EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3456
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On January 27 2022 10:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Harris was not incompetent nor an unqualified vice presidential pick, so it's certainly not a counterexample. You're setting an obscenely high bar for her, compared to other individuals. You know she was a Senator, right? You know she had experience in politics, right? You know she's done just as much as VP, based on what's expected of a VP (e.g., tiebreaking votes in Senate) as Mike Pence (white, male) and VP Joe Biden (white, male). VPs never get much attention; that doesn't mean she didn't have a decent resume. She wasn't some arbitrary woman of color, and there have been far less qualified VP and even P candidates, many of whom were white and male. She's doing the same job as white men in her position. Ah, so is the argument that she isn't incompetent? Or that "no one could have seen this coming" maybe? If the former: laughable. She's more foot-in-mouth than an old man with likely dementia who even in his younger years was known for being foot-in-mouth. Just about every initiative she's worked has the stain of someone who doesn't know what they're doing and makes a mess of it. Her approval rating is almost always even worse than Biden's, and Biden himself is in striking distance of Trump's abysmal approval rating. Hard to pin down her exact policy "contributions" in the VP role (Here's NYPost's take to have at least one), but she can freely own the ones from her work back in her previous jobs - not good. Not the sign of a competent VP. If the latter: laughable. It's like saying "the candidate's resume was good but we didn't interview them - how could they possibly have been bad?" It was not a freak accident that she got wiped out early in the primaries; her "checks all the boxes" resume is nice and all, but it was immediately clear that she didn't hold up to even the slightest bit of debate-floor scrutiny. I'll dismiss all this: On January 27 2022 10:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: She wasn't some arbitrary woman of color, and there have been far less qualified VP and even P candidates, many of whom were white and male. She's doing the same job as white men in her position. as pointless identity politicking. It really doesn't matter if some person of some other race or gender would have done a similarly bad job as she has; that person shouldn't have been chosen for the position either. Competence should have been the criteria. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3304 Posts
But that might just be a visceral reaction against argumentation, calling people’s arguments laughable and barely defending your position. It’s less trolly but I think actually considerably more obnoxious than the Electable Delectable shit was. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On January 27 2022 11:51 JimmiC wrote: Most of the time is the VP not picked based on what voters they can bring? Was Pence picked because he was the best policy maker? Or was he picked because he brought evangelical cred to Trump? Where was the identity politics crying then? It didn't exist because he was a white male and for some reason despite everyone knowing that white males have a shit ton of advantages anytime one does not get something way to many people cry and complain as if they have never benefited from their race or gender. Good point, hadn't thought about that. As uncharismatic as Harris is, I would bet she is a far more capable administrator than Pence. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
Edit:for example, is it everyone else's fault that she's had such a high staff turnover rate? I don't see any evidence she is particularly good at her job or would be good in the White House, or keeping people around. I recall that being a major peice of evidence against Trump's record. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On January 27 2022 13:38 Introvert wrote: Pence was a governor, although by thr time he was picked not a popular one, as dems didn'tike him and conservatives had issues with his weak knees on some things. He was more qualified than she is in that repsect for sure, and was a far more effective ambassador for Trump in general and in congress especially, as he was also a former member of the House. But he didn't make headlines for what he did. Harris meanwhile is mostly in the news for giving terrible answers and just being an ineffective communicator. And this should be believe because despite raising wads of cash for her presidential run she dropped out before Iowa. Her tenure as AG and (short) senatorial career were also less than spectacular. She is unpopular for a reason. Edit:for example, is it everyone else's fault that she's had such a high staff turnover rate? I don't see any evidence she is particularly good at her job or would be good in the White House, or keeping people around. I recall that being a major peice of evidence against Trump's record. I would say the entire purpose of the VP is to be a communicator. Pence did an outstanding job. Harris probably couldn't do any worse. They are just the hype man/woman for the president. They exist to advance the president's agenda and rally support. Harris has been exclusively bad. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Can't say the same for Harris, and it seems the strongest argument against the position that she's not a good VP is several variations on "it's mean to point that out." The examples of poor communication are many, among the other problems of course. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
