The Race For 2024

[Politesse]

But it's not wrong to consider her being selected as racially motivated.

Suppose one of the people on Harris' VP list were a black female. Would it matter that she was a PhD in political science, and elected to state legislature four times, because she's brilliant? No. She'd be a drag on the ticket and everyone knows it.

Walz was a DEI hire. Harris needed a white male to "balance" the ticket. Harris is smart enough to realize that. So she did hire the middle aged, Midwestern, white dude.
Tom

How is that a "DEI" hire? How is the purpose of either equity or inclusion served, and what formal organization oversaw consistency and accountability for how candidates were recruited for the role?

You're forgetting the D part. VPs are always about diversity compared to the candidate.

No, I'm not. It just makes very little sense in this context. An individual cannot be "diverse". To call a pair of people diverse or homogenous is only slightly less absurd.

 

[Toni]

But it's not wrong to consider her being selected as racially motivated.

Suppose one of the people on Harris' VP list were a black female. Would it matter that she was a PhD in political science, and elected to state legislature four times, because she's brilliant? No. She'd be a drag on the ticket and everyone knows it.

Walz was a DEI hire. Harris needed a white male to "balance" the ticket. Harris is smart enough to realize that. So she did hire the middle aged, Midwestern, white dude.
Tom

White, certainly. I don't think male/female would really matter.

VPs are always some form of DEI hire. Their appeal to sectors that the candidate is weaker on always dominates over merit.

Male absolutely mattered. The are plenty of people who are reassured by the presence of a steadying white male hand—unconsciously or not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When you select on things like race or gender you're engaging in racism or sexism. Period. At things like SCOTUS there would be adequate candidates available of any group so it doesn't harm the selection process but it's still wrong.

But no one was chosen because of their race or gender.

When you refuse to acknowledge that there are a lot of women and a lot of people of color who are exceptionally well qualified, you are engaging in racism and sexism.

Nobody was??? No. Harris was no doubt chosen for her race and gender. Vance was no doubt chosen for his race, gender and religion. I'm pretty sure Amy Coney Barrett was chosen on gender, I'm sure all The Felon's appointees were chose on race.

To say that Harris was chosen for her race and gender ignores the fact that she had many excellent professional qualifications as well as being a nationally recognized political figure. She was in the 2020 primaries, which one dies not normally ruse to without significant backing.

VP Harris certainly has a history of being a professional, particularly in law and justice. JD Vance doesn't have much of a record at all, prior to becoming a Senator less than two years ago, he was a furniture hobbyist successful private equity guy, who wasn't big on the little guy, who wrote a book about a region he didn't grow up in. I'm absolutely uncertain what Vance brings to Trump's campaign other than youth and being a true believer in 2025 and part of the Christian Dominionism movement. JD Vance isn't a Trump guy (if there is such a thing), he is a Stephan Miller guy.

I mean, what other qualification does Trump have? What has he accomplished? What does he offer?

He pwns the libs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

When you select on things like race or gender you're engaging in racism or sexism. Period. At things like SCOTUS there would be adequate candidates available of any group so it doesn't harm the selection process but it's still wrong.

But no one was chosen because of their race or gender.

When you refuse to acknowledge that there are a lot of women and a lot of people of color who are exceptionally well qualified, you are engaging in racism and sexism.

Nobody was??? No. Harris was no doubt chosen for her race and gender. Vance was no doubt chosen for his race, gender and religion. I'm pretty sure Amy Coney Barrett was chosen on gender, I'm sure all The Felon's appointees were chose on race.

To say that Harris was chosen for her race and gender ignores the fact that she had many excellent professional qualifications as well as being a nationally recognized political figure. She was in the 2020 primaries, which one dies not normally ruse to without significant backing.

Doesn't make her not a diversity pick. All VPs are diversity picks! Doesn't mean they aren't qualified, just that diversity comes above qualification.

I mean, what other qualification does Trump have? What has he accomplished? What does he offer?

That's not a defense. Being a white (and should he even be called white rather than orange??) male isn't an indication that someone is qualified.

When Affirmative Action was implemented it was ugly but probably the best solution for the very reason you give. However, once the general social issue not wanting to be a company that employed blacks was gone that reason goes away. Sure, there are some who won't hire someone because they're black--but unless the comprise a substantial portion of people who are hiring for that job skill it's simply not going to matter. If they were passing over qualified candidates in large enough numbers that would drive down the price of black workers--and make them a good deal for someone who recognized the issue. Yet we don't see anyone stepping up to snap up the deals--which leaves the only reasonable conclusion being that things are close enough to balanced that nobody can exploit the difference.

Affirmative Action worked, it did what it could. What it could do was done long ago, now we have only costs without benefits.

Wow.

Once again, a complete failure to actually address the point.

