

For a long long time, only white males were allowed to vote, own property, go to college, get most types of work, hold elected office: I’m only going back as far as electing officials—which was a huge advancement over everything being hereditary and long male lines.

So? That was in the past. That does not mean that it is laudable to discriminate against uninvolved white men as a sort of collective punishment.

We’re making more advancements here by including in our searches and occasionally explicitly looking for some well qualified candidates who are not necessarily white or male.

But excluding people because they are white and/or male is not advancing anything.

But at least Biden chose his candidates from among well qualified and experienced individuals, unlike Trump.

I do not agree with Vance with his socially conservative politics, but he went to Ohio State and Yale (without the benefits of "affirmative action"), was a Marine deployed in Iraq, worked as a law clerk and also in business, and is now a US Senator.
Quite unrelated to his politics, he is well-qualified to be vice president, even if he is a white male.

But you don’t treat people as individuals. You focus exclusively on their race and gender and hold them to differing standards based on their race and gender. Instead of critiquing Harris solely on job performance or positions, you muck it all up by including your sexist, racist slurs. Do you not realize how much you undermine your own POV with that nonsense? It makes you appear to be on par with people of Trump’s ilk, which I do not think you are. I think you have some serious and legitimate points to make. I don’t necessarily agree with all of them, but it’s altogether possible to express POVs without a bunch of slurs attached.

It is also worth noting that Vance is hardly an example of a "working class guy who got to where he is by virtue of his elbow grease." Unless of course "Elbow Grease" was his nickname for the venture capitalist who made his current life and position possible. His "affirmative action" was having a billionaire in his corner.

For contrast, I would present my state's junior Senator, Mark Kelly. Kelly (and his twin brother) is the son of two retired police officers. He went to the US Merchant Marine Academy (not exactly an Ivy League school) and earned a degree from the US Naval Postgraduate School. He went on to serve as a naval aviator, flew 39 combat missions during Desert Storm, and then went on to be a Navy test pilot. Compare that with Vance's six month tour. In the 1990s, Mark and his brother earned slots as Space Shuttle pilots, and went into space 4 times, piloting two missions and serving as commander of two. He is married to Gabby Giffords, an Arizona politician who was nearly killed in a mass shooting, and his political activism sprung from that. Vance wrote one book. Kelly wrote or co-wrote six, including a children's book and a sequel.

Mark Kelly went into space and put a billion dollar piece of research equipment on the ISS. Vance can barely handle a photo op in a donut shop. And of course, Kelly is not currently pushing a racist false narrative that he admits to making up. So there's that.


Oh, and on the subject of derogatory nicknames? JD Guyliner.

 

[bilby]

Trump ad confuses state of Georgia with Republic of Georgia

Online sleuths linked the image to the country of Georgia, not the battleground state that Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are fighting to win in November.

www.ajc.com

Did Trump do the ad himself?

Can we persuade him to hold his next big rally in Tbilisi?

 

[Ford]

Trump ad confuses state of Georgia with Republic of Georgia

Online sleuths linked the image to the country of Georgia, not the battleground state that Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are fighting to win in November.

www.ajc.com

Did Trump do the ad himself?

Can we persuade him to hold his next big rally in Tbilisi?

IIRC, this is not the first time his campaign has done this. I guess it's what happens when your definition of "the best people" is "the people who said the best things about me" rather than "who is the best person for this job?"

 

[Derec]

It is also worth noting that Vance is hardly an example of a "working class guy who got to where he is by virtue of his elbow grease." Unless of course "Elbow Grease" was his nickname for the venture capitalist who made his current life and position possible. His "affirmative action" was having a billionaire in his corner.

He did not know Thiel when he got into Ohio State and Yale. So what "affirmative action"?
Also, my point with listing Vance's qualifications was that Toni claimed that he did not have qualifications to be a running mate. Whatever you may think of his politics, and I do not like them either, he is qualified. Is he as qualified as some? No, but neither is Walz. Or Kamala herself.

For contrast, I would present my state's junior Senator, Mark Kelly. Kelly (and his twin brother) is the son of two retired police officers. He went to the US Merchant Marine Academy (not exactly an Ivy League school) and earned a degree from the US Naval Postgraduate School. He went on to serve as a naval aviator, flew 39 combat missions during Desert Storm, and then went on to be a Navy test pilot.

