|
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 |
On August 02 2024 07:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2024 06:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 02 2024 06:42 NewSunshine wrote:On August 02 2024 06:20 BlackJack wrote:
“Is there any way we can brag about Kamala Harris being a DEI success story while simultaneously denying that her success is attributable to DEI?”
*glass shatters*
By god, that’s DPB’s entrance music! Would you care to share any of your own opinions regarding the discussion? So far you just seem annoyed that other people have opinions. Seems like a pointless discussion. You get to decide how you define the words you use and you also get to decide how to define the words I use? If you say DEI it means awesome inclusive stuff and when I say DEI I mean Nigger with the hard R? (Not you specifically but that's the gist of DPB's post) What I actually wrote: "conservatives assert that Harris is the Democratic nominee only because she's a woman of color, and not because she's qualified, currently the vice president, and overwhelmingly the most popular alternative to Joe Biden. These sexist and racist attacks are summarized by conservatives using the term "DEI" as a disparaging term, in the same way that they've flipped the positive academic definition of "woke" into a derisive label" So, no, equating DEI with the N-word is not the gist of my post. Maybe you believe it's the gist of oBlade's article, or maybe you misread what I wrote. Maybe you disagree with my characterization of how conservatives use "DEI", but it's not helpful to post the way you're posting.
Ok you didnt use the N-word but the HuffPost article does and you appear to endorse that article. You used the more blanket term of “racist.”
Sorry if this whole affair seems like a desire to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to promote people for their skin color while not allowing anyone to mention that maybe they got promoted because of their skin color. Your means of achieving this is to label anyone that broaches the subject a racist. It’s simply bad faith deflection.
|
It's not "promoting people for their skin color", and as long as you choose not to understand the difference, then yes, there's not much to discuss.
|
On August 02 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2024 07:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 02 2024 06:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 02 2024 06:42 NewSunshine wrote:On August 02 2024 06:20 BlackJack wrote:
“Is there any way we can brag about Kamala Harris being a DEI success story while simultaneously denying that her success is attributable to DEI?”
*glass shatters*
By god, that’s DPB’s entrance music! Would you care to share any of your own opinions regarding the discussion? So far you just seem annoyed that other people have opinions. Seems like a pointless discussion. You get to decide how you define the words you use and you also get to decide how to define the words I use? If you say DEI it means awesome inclusive stuff and when I say DEI I mean Nigger with the hard R? (Not you specifically but that's the gist of DPB's post) What I actually wrote: "conservatives assert that Harris is the Democratic nominee only because she's a woman of color, and not because she's qualified, currently the vice president, and overwhelmingly the most popular alternative to Joe Biden. These sexist and racist attacks are summarized by conservatives using the term "DEI" as a disparaging term, in the same way that they've flipped the positive academic definition of "woke" into a derisive label" So, no, equating DEI with the N-word is not the gist of my post. Maybe you believe it's the gist of oBlade's article, or maybe you misread what I wrote. Maybe you disagree with my characterization of how conservatives use "DEI", but it's not helpful to post the way you're posting. Ok you didnt use the N-word but the HuffPost article does and you appear to endorse that article. You used the more blanket term of “racist.”
I'm not taking a position on oBlade's article as something I completely endorse or don't endorse. I agree with the parts I quoted, none of which have anything to do with the N-word. I merely explained the article that oBlade posted, to oBlade, because he didn't understand the article's distinction between the two different uses of the term "DEI". I do think that conservatives use the term in a derisive and disparaging way, and I think it reveals racism/sexism/discrimination when they assert that someone is a DEI hire/nominee merely because they aren't a white man, without even analyzing the professional qualifications (or lack thereof).
If there are substantive criticisms of Harris, then those conservatives should bring them up. For example: for as factually incorrect as the whole "border czar" label is to describe Harris, at least that's an attempted critique based on policy. Sometimes conservatives try to make well-intentioned points like that, but then sometimes conservatives mock the sex or race of Harris, and most of the time, when conservatives mention that Harris is "DEI", they're already attacking her identity and not attacking her political failings. It's very obvious that conservatives are grouping their use of the word "DEI" with racist and sexist and other disparaging remarks.
|
On August 02 2024 07:51 NewSunshine wrote:
It's not "promoting people for their skin color", and as long as you choose not to understand the difference, then yes, there's not much to discuss.
