Veep Bets

[Derec]

I guess Klob is out of the Veepstakes. Her own fault for not being able to predict in 2006 what would happen in 2020.

Amy Klobuchar declined to prosecute officer at center of George Floyd's death after previous conduct complaints

Before she became a senator and a top contender for former Vice President Joe Biden's vice presidential spot, Klobuchar spent eight years as the Hennepin County attorney, in charge of prosecution for Minneapolis. And while in that position, Klobuchar declined to prosecute multiple police officers cited for excessive force, including the officer who kneeled on Floyd's neck as he protested, The Guardian reports.

"Cited" by whom? A mere accusation doesn't mean that charges are warranted. And she could not have predicted the Floyd incident.

Ex-Minneapolis police officer Derick Chauvin saw at least 10 conduct complaints during his 19-year tenure before he was fired Tuesday, according to a database that documents complaints against police. In particular, he was involved in the shooting death of a man who had stabbed other people before attacking police, as well as some other undisclosed complaints. Klobuchar did not prosecute Chauvin for the first death, and he was later placed on leave when he and other officers shot and wounded a Native American man in 2011.

I think pretty much every officer has complaints filed against them. That just comes with the territory, as people they arrest are rarely satisfied customers.
And why the hell should Klob or anyone else have prosecuted Chauvin for that? Wayne Reyes, the guy shot by Chauvin in 2006, stabbed some people and then pointed a shotgun at police. That shooting looks 100% justified.

As The Washington Post noted in March, Klobuchar "declined to bring charges in more than two dozen cases in which people were killed in encounters with police" as Hennepin County attorney. Instead, she "aggressively prosecuted smaller offenses" that "have been criticized for their disproportionate effect on poor and minority communities," the Post continues. And as Klobuchar undergoes vetting to become a possible vice presidential candidate, that track record is being scrutinized and criticized once again.

Police shooting somebody is not necessarily a crime. Yahoo! and WaPo pretend that default with police shootings should be a prosecution when a vast majoroty of police shootings are perfectly justified.
And it is racist to say that a prosecutor should not prosecute crimes when they are predominately committed by people who are "poor and minority".

P.S.: I noticed just now I and Chauvin are almost namesakes.

 

[lpetrich]

So Amy Klobuchar is Amy Cop-buchar. Like Kamala Harris being Cop-mala Harris.

 

[Toni]

So Amy Klobuchar is Amy Cop-buchar. Like Kamala Harris being Cop-mala Harris.

Like I said, I know some people for whom Klobuchar and Harris are both non-starters because they were DAs. IMO, I suspect that this would be less an issue if they were male but that's only a suspicion and not an actual discussion I've had with them. Of course they are male. I've noticed that quite a few males need to have women have perfect credentials and be some magical non-existent age: not too old or motherly/grandmotherly, not too fuckable but just the right amount of fuckable, although they'd never actually say that. You know: those guys who are all for progressive candidates but not Warren because she's too... (what they mean is that she's older and no longer fuckable) but hey! crotchety old men like Sanders are great. Endearing is actually a term I heard one use. When presented with a link to a paper Sanders wrote about, among other things, the 'fact' that women fantasize about being gang raped during sex.

I am just bitter about this election. I admit it. Now if some menfolk would just address their own myopia and unrealistic expectations we might go somewhere.

 

[lpetrich]

I've noticed that quite a few males need to have women have perfect credentials and be some magical non-existent age: not too old or motherly/grandmotherly, not too fuckable but just the right amount of fuckable, although they'd never actually say that.

I hope I'm not like that.

For my part, I think that Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar are both at a reasonable age for the Presidency. Both are old enough to have gotten a lot of experience, and both are young enough to be in good health. Elizabeth Warren seems in good health, but she's a bit on the old side. Not as old as Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, however. I remember watching some video of where BS and AOC announced AOC's bill for a Green New Deal for public housing. BS seemed rather passive the whole time, while AOC responded to the speeches about as much as most of the others there. BTW, it was mostly housing activists who spoke there, and no CEO's of home-repair companies. AOC and her staff consulted with housing activists in their writing of that bill. But that's another story.

 

[Toni]

I've noticed that quite a few males need to have women have perfect credentials and be some magical non-existent age: not too old or motherly/grandmotherly, not too fuckable but just the right amount of fuckable, although they'd never actually say that.

I hope I'm not like that.

For my part, I think that Kamala Harris and Amy Klobuchar are both at a reasonable age for the Presidency. Both are old enough to have gotten a lot of experience, and both are young enough to be in good health. Elizabeth Warren seems in good health, but she's a bit on the old side. Not as old as Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, however. I remember watching some video of where BS and AOC announced AOC's bill for a Green New Deal for public housing. BS seemed rather passive the whole time, while AOC responded to the speeches about as much as most of the others there. BTW, it was mostly housing activists who spoke there, and no CEO's of home-repair companies. AOC and her staff consulted with housing activists in their writing of that bill. But that's another story.