Yes, Mark Kelly would have been an excellent choice for running mate.

Compare that with Vance's six month tour.

He was in the Marines for 4 years. Again, let's not be unfair toward his resume just because he in on the other team.

JD Guyliner.

How about Drunkard Walz (a play on The Drunkard's Walk and Walz' DUI incident)?

 

[Derec]

That's manipulation??? Here all this time I thought it was the politics of compromise. But righties don't do compromise so I can understand why you would not be familiar with it.

Biden ran as a moderate and then swerved hard left when elected. His shift went well beyond compromise.

 

[Derec]

Really? How did he know this since it had never been done before.

McTurtle was not exactly coy about it.
Again, note that Garland was significantly older than other SCOTUS nominees in the modern era.

Black females have been excluded for 250 years.

There has never been an Asian of either gender on SCOTUS either, but two blacks. Blacks were relatively well represented (1 seat is ~11% of the Court, which is close to black population percentage) and now they are overrepresented. Not because KBJ was deemed the best person for the seat, but merely because Biden cravenly sold the SCOTUS seat for Jim Clyburn's support in the Corrupt Bargain ahead of the SC primaries.

Similar story for the US Senate seat from California - no Asian has ever been Senator and there are more Asians than blacks living in the state. Newsom pledged to only consider black women.

 

[Derec]

But you don’t treat people as individuals.

I do.

You focus exclusively on their race and gender and hold them to differing standards based on their race and gender.

No, I don't. You are projecting. For example, I think both white men and black females in politics should be fair game for ridicule. You (and other leftist posters on here) think it is "misogyny" and/or "racism" to mock blacks and/or females.
I also think admissions standards should be the same regardless of race and gender. You (and other leftist posters) disagree.

Instead of critiquing Harris solely on job performance or positions, you muck it all up by including your sexist, racist slurs.

I have pointed out my disagreements with her positions a lot. But yes, I engage in mocking as well, just like I would with anybody else. You are the one who interprets this as "racist" and "sexist" because you think black and female politicians should not be subject to the same ridicule white men are subject to. Why is it OK to make fun of the completely made up story about JD Vance and the couch? Nobody is accusing people making couch jokes of being racist or misandrist. But even posting a funny gif of Kamala Harris cackling got me labeled as "misogynist" on this very thread. There is obviously a double standard.

Do you not realize how much you undermine your own POV with that nonsense? It makes you appear to be on par with people of Trump’s ilk, which I do not think you are.

It only undermines me with hyperpartisans like you. I think there is a lot to ridicule about Trump and Vance, but also with Harris and Walz. Ridiculing Harris is not "sexist" and "racist" just because she happens to be a woman with black ancestry.

I think you have some serious and legitimate points to make. I don’t necessarily agree with all of them, but it’s altogether possible to express POVs without a bunch of slurs attached.

Why? Why is it acceptable to pepper a discussion post with mocking when the target is Trump or Vance, or even a Republican woman, but it becomes a "slur" when somebody like Kamala Harris is the target?

 

[Derec]

You agree it was just as wrong for Donald to do it as it was for Biden?

I do. Again, I am not a Trump supporter.
But I am also not coconut pilled.

 

[Derec]

I'm unfamiliar with the actual incident, but you admit that you only "think" she didn't mishear it. I do believe that crowd chants can be difficult to discern.

But it's easier to do so in person than over TV. And even on TV it was pretty clear what they were chanting. So while I cannot read her thoughts, I think it is unlikely she genuinely misheard. Btw, this is the incident in question.
Also, again, I do not use "Brandon". I prefer stuff I came up with, like King Theoden (i.e. under the spell of people like Sandy Wormtongue whispering in his ear).
My point was that Toni went off on TSwizzle for using a nickname and not Biden's real name when she has no objection to the incessent use of nicknames for Trump and other Republicans. Some consistency would be nice.

instead of hide behind some kind of coded language for shits and giggles that only the Right can understand.

Admittedly, not everybody can come up with a high-brow insult like "he fucked a couch".

 

[Rhea]

Calling her "Comrade Kamala" is the real life embodiment of the "how do you do, fellow kids?" meme.

Cackling Kamala would have worked.

Such a weird flex to make fun of someone who laughs and shows joy.
I find that my conservolibertarian friends who post this kind of poke at normal human habits wind up having their friends reluctant to laugh around them, you know? Like, “oh wow, what if my laugh is weird.” Sucks the joy right out of the room.