Markets are usually very good at correcting mispriced generic goods--yet we do not see that happening in this case. Yet you reject the obvious conclusion that we aren't looking at a case of mispriced goods.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

When you select on things like race or gender you're engaging in racism or sexism. Period. At things like SCOTUS there would be adequate candidates available of any group so it doesn't harm the selection process but it's still wrong.

But no one was chosen because of their race or gender.

When you refuse to acknowledge that there are a lot of women and a lot of people of color who are exceptionally well qualified, you are engaging in racism and sexism.

Nobody was??? No. Harris was no doubt chosen for her race and gender. Vance was no doubt chosen for his race, gender and religion. I'm pretty sure Amy Coney Barrett was chosen on gender, I'm sure all The Felon's appointees were chose on race.

To say that Harris was chosen for her race and gender ignores the fact that she had many excellent professional qualifications as well as being a nationally recognized political figure. She was in the 2020 primaries, which one dies not normally ruse to without significant backing.

Doesn't make her not a diversity pick. All VPs are diversity picks! Doesn't mean they aren't qualified, just that diversity comes above qualification.

What?! Harris wasn't a diversity over qualification pick. That'd be Pence or Quayle. Harris was selected from a group of qualified folks.

I mean, what other qualification does Trump have? What has he accomplished? What does he offer?

That's not a defense. Being a white (and should he even be called white rather than orange??) male isn't an indication that someone is qualified.

Toni is probably just reacting to those that haven't questioned Vance's qualifications, despite having almost no political experience. He only balances Trump in youth and new age old school Catholicism.

When Affirmative Action was implemented it was ugly but probably the best solution for the very reason you give. However, once the general social issue not wanting to be a company that employed blacks was gone that reason goes away. Sure, there are some who won't hire someone because they're black--but unless the comprise a substantial portion of people who are hiring for that job skill it's simply not going to matter. If they were passing over qualified candidates in large enough numbers that would drive down the price of black workers--and make them a good deal for someone who recognized the issue. Yet we don't see anyone stepping up to snap up the deals--which leaves the only reasonable conclusion being that things are close enough to balanced that nobody can exploit the difference.

Affirmative Action worked, it did what it could. What it could do was done long ago, now we have only costs without benefits.

Wow.

Once again, a complete failure to actually address the point.

Markets are usually very good at correcting mispriced generic goods--yet we do not see that happening in this case. Yet you reject the obvious conclusion that we aren't looking at a case of mispriced goods.

In what universe? In the good ole days of the early 21st century, black labor was attempted to be used up north due to the much lower wages they'd work for. Laws were created to help protect blacks from this exploitation white labor from being displaced by cheaper black labor. Today, it is migrant workers doing it, but generally in fields where white labor has little interest in working. The market loves to exploit cheap labor... and will do what it can to keep it cheap.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But it's not wrong to consider her being selected as racially motivated.

Suppose one of the people on Harris' VP list were a black female. Would it matter that she was a PhD in political science, and elected to state legislature four times, because she's brilliant? No. She'd be a drag on the ticket and everyone knows it.

Walz was a DEI hire. Harris needed a white male to "balance" the ticket. Harris is smart enough to realize that. So she did hire the middle aged, Midwestern, white dude.
Tom

How is that a "DEI" hire? How is the purpose of either equity or inclusion served, and what formal organization oversaw consistency and accountability for how candidates were recruited for the role?

Walz was a white male. Both of those demographics are not accidental. I wanted them to go female-female ticket with the popular Governor (high stock value) of Michigan. Many feared that the ticket wouldn't have been "balanced" enough for people (read males).

 

[GenesisNemesis]

He’s made the very good point

Doesn't require a rabid right wing nutjob to make that point (am speaking in general of rabid right wing nutjobs).

 

[unapologetic]

I disagree. Covid lockdown continued into 2022 where I'm at. As did high unemployment.

I disagree. Covid lockdown continued into 2022 where I'm at. As did high unemployment.

[citation needed]

YOU FIRST.
It is you who made a claim first, "Biden let Pandemic largess go on way too long" without any data. And hearing it on FauxNews doesn't count as a citation. Like Rump and Faux, you are spouting off OPINION and claiming it to be true. So I can too.
If it was up to Rump, there would have been no pandemic relief, he would have us work till we dropped.

Yup, this is the reality of egg prices. Reasonably inflexible demand so small supply shifts result in big price swings

I believe egg 'demand' is more flexible than the supply. Egg layers gotta lay eggs. Egg eaters can change their diet on a whim, or price swing.
Prices are changed to stabilize the demand.

 

[ZiprHead]

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/29/trump-violent-day-policing-crime-00181619

Trump is literally calling for a Purge. Anyway, all of the people who whine about people calling Trump a wannabe dictator, are fucking idiots.