I agree with Klobchar and Harris's ages/qualifications being suitable and also that Warren is a bit old. But she's every bit as vigorous as Klobuchar and Harris and far more vigorous than Sanders, Biden, or Trump. The biggest weakness of Warren's is that she got played re the whole Pocohantas crap.

 

[Emily Lake]

I've noticed that quite a few males need to have women have perfect credentials...

Momentary derail: This is part and parcel of privilege in general. The privileged group has a tendency to judge the disadvantaged group by the worst characteristics of every example, and to judge their own by the best. Thus, a black man with a flaw is seen as representative of the flaws of all black men, while a white man with a flaw is just a normal white man, who happens to have a flaw. A woman with a flaw is seen as representative of all women, whereas a man with a flaw is just a normal man who happens to have a flaw. A person from a disadvantaged group in a noteworthy position ends up having to conform to an impossible standard, because their actions and their errors end up being a stand in for the whole group.

It doesn't just go one way, despite the examples I've given. This kind of dynamic exists whenever there's a strong in-group vs out-group dynamic, even subconscious ones. For example, a man who works with young children has a huge amount more scrutiny than any woman does - if he has a bad day and gets angry, he ends up being viewed as evidence of why men aren't fit to work with children.

 

[Derec]

IMO, I suspect that this would be less an issue if they were male but that's only a suspicion and not an actual discussion I've had with them.

So it's based on nothing but your prejudices.

Of course they are male. I've noticed that quite a few males need to have women have perfect credentials and be some magical non-existent age: not too old or motherly/grandmotherly, not too fuckable but just the right amount of fuckable, although they'd never actually say that.

For fuck's sake! This has nothing to do with Fauxachontas not being a GILF!
She is too old to be Veep for a president who is also ancient. Amy and Kamala are both of a good age to be Biden's veep - so the age in question is neither non-existent nor magical.

You know: those guys who are all for progressive candidates but not Warren because she's too... (what they mean is that she's older and no longer fuckable) but hey! crotchety old men like Sanders are great.

So they think Bernie is ... fuckable ... or what the hell is your point?
Bernie comes across as crotchety but in a rather pleasant way. Warren is always preaching at people, scolding them.

Endearing is actually a term I heard one use.

I think that one is actually quite fitting for Bernie. I know you can't stand him for some reason, but he does come across as endearing even when you disagree with him. He is like the cool great uncle, while Warren is like the great aunt who is forever scolding you for not having married yet or that you should lose/gain weight or something.

When presented with a link to a paper Sanders wrote about, among other things, the 'fact' that women fantasize about being gang raped during sex.

Rape fantasies really exist. I do not see why he should be attacked just because he commented on them decades ago.

I am just bitter about this election. I admit it.

You are? Haven't really noticed.

Now if some menfolk would just address their own myopia and unrealistic expectations we might go somewhere.

I have no unrealistic expectations. There is no such a thing as a perfect running mate, be it a man or woman. But since Biden committed to picking a woman, we must weigh the pros and cons of possible female Veeps on a scale. It's silly to cry "sexism" whenever some weakness of a candidate is commented on.

 

[Derec]

The biggest weakness of Warren's is that she got played re the whole Pocohantas crap.

She played herself. Between her bar registration card, minority status at Harvard, "pow wow" cookbook, her lie that her grandparents (or parents?) had to elope because the bride was "Cherokee", "high cheek bones" and that DNA test, the whole fiasco is on her.

 

[Toni]

So it's based on nothing but your prejudices.


For fuck's sake! This has nothing to do with Fauxachontas not being a GILF!

Oh, sure it does.

She is too old to be Veep for a president who is also ancient. Amy and Kamala are both of a good age to be Biden's veep - so the age in question is neither non-existent nor magical.

You aren't quite understanding my point: Age has been held against Warren, who is younger and much more energetic than Sanders, Biden or Trump. Age is only a factor if you're female, it seems.

You know: those guys who are all for progressive candidates but not Warren because she's too... (what they mean is that she's older and no longer fuckable) but hey! crotchety old men like Sanders are great.

So they think Bernie is ... fuckable ... or what the hell is your point?
Bernie comes across as crotchety but in a rather pleasant way. Warren is always preaching at people, scolding them.

THAT ^^^^^^ is exactly my point. To a lot of very nice men I know, Bernie is just a crotchety old man and Warren is always a scolding school marm.

Endearing is actually a term I heard one use.

I think that one is actually quite fitting for Bernie. I know you can't stand him for some reason, but he does come across as endearing even when you disagree with him. He is like the cool great uncle, while Warren is like the great aunt who is forever scolding you for not having married yet or that you should lose/gain weight or something.