But yeah, that “works” in more ways than you think.

 

[Derec]

“Whataboutism ” is not a rebuttal buttacit agreement.

No, pointing out hypocrisy and double standards is neither whataboutism nor "buttacit[sic] agreement".

 

[Derec]

Such a weird flex to make fun of someone who laughs and shows joy.

I think it's because her laugh sounds weird and also that she has a penchant for laughing at her own jokes.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I'm unfamiliar with the actual incident, but you admit that you only "think" she didn't mishear it. I do believe that crowd chants can be difficult to discern.

But it's easier to do so in person than over TV. And even on TV it was pretty clear what they were chanting. So while I cannot read her thoughts, I think it is unlikely she genuinely misheard. Btw, this is the incident in question.
Also, again, I do not use "Brandon". I prefer stuff I came up with, like King Theoden (i.e. under the spell of people like Sandy Wormtongue whispering in his ear).
My point was that Toni went off on TSwizzle for using a nickname and not Biden's real name when she has no objection to the incessent use of nicknames for Trump and other Republicans. Some consistency would be nice.

instead of hide behind some kind of coded language for shits and giggles that only the Right can understand.

Admittedly, not everybody can come up with a high-brow insult like "he fucked a couch".

I agree that there are so many legitimate criticisms of Trump and Vance that there’s no need to sink to stupid rumors or juvenile name calling.

Then again, Donald has proven that that may be the only way he can communicate with his political rivals.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Such a weird flex to make fun of someone who laughs and shows joy.

I think it's because her laugh sounds weird and also that she has a penchant for laughing at her own jokes.

I also think it’s pretty stupid to criticize someone for their laugh as if that has any bearing on their political acumen.

 

[laughing dog]

“Whataboutism ” is not a rebuttal buttacit agreement.

No, pointing out hypocrisy and double standards is neither whataboutism nor "buttacit[sic] agreement".

If you thought about it, you’d see you are mistaken.

 

[Rhea]

So-called "affirmative action" and "DEI" are antithetical to that, as they treat people not as individuals but as interchangeable

But you don’t treat people as individuals.

I do.

You focus exclusively on their race and gender and hold them to differing standards based on their race and gender.

No, I don't. You are projecting. For example, I think both white men and black females in politics should be fair game for ridicule. You (and other leftist posters on here) think it is "misogyny" and/or "racism" to mock blacks and/or females.
I also think admissions standards should be the same regardless of race and gender. You (and other leftist posters) disagree.

Instead of critiquing Harris solely on job performance or positions, you muck it all up by including your sexist, racist slurs.

I have pointed out my disagreements with her positions a lot. But yes, I engage in mocking as well, just like I would with anybody else. You are the one who interprets this as "racist" and "sexist" because you think black and female politicians should not be subject to the same ridicule white men are subject to. Why is it OK to make fun of the completely made up story about JD Vance and the couch? Nobody is accusing people making couch jokes of being racist or misandrist. But even posting a funny gif of Kamala Harris cackling got me labeled as "misogynist" on this very thread. There is obviously a double standard.

Do you not realize how much you undermine your own POV with that nonsense? It makes you appear to be on par with people of Trump’s ilk, which I do not think you are.

It only undermines me with hyperpartisans like you. I think there is a lot to ridicule about Trump and Vance, but also with Harris and Walz. Ridiculing Harris is not "sexist" and "racist" just because she happens to be a woman with black ancestry.

I think you have some serious and legitimate points to make. I don’t necessarily agree with all of them, but it’s altogether possible to express POVs without a bunch of slurs attached.

Why? Why is it acceptable to pepper a discussion post with mocking when the target is Trump or Vance, or even a Republican woman, but it becomes a "slur" when somebody like Kamala Harris is the target?

I love how in the SAME POST as you try to claim you treat people as individuals you say in the SAME POST you say Toni’s the hypocrite because of someone ELSE’S untrue jokes about Vance.

Guarandamntee you that Toni never said that joke, it’s not her style and you know that, but you couldn’t not be you, so here you are failing to treat people as individuals and tarring her with the brush of other liberals while crying that you never do that.

 

[laughing dog]

IMO, focusing criticism of a person because their laugh because it “sound weird” goes way beyond petty. It is a desperate attempt to find fault.