I think we're going to have to accept that if Trump loses - whether in a nail-biter or in a convincing sweep - there will be violence from some of his supporters. Will there be a repeat march on the Capitol? Who knows. We're sure to get voter intimidation at the polling locations and drop boxes, and I'm almost certain a confrontation or two is going to result in a shooting. He seems to understand at some basic level that victory may be slipping away from him, so he's lashing out. Of course he's not going to lead any "civil war," but he knows that he has followers dumb enough to commit violence in his name.

November 5th is going to be the start of months of unrest if he doesn't win.

Michigan man charged with assaulting postal carrier over Kamala Harris flyer

A 61-year-old man faces multiple criminal charges after allegedly assaulting a female postal carrier upon receiving a flyer in the mail featuring Vice President Kamala Harris.

www.cbsnews.com

Already starting.

 

[Toni]

When you select on things like race or gender you're engaging in racism or sexism. Period. At things like SCOTUS there would be adequate candidates available of any group so it doesn't harm the selection process but it's still wrong.

But no one was chosen because of their race or gender.

When you refuse to acknowledge that there are a lot of women and a lot of people of color who are exceptionally well qualified, you are engaging in racism and sexism.

Nobody was??? No. Harris was no doubt chosen for her race and gender. Vance was no doubt chosen for his race, gender and religion. I'm pretty sure Amy Coney Barrett was chosen on gender, I'm sure all The Felon's appointees were chose on race.

To say that Harris was chosen for her race and gender ignores the fact that she had many excellent professional qualifications as well as being a nationally recognized political figure. She was in the 2020 primaries, which one dies not normally ruse to without significant backing.

Doesn't make her not a diversity pick. All VPs are diversity picks! Doesn't mean they aren't qualified, just that diversity comes above qualification.

I mean, what other qualification does Trump have? What has he accomplished? What does he offer?

That's not a defense. Being a white (and should he even be called white rather than orange??) male isn't an indication that someone is qualified.

When Affirmative Action was implemented it was ugly but probably the best solution for the very reason you give. However, once the general social issue not wanting to be a company that employed blacks was gone that reason goes away. Sure, there are some who won't hire someone because they're black--but unless the comprise a substantial portion of people who are hiring for that job skill it's simply not going to matter. If they were passing over qualified candidates in large enough numbers that would drive down the price of black workers--and make them a good deal for someone who recognized the issue. Yet we don't see anyone stepping up to snap up the deals--which leaves the only reasonable conclusion being that things are close enough to balanced that nobody can exploit the difference.

Affirmative Action worked, it did what it could. What it could do was done long ago, now we have only costs without benefits.

Wow.

Once again, a complete failure to actually address the point.

Markets are usually very good at correcting mispriced generic goods--yet we do not see that happening in this case. Yet you reject the obvious conclusion that we aren't looking at a case of mispriced goods.

Again, just wow. You never miss a chance to characterize black people as worth less than white or Asian people, and I strongly suspect you see Asians as co-superior because of your wife. Your understanding of labor economics is poor.

You are absolutely unable to see a black woman as highly qualified and yet you are willing to assume any white make candidate —fir office, fir admissions at an elite school, for anything really, is imminently well qualified for the job and needs no microscopic critique of his qualifications and how he got them.

For someone who claims that all choices should be color blind, you sure are fixated on the color of Harris’ skin.

 

[ZiprHead]

If it was up to Rump, there would have been no pandemic relief, he would have us work till we dropped.

Actually Trump did provide some relief. But he delayed it so his name could be on the checks.

 

[laughing dog]

When you select on things like race or gender you're engaging in racism or sexism. Period. At things like SCOTUS there would be adequate candidates available of any group so it doesn't harm the selection process but it's still wrong.

But no one was chosen because of their race or gender.

When you refuse to acknowledge that there are a lot of women and a lot of people of color who are exceptionally well qualified, you are engaging in racism and sexism.

Nobody was??? No. Harris was no doubt chosen for her race and gender. Vance was no doubt chosen for his race, gender and religion. I'm pretty sure Amy Coney Barrett was chosen on gender, I'm sure all The Felon's appointees were chose on race.

To say that Harris was chosen for her race and gender ignores the fact that she had many excellent professional qualifications as well as being a nationally recognized political figure. She was in the 2020 primaries, which one dies not normally ruse to without significant backing.

Doesn't make her not a diversity pick. All VPs are diversity picks! Doesn't mean they aren't qualified, just that diversity comes above qualification.

I mean, what other qualification does Trump have? What has he accomplished? What does he offer?

That's not a defense. Being a white (and should he even be called white rather than orange??) male isn't an indication that someone is qualified.