No. That's just sexism, imo. Look, we both know that I'm a generation older than you. I very well remember a lot of men just like Sanders: always sure they had the answer, always saying they were for women's rights and race equality but women were for fetching coffee and providing sex and blacks were pawn in demonstrations and to be used for photo ops. Never equals. There is nothing endearing about the man. There is just the double standard that allows old blowhards to be revered and women who come across as too smart as being scolds.

When presented with a link to a paper Sanders wrote about, among other things, the 'fact' that women fantasize about being gang raped during sex.

Rape fantasies really exist. I do not see why he should be attacked just because he commented on them decades ago.

You mean Bernie? The candidate revered for 'sticking to the same principles he formed in the 60's? The man who is known for never changing his mind? Heh. Sorry, I'm old enough to remember too many men like Sanders.

.

It's silly to cry "sexism" whenever some weakness of a candidate is commented on.

It's never 'silly' to point out sexism. Frankly a lot of criticism of female candidates is plainly sexism. Traits that are admired in men are fatal in women. Women must be smart, but not too smart or not come across as being too smart because then they are school marms. They must be young, but not too young. They must be mature, but still fuckable. Their hair and clothing must be up to date but not too sexy. They must refer often to their (male) spouses and children and are ALWAYS asked for their favorite cookie recipes. Men never are.

 

[Derec]

Oh, sure it does.

Not everything is about sex.
What are you, a Freudian?

You aren't quite understanding my point: Age has been held against Warren, who is younger and much more energetic than Sanders, Biden or Trump. Age is only a factor if you're female, it seems.

I did not hear anything about age being a disqualifier for Warren during the primaries when she competed against Biden and Sanders. But the veepstakes are a completely different ballgame. The top of the ticket is Biden, who needs somebody younger than 65 and preferably younger than 60.

It is especially silly to claim it is due to sexism as well, since she is only competing against other women.

THAT ^^^^^^ is exactly my point. To a lot of very nice men I know, Bernie is just a crotchety old man and Warren is always a scolding school marm.

But you assume, without evidence, that it is due to sexism and not due to their very different personalities.

No. That's just sexism, imo. Look, we both know that I'm a generation older than you. I very well remember a lot of men just like Sanders: always sure they had the answer, always saying they were for women's rights and race equality but women were for fetching coffee and providing sex and blacks were pawn in demonstrations and to be used for photo ops. Never equals. There is nothing endearing about the man. There is just the double standard that allows old blowhards to be revered and women who come across as too smart as being scolds.

That is your opinion. And you do seem extremely bitter about it to the point you have to realize that you are not being very objective.
And I do not think Warren is "too smart". It's just that her personality is not a very winning one. Hell, not even other women voted for her. She came third in her home state!

You mean Bernie? The candidate revered for 'sticking to the same principles he formed in the 60's? The man who is known for never changing his mind? Heh. Sorry, I'm old enough to remember too many men like Sanders.

In other words, you are making it personal.

t's never 'silly' to point out sexism.

It's silly when it's not sexism at all.

Frankly a lot of criticism of female candidates is plainly sexism. Traits that are admired in men are fatal in women.

Definitely not true.

Women must be smart, but not too smart or not come across as being too smart because then they are school marms.

The "too smart" attack applies just as much to male politicians. Just look at Mayor Pete!
And schoolmarmness is not a function of intelligence, but of a certain personality.

They must be young, but not too young.

Same goes for men. Again, see Buttigieg, Pete (Mayor).

They must be mature, but still fuckable.

You are the one obsessing with fuckability. As if fuckability wasn't a factor in the popularity of 90s Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Or why Chris Christie's and Mike Huckabee's candidacies went nowhere fast.

Their hair and clothing must be up to date but not too sexy.

Men's hair (from Bernie's wild and crazy hair to Edwards' or Kerry's expensive haircuts) men's hairstyles are under much scrutiny too.
As is clothing or weight.

They must refer often to their (male) spouses and children and are ALWAYS asked for their favorite cookie recipes. Men never are.

Men are asked about stupid stuff too. Bill was asked about his underwear, Hillary about her jewelry. Both hardly relevant, but it's not like men get a pass on stupid questions.


You are right that men are unlikely to get a question about cookies but they may be asked about what they plan to barbecue or something. Such personal minutiae are part and parcel of US politics. And both men and women get plenty of scrutiny about their families. At least Warren is not being accused of fucking her kids, so she has that going for her.

 

[laughing dog]

So it's based on nothing but your prejudices.

No more functioning irony meters in the world.

For fuck's sake! This has nothing to do with Fauxachontas

See above.

 

[Derec]

No more functioning irony meters in the world.

You never had a functioning one in your life!

 

[laughing dog]

No more functioning irony meters in the world.

You never had a functioning one in your life!

I see yours is not working.

