The Race For 2024

[unapologetic]

I am critical of the modern Democratic Party does not mean I am cheering for Trump.

Derec. I apologize for calling you a maggot. That was out of line of me.

 

[Toni]

I inadvertently opened this line of discussion re: Dereck’s posts. I apologize because I genuinely meant no disrespect towards Derec and did not mean to open a discussion about Derec’s personal life, which is his personal life.

Derec is not the only poster whose posts sometimes reek of sexism and racism. He’s just been open enough to talk a bit about his personal life, as some others of us have done.

He’s made the very good point that many of us do not seem open to criticism of Harris or some other politicians we like who are running for office. I will flat out say that I know I don’t care for the low blows aimed at Democratic candidates while laughing at those directed at candidates I truly detest. It’s not my best look. I am blaming it on my terror for what happens to this country and to the world if Trump gets elected and frankly the same for the potential to lose Senate seats for the Dems and to lose seats in the House.

Toni is always trying to be inclusive and call out fairness with this posters comments.

Too bad its not reciprocated.

But in this case, the fault was mine.

Derec and I disagree about nearly everything but that doesn’t mean he does not have valid points sometimes, even if I don’t agree.

I do not want to live in an echo chamber and only read and reply posts that I mostly agree with, as comforting as that would be. It’s important to listen to and hear as many points of view as possible. It broadens my understanding and frankly, sharpens my arguments.

I also do not want anyone to be punished for revealing their personal lives or vulnerabilities. Or to resort to lazy insults instead of valid reasoning.

 

[Gospel]

I feel extremely confident that had Biden not explicitly stated his intentions and still chose Kamala Harris from among all of the candidates who were qualified, the same people would still be harping on Harris as a DEI hire.

Side note here...

A "DEI hire" is the new right wing term for "Affirmative Action hire." Are they the same thing in a political situation? Hmm...

For quite a long while, there were policies and laws in place that said to certain institutions "you have to hire/admit minorities." This (as we all know) was designed to give people previously discriminated against a chance at things previously denied to them purely on the basis of race. The previous paradigm was "we won't hire this guy because while he's eminently qualified, he's black."

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.

I completely agree with this. However, if we’re going to end Affirmative Action, it should be accompanied by much stricter penalties for proven cases of racism—like mandatory jail time, not just fines or lawsuits. Everyone involved, from the lowest employee to the highest exec, should face prison. That would ensure we don’t backtrack. Sure, some might argue that racism is hard to prove, but the mere possibility of someone successfully proving it would weigh heavily on everyone’s mind, making them think twice before engaging in discriminatory behavior. And yes, this applies to everyone, regardless of nationality.

 

[starwater]

I have been a professional for 40 years working for several different companies, large and small. I have NEVER once seen a woman "sleep her way to the top".

I don't think it's possible to sleep your way to the top. People do get undeserved positions but that requires somebody above them to give them said undeserved position. At the top there is no such person.

What I HAVE seen over and over again is kiss ass behavior by both sexes. And that does work too often to get someone promoted or get favors or whatever. IME the kiss ass person falls out of favor after they get what they want, or their limitations become pretty apparent and they are demoted, moved elsewhere or they change jobs. It does take time. But what goes around comes around.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I learned why Christians are following Trump watching an interview with and Evangelical revivalist.

Trump is a once in a thousand year flawed man risen up by god. Demos spirits are speaking through democrats.

I'm sorry to have to insult my chimpanzee cousins but evangelicals have chimp brains.

 

[Elixir]

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.

Yup. I just saw an interview with a black guy in GA. He's voting for Trump. Why?
"Because Trump sent me a check. He signed it."

Meanwhile, arguments over Harris' qualifications are about the stupidest thing a Trumpsucker could ever indulge in.
She was already on one ticket that DEFEATED TRUMP. In case anyone was wondering what the only qualification that matters this go-round might be, let me dispel all doubt: beating the Felon and his enablers is all that matters. A rotten head of cabbage would be the most qualified, as long as it wins. Trying to beat the Fascist propaganda juggernaut with it's multinational support and firehose of lies though, is going to be a Herculean task. A rotten head of cabbage would probably not clear the qualification hurdle, as it would likely lose. If Harris pulls off the win, she was qualified. BIGLY.