When Affirmative Action was implemented it was ugly but probably the best solution for the very reason you give. However, once the general social issue not wanting to be a company that employed blacks was gone that reason goes away. Sure, there are some who won't hire someone because they're black--but unless the comprise a substantial portion of people who are hiring for that job skill it's simply not going to matter. If they were passing over qualified candidates in large enough numbers that would drive down the price of black workers--and make them a good deal for someone who recognized the issue. Yet we don't see anyone stepping up to snap up the deals--which leaves the only reasonable conclusion being that things are close enough to balanced that nobody can exploit the difference.

Affirmative Action worked, it did what it could. What it could do was done long ago, now we have only costs without benefits.

Wow.

Once again, a complete failure to actually address the point.

Markets are usually very good at correcting mispriced generic goods--yet we do not see that happening in this case. Yet you reject the obvious conclusion that we aren't looking at a case of mispriced goods.

Black workers were not nor are not generic goods. Your point assumes away discrimination with the "no exploitation of the difference" and ignores the blatant fact that the exploitation in your example is the result of racial discrimination.

 

[ZiprHead]

furniture hobbyist

 

[Politesse]

But it's not wrong to consider her being selected as racially motivated.

Suppose one of the people on Harris' VP list were a black female. Would it matter that she was a PhD in political science, and elected to state legislature four times, because she's brilliant? No. She'd be a drag on the ticket and everyone knows it.

Walz was a DEI hire. Harris needed a white male to "balance" the ticket. Harris is smart enough to realize that. So she did hire the middle aged, Midwestern, white dude.
Tom

How is that a "DEI" hire? How is the purpose of either equity or inclusion served, and what formal organization oversaw consistency and accountability for how candidates were recruited for the role?

Walz was a white male. Both of those demographics are not accidental. I wanted them to go female-female ticket with the popular Governor (high stock value) of Michigan. Many feared that the ticket wouldn't have been "balanced" enough for people (read males).

How very clever of them, but choosing a presidential candidate based on the projected popularity of their penis and skin color is not what "DEI" means, and it certainly isn't a hire.

A DEI office is charged with expanding access to an organization to groups not currently well represented within it, which selecting Walz would not do even if voters choose to elect him to the office, which they may or may not do in any case. DEI offices are also charged with supporting compliance with the law and are subject to its accountability. An informal agreement between two candidates to act as running mates is not subject to any such review, nor does any law apply here except those Constitutional restrictions which apply to all presidential candidates regardless of background. The concept of DEI simply does not apply to presidential elections, nor hiring. Applying the term to either Harris or Walz is only encouraging confusion and misinformation within a voting public that is already woefully undereducated about the structure of the US government.

 

[unapologetic]

Today I saw a flyer on a neighbors door, of Uncle Sam Don "I want You" "To vote early, Mail-in or absentee ballot"
WTF Mail-ins and absentee ballots are what Rump keeps claiming are fraud and tries to throw-out.
The dirty tricks just keep pileing up.

 

[unapologetic]

Is anything being done to deconstruct the 'Presidential Crib Sheet 2025'? So some other republican can't use it.
Like the plan to put career civil servants under political party control. Shurley that can be legislated away.
Or the plan to end the Dept of Education? Shouldn't that need a congressional bill or something?

 

[pood]

Is anything being done to deconstruct the 'Presidential Crib Sheet 2025'? So some other republican can't use it.
Like the plan to put career civil servants under political party control. Shurley that can be legislated away.
Or the plan to end the Dept of Education? Shouldn't that need a congressional bill or something?

We have already had civil service reform. Federal law would have to change to do what Trump wants.

 

[Elixir]

Federal law would have to change to do what Trump wants.

Or he could just break federal law like he breaks every other law.

 

[TomC]

White, certainly. I don't think male/female would really matter.

VPs are always some form of DEI hire. Their appeal to sectors that the candidate is weaker on always dominates over merit.

I strongly disagree with that first sentence. I'm not saying that it should be this way, but I can't imagine a two women ticket for POTUS working well. At least, not in this generation.

The other part I completely agree with. Upthread, someone said that Harris was not the best candidate for the job, Biden just picked her for her race and gender. That's stupid. She's smart, credentialed, and has excellent character. She's got experience, and now has a few White House years under her belt. She's well under age 70. Her sex and gender are useful but secondary criteria.
Tom

 

[Shadowy Man]

I disagree. Covid lockdown continued into 2022 where I'm at. As did high unemployment.

I disagree. Covid lockdown continued into 2022 where I'm at. As did high unemployment.

[citation needed]

YOU FIRST.
It is you who made a claim first, "Biden let Pandemic largess go on way too long" without any data.

Unless we have access to data from a universe in which Biden ended the pandemic “largesse” when Derec wanted it ended, it will absolutely be an opinion.