• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Race For 2024

Dan Quayle (1988) and Mike Pence (2016) were specifically brought on to quell the white Evangelical vote.
Pence certainly did, esp. given that Evangelicals were skeptical of Trump's personal sins and transgressions.
But is Quayle even an Evangelical?
Harris was selected to help carry the state of California's electoral votes. :D But seriously, her demographics, generalized ambition, and encourage higher turnout.
Her "demographics" as you put it was the deciding factor. She was not particularly successful when she ran in 2019 (she didn't even make it to calendar year 2020!) and showed poor judgment - in how she ran the campaign (which led to her blee ng money despite strong early fundraising), how she attacked Biden over busing ("I was that girl") and also taking far-left positions on things like fracking.
Walz was added to provide gender balance and a Midwestern charm element and an attempt to manage the Midwest part of the "the wall".
Walz provides no ideological balance. Kamala is on the left wing of the Democratic Party and Walz is too. Somebody like Shapiro would have been more of a balance here (while also being male) and he is a popular governor in a state Kamala needs and is struggling in. Even Scranton Joe only won PA by 0.2% - it was afaik the closest state in 2020.
I think Walz' impact outside of Minnesota will be minimal.
I wanted Whitmer. Solidify the Midwest with a popular midwestern Governor.
Don't know too much about her politics, except that she is foolishly opposing the Enbridge Line 5 replacement.
But at least as a Michigoose she'd have impact on a battleground state.
Harris et al went with the other side of the midwest to fulfill that need. When it looked like Shapiro was going to be the person, it seemed like a good pick, but in hindsight, I think another thing Walz brings is contrast. Gov. Walz comes across in such an organically folksy way, where as Shapiro would have been more of what Harris was already providing in establishment candidate.
But ideologically they are not a contrast at all. Both are lefty Democrats.
 
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.
So it's still just conjecture on your part. I know you don't have the experience to understand this but most people like to help out their friends, family, and significant others without sex being a motivating factor.

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.
It's long been said conservatives are terrible at humor. ^^^ Another example why.
 
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." :rolleyes:
I've seen the exact same thing in the black guy that mows my lawn.
Did you try to tell him that THE TAXPAYERS sent you a check over Cheato's protest, and A MACHINE signed it?
 
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.
I don't think that is the problem. The problem is that Trump has built up a cult and it's very hard to bring cult members away from the cult. Plus, a lot of people are low information voters, who don't read much or follow the news. Who exactly do you think would be the candidate that could win in a landslide? I can't think of a single one and I see Harris as one of the most qualified candidates in my lifetime. She has been in many elected positions from attorney general, Senator, VP and a few others when she was quite young. Biden is about the only one I can think of who had more experience than Harris.

Elections in recent years have been very close, as our country is more divided than I've seen it in my lifetime, even more so then it was in the 60s, when I was a teenager. Sure, it was divided over the Viet Nam War during my youth, but now it's very different and much worse. There is so much hate coming from the Republicans, who have been taken in by Trump.

Most of Harris's supporters are very enthusiastic about her, other than those who don't support Israel and feel she will get us more involved in the mess in the Middle East. The problem with that type of thinking is that Trump is far more supportive of Israel, so things will get worse in the Mid East if he gets a second term. Plus there is no easy solution to that awful mess. I know that isn't why you aren't enthusiastic about Harris, but based on my reading, that seems to be why many younger voters as well as Muslim voters are either sitting this one out or half heartedly voting for Harris. I have voted for many people during my life time that I wasn't excited about, but there was always one who I felt was better than the other, so I never missed an election. I'm not a one issue voter either, so I try to look at all aspects, not just something I don't like about a candidate. Plus, as you know, presidents never get everything they want, especially when they. are dealing with a very divided Congress.

I don't think anyone should worry about Harris being too far to the Left, since she won't be able to accomplish some of her dream goals and she will likely be willing to work with those who are willing to compromise, which is the way it should be. Life is about compromise and Trump is the one who doesn't want to do that. Harris seems very willing to compromise, which imo, is a positive. So, try and look at the positive and not the things you don't personally like about Harris or her policies. Since you keep saying you will vote for her, despite not being happy about your choices, why not spend more time bashing Trump, instead of criticizing the candidate who you say you plan on giving your vote. If Liz Cheney can endorse Harris, considering Cheney is a hard core conservative, there must be something attractive about Harris that make a lot of conservatives feel they can trust her, especially considering the alternative.
 
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.
Your counterexample doesn't work because there was a negative effect for the business who employed blacks in anything but low wage positions. It's the total cost, not merely the wages paid.