Funny how we didn't hear so much about Hillary being qualified; she was just labeled crooked. But never "mentally impaired" iirc, or terminally the wrong color, which is what the GQP is pushing on Harris. If Harris loses, I'll have to admit they were right; she lacked the prime qualification to get those marginal votes: being white enough to win.

evangelicals have chimp brains.

The smart ones do.

 

[Derec]

My opinion does not matter.

And yet you stated that you think that she was the best person for the job here:

Let’s face it: by explicitly saying that he would be looking for a VP who was black and female, he actually soared the fragile feelings of white men everywhere who cannot deal with the fact that the best person for the job was black and female.

And you claimed that anybody who opposes restricting VP selection to black females has "fragile feelings".

She was selected to be Joe Biden’s running mate—by Joe Biden, no doubt with a lot of input from a lot of people. Because that’s how VP candidates are chosen: for their qualifications ( prior experience, education), their character, and for what they bring to the ticket.

And in the case of Joe Biden, for their race and gender.

The US electorate voted for that ticket.

Sure. I voted for that ticket too. That does not mean that people who voted for the ticket thought she was the best choice Biden could have made, or that it was wise of him to
The election was close - not looking at the final EV tally but by margins in several of the battleground states - Pennsylvania was 0.2%, Arizona 0.4%, Wisconsin 0.6%. . And it could easily have ended with another Trump victory.

Trump pledged to replace RBG with another woman and he did—albeit a woman who by many measures, is not qualified given that she had rarely tried any case in a court of law. Unfortunately she was confirmed for that position.

As you say, Trump replaced a woman with another. I think it was wrong to restrict his selection to women only, but at least it is understandable from that standpoint. Biden restricted eligibility not just by gender but also by race, and replaced a white man. Note also that now blacks are overrepresented on the court (22% representation vs. 14% population) while there have not been any white men placed on the court by a Democratic president since 1994.
As to the "Notorious ACB", we both disagree with her politics and her decisions, but it is wrong to say that she is unqualified. JD from Notre Dame (a solid school, but good for SCOTUS justices not all be from Harvard and Yale!), she clerked for a DC Court of Appeals judge and Antonin Scalia at SCOTUS. She was a district court judge. So how is that unqualified?

I did not say that in my opinion, she was the best person for the job. In my opinion, there exists no single best person for that or any other job or office.

That's what you said. You said that "[Biden] actually soared the fragile feelings of white men everywhere who cannot deal with the fact that the best person for the job was black and female".
I agree that there is no objective way to say that one person is THE best for the job. It will always be a matter of opinion to some effect. How do you weigh certain qualities for example. However, I think you run the better chance of selecting somebody better if you are open to all qualified candidates rather than restricting selection to only one race and gender.

Every candidate for POTUS selects ( in conjunction with the party who nominates them) selects as their running mate someone who fulfills whatever demographic needs and whatever personal characteristics ( ie: is this someone I can work with effectively fir the next 4-8 years) and who I can trust.

Yes. Both Obama and Reagan picked running mates who were experienced insiders for example. But Biden first restricted himself to only consider women and then circumstances (i.e. the George Floyd riots) led him to only consider black women. But that shut him off from ~93% of the population.

I should say almost every candidate—I am pretty certain that Pence was chosen specially because he seemed to have a more steady, conservative disposition and lacked a personality that would compete with Trump.

Also, it helped with Evangelicals who were nervous about Trump's personal qualities.

In a very different way, I think that’s how Vance was chosen as well. Trump agreed to it but I doubt he had much more of a hand in selecting a running mate. Given his desperation, he likely acquiesced to whomever Peter Thiel told him to chose.

Do you have any evidence of that?

I feel extremely confident that had Biden not explicitly stated his intentions and still chose Kamala Harris from among all of the candidates who were qualified, the same people would still be harping on Harris as a DEI hire.