Honestly, I think her diversity was less important to the decision than the president prepping aspect. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2925 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
I think that’s somewhat separate to charges of tokenism and her not being qualified for the gig though, on paper she absolutely was. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2925 Posts
On January 27 2022 19:05 WombaT wrote: Harris has not been a good VP, probably performing worse than most expectations. I think that’s somewhat separate to charges of tokenism and her not being qualified for the gig though, on paper she absolutely was. To be perfectly honest though, I always thought that the VP's only real job is to win the presidential election, and in this, she did do an adequate job. I mean, it's not like having a brilliant VP would change any of the current outcomes: you still Manching and Sinema, and you still have hyperpartisanship. What are the actual expectations here? I doubt even if you had someone well-spoken, knowledgeable and likable like Obama as Biden's VP that any outcome would be any different. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
Yes, the VP isnt really that important, though. I cant say shes failing at it because the bar for a VP is to be the tie breaker vote, and shes barely even had the opportunity to fail or succeed. No point to making a big deal about her performance as VP, nothing she can seriously do. She could use her position to advocate more, but not really doing so is more a typical-neutral than a negative for me. As a person though, Kamala Harris is a policy void with a Hillary Clinton aura. No values, no charisma, just political connections and the sort of awful principle-less behavior one should expect from the vastest of majorities of US politicians. When your job is very do-nothing you're going to get judged on something, in this case we're left with her as a person which is... unappealing. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46223 Posts
On January 27 2022 14:43 LegalLord wrote: Pence was exactly what he needed to be: a moderate, party-line Republican foil to the somewhat out-there Trump. He may not have been the governor of Indiana he needed to be, but he certainly did what he needed to as VP. Can't say the same for Harris, and it seems the strongest argument against the position that she's not a good VP is several variations on "it's mean to point that out." The examples of poor communication are many, among the other problems of course. You're conflating eventual results (what has Harris done right/wrong, as VP) with pre-VP potential (she's qualified on paper, which helps to justify her as a runningmate during the general election). If a qualified candidate ends up being ineffective, that doesn't mean you get to use hindsight bias and redefine their original appointment or hiring as merely a diversity pick, just because things didn't work out. There's no crystal ball or oracle that tells us, ahead of time, that VP Pick X will do a better job than VP Pick Y, once they take office, which might make picking Y over X a dumb decision. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
On January 27 2022 07:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: ]Her ineffectiveness has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman of color. Exactly. Which is why choosing her because she was a black woman was a poor decision and Biden is about to make that mistake again. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46223 Posts
On January 27 2022 21:35 gobbledydook wrote: ] Exactly. Which is why choosing her because she was a black woman was a poor decision and Biden is about to make that mistake again. If you're not going to read what I - or anyone else - has said, and merely just repeat the same nonsense, then you're not going to get very far in this conversation. The statement "I think she's ineffective, and therefore the only reason she was chosen is because she's a black woman" is a complete non sequitur. It's been covered already. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4768 Posts
However her gender and ethnicity was an important factor. Obviously, not the only one, she is not some random person grabed from the street and forced to be VP. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2925 Posts
On January 27 2022 22:01 Silvanel wrote: @DarkPlasmaBall However her gender and ethnicity was an important factor. Obviously, not the only one, she is not some random person grabed from the street and forced to be VP. In the same vein that picking Pence helped Trump shore up support within the evangelical community. They needed a white old dude that looked as beatific as possible -- an anti-Trump one could say. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On January 27 2022 22:06 EnDeR_ wrote: In the same vein that picking Pence helped Trump shore up support within the evangelical community. They needed a white old dude that looked as beatific as possible -- an anti-Trump one could say. In other words, they needed someone who looked like he was the head of Genosha and wanted to imprison/kill all mutants. | ||
| ||