When someone says, for example, they are going to nominate a black woman to a vacant position, then yes, skin color is quite literally a prerequisite for the promotion. You can dress it up with all the feel good buzz words like diversity and inclusivity to obfuscate that blunt reality but at the end of the day if your melanin isn't at the right level you're shit out of luck. What part of that do you disagree with?
|
On August 02 2024 08:01 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2024 07:51 NewSunshine wrote:
It's not "promoting people for their skin color", and as long as you choose not to understand the difference, then yes, there's not much to discuss. When someone says, for example, they are going to nominate a black woman to a vacant position, then yes, skin color is quite literally a prerequisite for the promotion. You can dress it up with all the feel good buzz words like diversity and inclusivity to obfuscate that blunt reality but at the end of the day if your melanin isn't at the right level you're shit out of luck. What part of that do you disagree with?
I already made one good faith effort to explain the issue to you, and if you're going to bring it back up again like I never laid it out for you, I don't have time for it again. Sorry. I'm not here to bang my head against a wall. The great thing about a forum is that if you don't understand a post right away you can go back and read again.
|
I think I might have seriously misjudged Kamala's electability compared to Trump.
Bookies have her as favourite to win right now.
|
On August 02 2024 08:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
I think I might have seriously misjudged Kamala's electability compared to Trump.
Bookies have her as favourite to win right now.
Grab a ball, we’re playing bocce on the terrace with Harris
|
On August 02 2024 08:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
I think I might have seriously misjudged Kamala's electability compared to Trump.
Bookies have her as favourite to win right now.
As much as I hope that she ends up favored to win, I put zero confidence in bookies and gambling sites that bet on these kinds of things.
|
On August 02 2024 08:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
I think I might have seriously misjudged Kamala's electability compared to Trump.
Bookies have her as favourite to win right now.
I think it speaks more to just how unhappy with Joe Biden and the sort of Ancient Old White Man that both candidates embody. At this point people are probably at least kind of thrilled for it to not be Ancient Old White Man vs Ancient Old White Man.
I only hope this huge boost in morale/confidence doesnt cause people to feel safe and just not bother to vote cause they assume Harris will win, but I think Harris is probably gonna avoid enough of that and will probably win.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
Far be it to ever align much with oBlade but I do think they have something of a point here. I don’t think Trump was particularly casting racial aspersions, and more that Harris can bounce between being black, Indian or mixed-race in framing depending on the context.
Delivered as indelicately as ever of course, but I think that’s the attack angle here rather than anything else.
|
Northern Ireland26036 Posts
On August 02 2024 08:01 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2024 07:51 NewSunshine wrote:
It's not "promoting people for their skin color", and as long as you choose not to understand the difference, then yes, there's not much to discuss. When someone says, for example, they are going to nominate a black woman to a vacant position, then yes, skin color is quite literally a prerequisite for the promotion. You can dress it up with all the feel good buzz words like diversity and inclusivity to obfuscate that blunt reality but at the end of the day if your melanin isn't at the right level you're shit out of luck. What part of that do you disagree with?
Why is that a problem but nominating a VP candidate who has a certain cachet with religious conservatives isn’t?
You’re ultimately just nominating a candidate who plays well with certain demographics right?
|
On August 02 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2024 07:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 02 2024 06:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 02 2024 06:42 NewSunshine wrote:On August 02 2024 06:20 BlackJack wrote:
“Is there any way we can brag about Kamala Harris being a DEI success story while simultaneously denying that her success is attributable to DEI?”
*glass shatters*
By god, that’s DPB’s entrance music! Would you care to share any of your own opinions regarding the discussion? So far you just seem annoyed that other people have opinions. Seems like a pointless discussion. You get to decide how you define the words you use and you also get to decide how to define the words I use? If you say DEI it means awesome inclusive stuff and when I say DEI I mean Nigger with the hard R? (Not you specifically but that's the gist of DPB's post) What I actually wrote: "conservatives assert that Harris is the Democratic nominee only because she's a woman of color, and not because she's qualified, currently the vice president, and overwhelmingly the most popular alternative to Joe Biden. These sexist and racist attacks are summarized by conservatives using the term "DEI" as a disparaging term, in the same way that they've flipped the positive academic definition of "woke" into a derisive label" So, no, equating DEI with the N-word is not the gist of my post. Maybe you believe it's the gist of oBlade's article, or maybe you misread what I wrote. Maybe you disagree with my characterization of how conservatives use "DEI", but it's not helpful to post the way you're posting. Ok you didnt use the N-word but the HuffPost article does and you appear to endorse that article. You used the more blanket term of “racist.” Sorry if this whole affair seems like a desire to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to promote people for their skin color while not allowing anyone to mention that maybe they got promoted because of their skin color. Your means of achieving this is to label anyone who broaches the subject a racist. It’s simply bad faith deflection.