I would not, but I would also not think she would be a wise choice. For that reason I do not think she would have been chosen save for Biden's pledge and the 2020 riots.

 

[southernhybrid]

Trump's first term was a warning...

In case any of you have forgotten about some of the horrible things that Trump did during his former term, I'm sharing an article that goes into a lot of detail about the truth. I just wish that every Trump supporter, undecided voter or apathetic voter, would read it and give it careful consideration before helping him back into office. It's long. It's graphic and if you click the little arrows at the side of each piece, you get more details.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...e_code=1.Ok4.ywqV.i6MRHM-7DT0J&smid=url-share

Republicans have tried to rewrite the four years of Trump’s presidency as a time of unparalleled peace, prosperity and tranquility: “the strongest economy in history,” as Senator Katie Britt of Alabama put it during the Republican National Convention. The difference between Trump and Biden? “President Trump honored the Constitution,” said Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota. Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia offered Mr. Trump’s first term as an example of “common-sense conservative leadership.”

The record of what Mr. Trump actually did in office bears little resemblance to that description. Under his leadership, the country lurched from one crisis to the next, from the migrant families separated at the border to the sudden spike in prices caused by his trade war with China to the reckless mismanagement of the Covid pandemic. And he showed, over and over, how little respect he has for the Constitution and those who take an oath to defend it.

For Americans who may have forgotten that time, or pushed it from memory, we offer this timeline of his presidency. Mr. Trump’s first term was a warning about what he will do with the power of his office — unless American voters reject him.
201

 

[Derec]

I don't understand Trump supporters, especially the female and Black ones, when he man is so obviously a threat to them, as well a threat do our country.

I don't either. Frankly, this should be a blowout, perhaps not like Nixon-McGovern or Reagan-Mondale, but at least like Bush-Dukakis.
With a better candidate on the top the ticket, it most likely would be.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't understand Trump supporters, especially the female and Black ones, when he man is so obviously a threat to them, as well a threat do our country.

I don't either. Frankly, this should be a blowout, perhaps not like Nixon-McGovern or Reagan-Mondale, but at least like Bush-Dukakis.
With a better candidate on the top the ticket, it most likely would be.

With the right-wing where they are today? Easily in excess of 45% of the country is voting for the guy who incited a riot on January 6th as part of a plan to seize power via the Vice President in an election he knew he lost. One can only go so far to blame the other candidate for that level of partisanship.

 

[Derec]

You know, your blatantly baseless claims of anti-Semitism are boring as all heck.

I am not saying Kamala Harris or the national Democratic party are antisemities. But the "Uncommitted"/"Genocide Joe" crowd especially in heavily Muslim places like Dearborn, MI most definitely is.
They could not abide Shapiro, and the Harris team did not want to alienate them.

Gov. Shapiro and Gov. Walz were recent up and comers. Gov. Shapiro with the shooting at Trump and Gov. Walz when he kind of came out of no where.

Gov. Shapiro is a popular governor who was on the short list for a while, and for good reasons. It was Walz who came out of nowhere with his "weird" quip.
Shapiro is also a moderate, which would have offered ideological balance with more lefty Harris. Progressive Walz is not balancing the ticket in that regard.

Gov. Shapiro is a 'NE liberal elite'. While PA is critical to winning, so is Wisconsin and Michigan, which are midwestern states.

Which would have recommended a Michigander or a Wisconsinite. Minnesota is a fairly safe state for Kamala.
Pennsylvania is very crucial for her though. And it was the closest state in 2020 for Biden despite his Scranton roots - he won by mere 0.2%.
It is also a state she is struggling in right now according to polls.

Gov. Walz provides a path to WI and MI. Shapiro a path to PA. Add in that PA is trending purple, which puts the Governorship in risk, where as there is much less risk in losing the Governorship in Minnesota.

I think Walz' impact on WI and MI is overrated. And while PA is definitely a tossup in the presidential election, Casey is overperforming Harris in his Senate race. That means the right gubernatorial candidate will have an edge.