 

[Toni]

But you don’t treat people as individuals.

I do.

You focus exclusively on their race and gender and hold them to differing standards based on their race and gender.

No, I don't. You are projecting. For example, I think both white men and black females in politics should be fair game for ridicule. You (and other leftist posters on here) think it is "misogyny" and/or "racism" to mock blacks and/or females.
I also think admissions standards should be the same regardless of race and gender. You (and other leftist posters) disagree.

Instead of critiquing Harris solely on job performance or positions, you muck it all up by including your sexist, racist slurs.

I have pointed out my disagreements with her positions a lot. But yes, I engage in mocking as well, just like I would with anybody else. You are the one who interprets this as "racist" and "sexist" because you think black and female politicians should not be subject to the same ridicule white men are subject to. Why is it OK to make fun of the completely made up story about JD Vance and the couch? Nobody is accusing people making couch jokes of being racist or misandrist. But even posting a funny gif of Kamala Harris cackling got me labeled as "misogynist" on this very thread. There is obviously a double standard.

Do you not realize how much you undermine your own POV with that nonsense? It makes you appear to be on par with people of Trump’s ilk, which I do not think you are.

It only undermines me with hyperpartisans like you. I think there is a lot to ridicule about Trump and Vance, but also with Harris and Walz. Ridiculing Harris is not "sexist" and "racist" just because she happens to be a woman with black ancestry.

I think you have some serious and legitimate points to make. I don’t necessarily agree with all of them, but it’s altogether possible to express POVs without a bunch of slurs attached.

Why? Why is it acceptable to pepper a discussion post with mocking when the target is Trump or Vance, or even a Republican woman, but it becomes a "slur" when somebody like Kamala Harris is the target?

I could be mistaken but I don’t remember you mocking Trump or Vance or any pseudo Nazis in the public eye. Surely Trump provides much more fodder for derision? Vance, as well.

You instead imply that Harris is immoral and that she has no good qualifications, although hers are as good as Vance’s abd I would argue better because her entire career has been in public office, in service of the people. Vance’s career seems to have been in service to himself and Thiel and that ilk. Which is fine. There is nothing wrong with pursuing a lucrative career, and memoirists are known for telling their stories through a single focused lens.

OTOH, Vance’s stated views since taking office and since are not only reprehensible but downright dangerous if you are female. I don’t think his ideas are good for anybody but he’s pretty outspoken about his views on women. True, he married a non-Aryan woman but he declares that he loves her even though she’s not white. This is something that should make any thinking person’s skin crawl. But nope: he’s not fair game for your barbed wit.

OTOH, you have a very long history of posting about women (any color) and black men using some pretty insulting terms. Sometimes I think you have a file folder of people accused of crimes, cross referenced by race, with insulting nicknames noted by each entry, just waiting for the excuse to trot out an example of someone who prices your point, which seems to be that black men are all criminals who impregnate more than their fair share of women and women are good for nothing except sex.

I suppose I should not criticize this as this habit of yours tends to drown out any valid point you might make. It weakens your arguments because it makes them seem to be motivated by racism and sexism rather than some rational point,

 

[Shadowy Man]

IMO, focusing criticism of a person because their laugh because it “sound weird” goes way beyond petty. It is a desperate attempt to find fault.

Especially since we don’t choose the sound of our laugh (at least genuine people don’t). Even being a “childless cat lady” is more of a choice and thus open to criticism than someone’s laugh.

They criticize her laugh because they know they’ve lost on almost every other front.

 

[Ford]

Such a weird flex to make fun of someone who laughs and shows joy.

I think it's because her laugh sounds weird and also that she has a penchant for laughing at her own jokes.

I also think it’s pretty stupid to criticize someone for their laugh as if that has any bearing on their political acumen.

Wondering aloud what Derec's laugh sounds like.

It is also worth pointing out that the only time Trump laughs is when he's mocking or belittling someone else. Comics who were at the Comedy Central Roast of him pointed out as much, saying that he seemed incapable of self-deprecating humor. The folks on SNL also mentioned his odd sense of what's "funny."

He also notably skipped the White House Correspondent's dinner...where Presidents have traditionally laughed uproariously as comics roasted them, and then stood up and poked fun at themselves (though most of the jokes were written for them).

Yeah, Harris has a weird laugh. Most people do. Yet Trump is a humorless gremlin who only laughs when others are being hurt.