 

[Toni]

Not everything is about sex.
What are you, a Freudian?
View attachment 27954



I did not hear anything about age being a disqualifier for Warren during the primaries when she competed against Biden and Sanders. But the veepstakes are a completely different ballgame. The top of the ticket is Biden, who needs somebody younger than 65 and preferably younger than 60.

It is especially silly to claim it is due to sexism as well, since she is only competing against other women.

THAT ^^^^^^ is exactly my point. To a lot of very nice men I know, Bernie is just a crotchety old man and Warren is always a scolding school marm.

But you assume, without evidence, that it is due to sexism and not due to their very different personalities.

No. That's just sexism, imo. Look, we both know that I'm a generation older than you. I very well remember a lot of men just like Sanders: always sure they had the answer, always saying they were for women's rights and race equality but women were for fetching coffee and providing sex and blacks were pawn in demonstrations and to be used for photo ops. Never equals. There is nothing endearing about the man. There is just the double standard that allows old blowhards to be revered and women who come across as too smart as being scolds.

That is your opinion. And you do seem extremely bitter about it to the point you have to realize that you are not being very objective.
And I do not think Warren is "too smart". It's just that her personality is not a very winning one. Hell, not even other women voted for her. She came third in her home state!

You mean Bernie? The candidate revered for 'sticking to the same principles he formed in the 60's? The man who is known for never changing his mind? Heh. Sorry, I'm old enough to remember too many men like Sanders.

In other words, you are making it personal.

t's never 'silly' to point out sexism.

It's silly when it's not sexism at all.

Frankly a lot of criticism of female candidates is plainly sexism. Traits that are admired in men are fatal in women.

Definitely not true.

Women must be smart, but not too smart or not come across as being too smart because then they are school marms.

The "too smart" attack applies just as much to male politicians. Just look at Mayor Pete!
And schoolmarmness is not a function of intelligence, but of a certain personality.

They must be young, but not too young.

Same goes for men. Again, see Buttigieg, Pete (Mayor).

They must be mature, but still fuckable.

You are the one obsessing with fuckability. As if fuckability wasn't a factor in the popularity of 90s Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Or why Chris Christie's and Mike Huckabee's candidacies went nowhere fast.

Their hair and clothing must be up to date but not too sexy.

Men's hair (from Bernie's wild and crazy hair to Edwards' or Kerry's expensive haircuts) men's hairstyles are under much scrutiny too.
As is clothing or weight.

They must refer often to their (male) spouses and children and are ALWAYS asked for their favorite cookie recipes. Men never are.

Men are asked about stupid stuff too. Bill was asked about his underwear, Hillary about her jewelry. Both hardly relevant, but it's not like men get a pass on stupid questions.


You are right that men are unlikely to get a question about cookies but they may be asked about what they plan to barbecue or something. Such personal minutiae are part and parcel of US politics. And both men and women get plenty of scrutiny about their families. At least Warren is not being accused of fucking her kids, so she has that going for her.

Find one example of a male national candidate being asked, during his campaign, about his favorite recipe for any food.

 

[Derec]

Find one example of a male national candidate being asked, during his campaign, about his favorite recipe for any food.

I am sure there have been cases of them being specifically asked, although it would take more time than I have to sleuth out all the many town halls, debates and interviews they have participated in.

However, Obama and McCain did share recipes during their 2008 campaign though.
John McCain's Ribs & Obama Family Chili

Obama also had some strong opinions on guacamole too.

 

[Derec]

I see yours is not working.

Better than yours anyway.

 

[laughing dog]

I see yours is not working.

Better than yours anyway.

Apparently not.

 

[lpetrich]

About Pete Buttigieg, I didn't think that he was that great. He didn't seem to have much of a policy vision, and he seemed to me to be a sort of male bimbo.

 

[Rhea]

About Pete Buttigieg, I didn't think that he was that great. He didn't seem to have much of a policy vision, and he seemed to me to be a sort of male bimbo.

A bimbo? Really? He was able to delve into details and understand complex intersections of policies.
I thought "bimbo" meant "dumb"
(full disclosure, I've been called a bimbo. It was meant to demean me as dumb.)

 

[Rhea]

Men are asked about stupid stuff too. Bill was asked about his underwear, Hillary about her jewelry. Both hardly relevant, but it's not like men get a pass on stupid questions.

You are right that men are unlikely to get a question about cookies but they may be asked about what they plan to barbecue or something. Such personal minutiae are part and parcel of US politics. And both men and women get plenty of scrutiny about their families. At least Warren is not being accused of fucking her kids, so she has that going for her.

You are missing the impact and the importance of how often it's done. If it happens 10x more to women, then technically you are correct "that it happens to men, too," but you are absolutely incorrect about it being appropriate, fair or professional.

If you can find as many instances of it being asked of men as it is of women, then you have a point. But you will not find that because you do not, in fact, have a valid point.