This idea that anti-Semitism was the reason for not taking Shapiro is utterly ridiculous, especially when one considers the small portion of voters such a decision would even impact.

Anti-Israel activists cheer Josh Shapiro losing out to Walz in Kamala Harris veepstakes
Column: Chatter about Josh Shapiro as Harris’ running mate veers into antisemitism

“Every potential nominee for Vice President is pro-Israel,” Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.) posted on social media in response to a post that contained “#genocideJosh.” “Yet only one, Josh Shapiro, has been singled out by a far-left smear campaign.… The reason he is treated differently from the rest? Antisemitism.”
Torres is not wrong. When other contenders’ names come up, their position on the war in Gaza is rarely the first topic discussed. And the fact that Shapiro is Jewish would seem to be a major reason his stance on the war is prominent in detractors’ minds.

 

[Derec]

I don't either. Frankly, this should be a blowout, perhaps not like Nixon-McGovern or Reagan-Mondale, but at least like Bush-Dukakis.
With a better candidate on the top the ticket, it most likely would be.

With the right-wing where they are today? Easily in excess of 45% of the country is voting for the guy who incited a riot on January 6th as part of a plan to seize power via the Vice President in an election he knew he lost. One can only go so far to blame the other candidate for that level of partisanship.

Even Dukakis got 45.6% of the popular vote. To avoid a blowout and make the election close, Trump needs needs more than his MAGA base. He needs people to vote for him despite intensely disliking him, or for people to be staying home because they dislike both of them.

But who am I kidding. This forum has become hopelessly coconutpilled, and any criticism of Kamala Harris is treated as some sort of unforgivable sin.

 

[Derec]

Sexist assumption not proven by evidence.

There is evidence she and Willie Brown had a sexual relationship. There is evidence he placed her on state boards. So there is evidence for the "quid" and for the "quo". It's only the "pro" that is a matter of conjecture.

It is funny that you are liking references to the entirely made up story about Vance and the couch that are gleefully being made by several people on here. And yet you are offended that anybody would mention this story where there is at least some evidence.

 

[Derec]

Evidence that she traded sex for a rather inconsequential appointment that probably had nothing to do with her overall success in life?
Oh, that’s right, NONE.

There is some evidence, yes. And if it was Vance and a 60 year old mayor having a sexual relationship with career benefits, you and the others would not shut up about it. You can't even shut up about the entirely made up story about the couch.

 

[Toni]

My opinion does not matter.

And yet you stated that you think that she was the best person for the job here:

Let’s face it: by explicitly saying that he would be looking for a VP who was black and female, he actually soared the fragile feelings of white men everywhere who cannot deal with the fact that the best person for the job was black and female.

And you claimed that anybody who opposes restricting VP selection to black females has "fragile feelings".

She was selected to be Joe Biden’s running mate—by Joe Biden, no doubt with a lot of input from a lot of people. Because that’s how VP candidates are chosen: for their qualifications ( prior experience, education), their character, and for what they bring to the ticket.

And in the case of Joe Biden, for their race and gender.

The US electorate voted for that ticket.

Sure. I voted for that ticket too. That does not mean that people who voted for the ticket thought she was the best choice Biden could have made, or that it was wise of him to
The election was close - not looking at the final EV tally but by margins in several of the battleground states - Pennsylvania was 0.2%, Arizona 0.4%, Wisconsin 0.6%. . And it could easily have ended with another Trump victory.

Trump pledged to replace RBG with another woman and he did—albeit a woman who by many measures, is not qualified given that she had rarely tried any case in a court of law. Unfortunately she was confirmed for that position.

As you say, Trump replaced a woman with another. I think it was wrong to restrict his selection to women only, but at least it is understandable from that standpoint. Biden restricted eligibility not just by gender but also by race, and replaced a white man. Note also that now blacks are overrepresented on the court (22% representation vs. 14% population) while there have not been any white men placed on the court by a Democratic president since 1994.
As to the "Notorious ACB", we both disagree with her politics and her decisions, but it is wrong to say that she is unqualified. JD from Notre Dame (a solid school, but good for SCOTUS justices not all be from Harvard and Yale!), she clerked for a DC Court of Appeals judge and Antonin Scalia at SCOTUS. She was a district court judge. So how is that unqualified?