So do you think Kamala Harris was not qualified to be vicepresident? How so? Ultimately, the Americans voted, and she got elected as much as Biden did.
Was Pence also a DEI ? I mean Trump got him to fill his quota with the evangelists, right ?
Don't you see how fucking silly and juvenile your point is ?
|
On August 02 2024 01:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2024 00:37 Godwrath wrote:On August 01 2024 22:39 Harris1st wrote:
As a non US citizen, I am pretty flabbergasted why one would even consider voting Trump over Harris. Can someone point me out logical reasons what Trump would actually do for the country besides "guns for everybody" and "damn those mexicans stealing our jobs?" Demócrats don't get their Guy/Gal elected. That's the main motivation. Both sides work the same way in that regard, but the rethoric needed to energize their base is different. It’s not just about their team winning, it’s also about Trump specifically. He’s an old, out of touch, relatively stupid, white man. He’s an unashamed racist and philanderer. He talks down to experts based on a 5 minute “news” segment he saw on Fox and is openly derisive of the law. He’s the ultimate “fuck you and your college degree and your changing world” candidate. He’s the political equivalent of putting up Confederate monuments in black majority cities. He makes a statement, ‘the world may be changing but the people with power are still the same, and don’t you forget it’. They don’t just want to beat the Democrats, they want to get back at every person who ever dared to hire a black actor for a tv commercial, they want to get back at their kids for never calling them, they want to get back at their work for the fact their manager is younger than them, they want to get back at the environment for asking them to recycle etc. It’s the ultimate expression of identity politics. Back when white male conservatives dominated everything they could have political disagreements among themselves. There was a left vs right within the framework of white male rule and so issues mattered. Then Obama got elected and something broke within them, the foundation on which they rested their political beliefs was shattered. Now ideology and policy no longer matter to them, only identity politics. That’s why they can’t articulate what Trump has done for them or what he promises to do for them in the future. It’s why Trump doesn’t need to actually have a specific agenda or platform. It’s why people who, when asked to outline the policies that are important to them, hate everything that he does will still vote for him.
Precisely. The rhetoric or discourse from Trump is what energizes his base and scares/angries the hell out of his opponents. It's the same for conservatives when they listen to democrat representatives. I am not saying they are being reasonable, for me it's fucking obvious they are batshit insane. But they have been batshit insane for a long time before Trump, he just happened to be the kind of moronic leader that shitty base truly deserve and desires.
|
On August 02 2024 09:29 WombaT wrote:
Far be it to ever align much with oBlade but I do think they have something of a point here. I don’t think Trump was particularly casting racial aspersions, and more that Harris can bounce between being black, Indian or mixed-race in framing depending on the context.
Delivered as indelicately as ever of course, but I think that’s the attack angle here rather than anything else.
So the argument is that it's... not cool... that Harris can connect with both the Black community and the Indian-American community whenever she wants, because she's both?
Trump can do the same: He can connect with both the White community and the Orange community whenever he wants, because he's both. There aren't that many other orange people, but there are wayyy more white people than even both of Harris's racial categories combined.
Or maybe Trump could try appealing to people outside of his racial demographics by not making racist birther claims, not fearmongering over people of color and immigrants, etc.
A good politician tailors their speeches and styles to the audiences, and not every audience is identical. You say and do the things that resonate most with the demographics in front of you, whether that's appealing to crowds in a specific state, or specific unions/professions, or specific socioeconomic statuses, or other factors like sex and race. Trump's interview with the National Association of Black Journalists was a giant flop because he was racist and hostile and a snowflake and he perpetuated the negative stereotypes about him.
Anyone making this about Harris's ability to relate to both of her heritages is trying to blame Harris when it's Trump's fault for being... Trump. I just can't help but find it amusing that the uber-privileged, rich, white, male candidate thinks that Harris being bi-racial is an unfair superpower (assuming oBlade's take on Trump's recent remarks is accurate and that Trump isn't simply being racist for the millionth time, although I think Occam's Razor would suggest the latter).
|
United States24740 Posts
On August 02 2024 10:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
So the argument is that it's... not cool... that Harris can connect with both the Black community and the Indian-American community whenever she wants, because she's both?