And I'm glad to see you're now admitting minimum wage laws were passed for racist reasons.
 
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.
You still persist in focusing on my considering Harris a DEI pick and ignoring the fact that I'm saying all VPs are DEI picks. VP is always about covering weak areas and thus is about diversity.
 
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.
Expanding access to those not well represented to the presidential candidate. It's about diversity. And that's what the D stands for. Just because "DEI" usually refers to minorities doesn't mean it has to.
 

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.
Two big problems:

1) We already have a big problem with trying to prove racism statistically. This would make even more pressure to ensure the numbers were "right".

2) In many cases not everyone involved knows. Look at the recent allegations about improper edits to insurance adjuster reports in Florida. Note they were independent agents. Look at the forces at work: Insurance companies are going to tend to give their business to companies that come up with lower damage numbers. This will select for the sort of dirty tricks we are seeing. The adjusters didn't know--they're the ones blowing the whistle when they found out what was going on. The insurance companies probably didn't do independent checks of the accuracy of the original inspections. You don't need many bad apples to have a widespread problem. Or the secretary that drops "wrong" resumes in the shredder. (Especially since a company very well might legitimately have someone who is accepting resumes filter out those whose conduct isn't good. Companies get inundated with resumes these days and will be very aggressive in filtering them.)
 
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.
Yeah, sleeping your way up is really just a subset of kiss ass behavior. Probably somewhat more effective in that in many cases the person giving the benefit is in what's supposed to be an exclusive sexual arrangement and thus has more to lose if it's exposed.
 
This doesn't really warrant it's own thread so I'm putting it here:


They're already hinting at blocking any SCOTUS appointments for Harris.
 
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

How dare you bring nuance into this!

Was Harris picked entirely because of her race/gender? No, because if this were the only qualification, literally any black or mixed race woman would do. Some campaign staffer. A chef in a restaurant where a campaign chief liked to eat, etc. Did Biden make a strategic decision informed by political reality? I think that would be a fair assessment. The campaign had to appeal to black and women voters. Was Walz picked entirely because he's a white male? No, because if that were the only qualification, someone like "Joe the Plumber" (remember him?) would have been just as good. No, both Harris and Walz were very qualified people picked because - among the most qualified - they were able to balance out the ticket and appeal to a broad demographic. As you said, their race and gender are secondary criteria. It was a political decision, not a "DEI hire."

Now let's move onto the other side of the aisle, shall we? Pence was chosen - among the many white male contenders - because he appealed to the evangelical base of the GOP...a demographic that Trump completely owns now, but back in 2016 it was thought that a guy who hadn't seen the inside of a church since he was scouting out one to knock down and put a hi rise over might not be a good fit for the God Squad. Turns out evangelicals don't care about multiple wives and multiple affairs with porn stars. Who knew?

Vance? He's definitely not a DEI pick. His relative lack of qualifications has been mentioned, but it bears repeating that the only reason he's a Senator in the first place is because of very wealthy backers. It's also absurd to say he "balances" the GOP ticket in any way. He's a younger white male, but that's hardly a new thing for them. It seems the reason he was picked is two-fold. One, he's shown a willingness to abandon whatever opinion he previously held of Trump and bend the knee to Dear Leader. Two, he's proven that there's nothing too outrageous for him to say. No lie to big, no lie too small, no attack too vicious, and no excuse too outrageous. He's Trump's little attack dog.

Now, is that smart politics? Vance's approval ratings are slightly below the bottom of the toilet bowl. His appearances are laughably small, and lately when he wants to go into a shop to "mingle with the common folk" he gets shut out. And maybe that, too, is another reason he was chosen. For all his vicious yapping, he's not a threat to Herr Trump. Pence famously defied his boss when he was ordered to toss out the electoral votes. This time around, Trump was looking for someone he could push around, and Vance is that man.

Which makes it even more astonishing that the race is even close at this point. One of the things voters should consider when choosing a ticket is whether or not the VP would be able to step in and become President should something happen. While I've never been a big fan of Harris, I'm sure she's more than qualified for that job. Vance? Shudder.
 

Nothingburger (dossier on Vance, nothing big) except the moron in charge of Shitter is trying to suppress it.
 
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." :rolleyes:
I've seen the exact same thing in the black guy that mows my lawn.
Did you try to tell him that THE TAXPAYERS sent you a check over Cheato's protest, and A MACHINE signed it?
Nah, I try to avoid political discussions in real life. Never leads to anything good.
 
Back
Top Bottom