I did not say that in my opinion, she was the best person for the job. In my opinion, there exists no single best person for that or any other job or office.

That's what you said. You said that "[Biden] actually soared the fragile feelings of white men everywhere who cannot deal with the fact that the best person for the job was black and female".
I agree that there is no objective way to say that one person is THE best for the job. It will always be a matter of opinion to some effect. How do you weigh certain qualities for example. However, I think you run the better chance of selecting somebody better if you are open to all qualified candidates rather than restricting selection to only one race and gender.

Every candidate for POTUS selects ( in conjunction with the party who nominates them) selects as their running mate someone who fulfills whatever demographic needs and whatever personal characteristics ( ie: is this someone I can work with effectively fir the next 4-8 years) and who I can trust.

Yes. Both Obama and Reagan picked running mates who were experienced insiders for example. But Biden first restricted himself to only consider women and then circumstances (i.e. the George Floyd riots) led him to only consider black women. But that shut him off from ~93% of the population.

I should say almost every candidate—I am pretty certain that Pence was chosen specially because he seemed to have a mo I re steady, conservative disposition and lacked a personality that would compete with Trump.

Also, it helped with Evangelicals who were nervous about Trump's personal qualities.

In a very different way, I think that’s how Vance was chosen as well. Trump agreed to it but I doubt he had much more of a hand in selecting a running mate. Given his desperation, he likely acquiesced to whomever Peter Thiel told him to chose.

Do you have any evidence of that?

I feel extremely confident that had Biden not explicitly stated his intentions and still chose Kamala Harris from among all of the candidates who were qualified, the same people would still be harping on Harris as a DEI hire.

I would not, but I would also not think she would be a wise choice. For that reason I do not think she would have been chosen save for Biden's pledge and the 2020 riots.

I am entitled to my opinion and to express it, no matter how irrelevant it is to anyone else, and certainly to those who make choices about running mates. You may believe that Biden only chose Harris because of the George Floyd murder and aftermath but I honestly doubt that. Biden has had a very long career in public office, at the national level. He is extremely talented at forging alliances and at bridging differences between two sides. I am certain that Biden thought long and hard about who would be the best person to serve as his VP. He's too experienced and too canny to not have done so. Biden served under this nation's first black president so he had a very up close and personal view of the fact that race did not impede Obama's ability to govern effectively. Rather than let Obama remain as the sole black person to hold access to the highest office in the land, he chose another black person and this time a female, expanding that opening ever so slightly. Good. I am extremely glad to see an intelligent, talented woman as VP and I would be delighted to see her win, even as I regard her as a flawed candidate, as they all are.

It is amusing and predictable and frustrating and very very sad to see people willing to accept, if forced to accept, black people and women in positions of power but only up to and including the percentage point at which they are represented in the general population. But I take your point that the USSC could stand to lose Clarence Thomas, who should never have been confirmed in the first place and who should be forced to resign over many many ethics violations. Since women comprise a slight majority of the population, he should be replaced by a woman and/or another person of color.

I understand that you are not a fan of Harris, probably for the opposite reasons some people I know are also not fans: they think she was too harsh as a DA and I'm certain you think she was too lenient. You certainly might have some very valid points to make if only you would stop obscuring them with racism and sexism.

 

[Toni]

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.

Yup. I just saw an interview with a black guy in GA. He's voting for Trump. Why?
"Because Trump sent me a check. He signed it."

Meanwhile, arguments over Harris' qualifications are about the stupidest thing a Trumpsucker could ever indulge in.
She was already on one ticket that DEFEATED TRUMP. In case anyone was wondering what the only qualification that matters this go-round might be, let me dispel all doubt: beating the Felon and his enablers is all that matters. A rotten head of cabbage would be the most qualified, as long as it wins. Trying to beat the Fascist propaganda juggernaut with it's multinational support and firehose of lies though, is going to be a Herculean task. A rotten head of cabbage would probably not clear the qualification hurdle, as it would likely lose. If Harris pulls off the win, she was qualified. BIGLY.

Funny how we didn't hear so much about Hillary being qualified; she was just labeled crooked. But never "mentally impaired" iirc, or terminally the wrong color, which is what the GQP is pushing on Harris. If Harris loses, I'll have to admit they were right; she lacked the prime qualification to get those marginal votes: being white enough to win.

evangelicals have chimp brains.

The smart ones do.

I don't think it is the color of her skin or that of her parents' skin that will keep her from winning. I think it's what's what is between her legs and also between the ears of too many people.

 

[Derec]

The previous paradigm was "we won't hire this guy because while he's eminently qualified, he's black."

And now the paradigm is ""we won't hire this guy because while he's eminently qualified, he's white and male."

That was okay to quite a lot of the people who are now screaming "DEI hire!" but I digress from my own side note....

Wrong. I think people should be treated as individuals, and not as interchangeable members of racial and gender categories. Two wrongs do not make a right. Just because blacks were discriminated against in the past does not mean it's right to discriminate against unrelated white people now.

In the political realm, these laws and policies were not in effect.

Except that on several occasions, politicians like Biden and Goodhair pledged that they would only consider black women for important appointments.

The only thing legally stopping or assisting a person of color with regards to elected office is the "will of the voters." So picking Harris was not a question of law. You could argue it was pandering to people of color (and I'm guessing a lot of the above mentioned people would agree), but IMO it is something else.

It was definitely pandering.

The Democratic Party has long appealed to minority voters, and when they pick someone like this for a high level position, it is more about giving them a seat at the table.

Black women are <5% of California population. Why should they be guaranteed sleection to one of the two US Senate seats, while excluding >95% of the California population from consideration?

That's the Equity and Inclusion part. People of color, women, and members of the LGBTQ community have long been denied a seat at the table to varying degrees. What is wrong if an organization (like the Democrats) are proactive in undoing that provided the person is otherwise qualified?

Because discriminating on these bases is wrong no matter which direction you are discriminating against. Somebody like Mayor Pete should not be excluded because he is gay, but neither should everybody else be excluded and only consider gays for a position. Same with Harris or Butler or KBJ.

Because it seems like people who scream "DEI hire!" are saying "we don't care if she's qualified. She's a black woman, and you can't pick her because of that."

Nobody is saying that. We are saying that you should not restrict selection to only black women. There is a huge difference between these two statements.

 

[laughing dog]

You know, your blatantly baseless claims of anti-Semitism are boring as all heck.

I am not saying Kamala Harris or the national Democratic party are antisemities. But the "Uncommitted"/"Genocide Joe" crowd especially in heavily Muslim places like Dearborn, MI most definitely is.
They could not abide Shapiro, and the Harris team did not want to alienate them.

I didn't realize you were in the inner circle of the Harris team.

According to this report - Why Kamala Harris picked Tim Walz - the reasons for picking Gov. Walz included
1) no one objected him,
2) he had accomplishment as Gov. that she wished to replicate,
3) his biography will play well in all the swing states,
4) he won his Congressional seat in a red district, and
4) the two "clicked".

On the other hand, according to the same article, she and Gov. Shapiro did not "click", he was viewed as a bit of a "showboat", and he was lukewarm about leaving his governorship.

While there are likely antisemites who objected to Gov. Shapiro who kept silent on Gov. Walz, there is no evidence to support your claim that ant-semitism is the reason Gov. Shapiro did not get nod.

 

[Derec]

How many had sex for them?

ALL of them, Derec.
Do you think they need to report to you every time they sleep with someone?
What’s with this pervo fixation?

You think everybody appointed to CA state boards had sex with someone to secure that appointment?
That is an incredible level of corruption. Maybe Gov. Goodhair should look into it. Unless he is complicit.

 

[ZiprHead]

Yup. I just saw an interview with a black guy in GA. He's voting for Trump. Why?
"Because Trump sent me a check. He signed it."

I've seen the exact same thing in the black guy that mows my lawn.