Trump can do the same: He can connect with both the White community and the Orange community whenever he wants
I feel like we can just /thread after that
|
just wanted to pop off here and say that its an incredible thing to see where we are in US politics right now. people are actually making a change for the better with their voices. peoples voices got Biden to drop out. just regular folks doing polls and on television and then into the halls of congress. and now with the UAW leader raising concerns with Shapiro for the VP pick. like i feel im in the twilight zone after the last 8 years of the two parties solidifying power and entrenching themselves, (obviously on the GOP side its more cartoonishly bad).
|
On August 02 2024 09:37 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2024 08:01 BlackJack wrote:On August 02 2024 07:51 NewSunshine wrote:
It's not "promoting people for their skin color", and as long as you choose not to understand the difference, then yes, there's not much to discuss. When someone says, for example, they are going to nominate a black woman to a vacant position, then yes, skin color is quite literally a prerequisite for the promotion. You can dress it up with all the feel good buzz words like diversity and inclusivity to obfuscate that blunt reality but at the end of the day if your melanin isn't at the right level you're shit out of luck. What part of that do you disagree with? Why is that a problem but nominating a VP candidate who has a certain cachet with religious conservatives isn’t? You’re ultimately just nominating a candidate who plays well with certain demographics right?
Yes, you are right. Pence was chosen by in part because he is an old white man to appeal to evangelical Christians.
Kamala Harris was chosen in part because of her race and gender.
I didn’t say one was okay and the other wasn’t. I’m just stating objectively true statements. If you’re looking for a double standard you should ask why one of those objectively true statements is considered racist and sexist and the other isn’t.
|
On August 02 2024 10:03 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2024 07:36 BlackJack wrote:On August 02 2024 07:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 02 2024 06:44 BlackJack wrote:On August 02 2024 06:42 NewSunshine wrote:On August 02 2024 06:20 BlackJack wrote:
“Is there any way we can brag about Kamala Harris being a DEI success story while simultaneously denying that her success is attributable to DEI?”
*glass shatters*
By god, that’s DPB’s entrance music! Would you care to share any of your own opinions regarding the discussion? So far you just seem annoyed that other people have opinions. Seems like a pointless discussion. You get to decide how you define the words you use and you also get to decide how to define the words I use? If you say DEI it means awesome inclusive stuff and when I say DEI I mean Nigger with the hard R? (Not you specifically but that's the gist of DPB's post) What I actually wrote: "conservatives assert that Harris is the Democratic nominee only because she's a woman of color, and not because she's qualified, currently the vice president, and overwhelmingly the most popular alternative to Joe Biden. These sexist and racist attacks are summarized by conservatives using the term "DEI" as a disparaging term, in the same way that they've flipped the positive academic definition of "woke" into a derisive label" So, no, equating DEI with the N-word is not the gist of my post. Maybe you believe it's the gist of oBlade's article, or maybe you misread what I wrote. Maybe you disagree with my characterization of how conservatives use "DEI", but it's not helpful to post the way you're posting. Ok you didnt use the N-word but the HuffPost article does and you appear to endorse that article. You used the more blanket term of “racist.” Sorry if this whole affair seems like a desire to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be able to promote people for their skin color while not allowing anyone to mention that maybe they got promoted because of their skin color. Your means of achieving this is to label anyone who broaches the subject a racist. It’s simply bad faith deflection. So do you think Kamala Harris was not qualified to be vicepresident? How so? Ultimately, the Americans voted, and she got elected as much as Biden did. Was Pence also a DEI ? I mean Trump got him to fill his quota with the evangelists, right ? Don't you see how fucking silly and juvenile your point is ?
There's an issue conflating what people vote for here. Kamala was not voted to be running mate, nor was she voted to be vice president. In the 2020 primary, she got a few hundred votes (winning 0 delegates). She was chosen to be Biden's running mate by him/his team. But that's actually normal. You can bomb or not even be in the primary. The running mate is not supposed to be a consolation prize for getting 2nd place in the primary. Bottom line, you don't and shouldn't make a ticket from the top 2 performers in a primary. Neither party challenges their nominee's VP choice anymore, they just embrace whoever it is.
Additionally, since the 12th amendment, the Electoral College has abandoned what was a similarly ill-thought-out procedure for the VP. It used to be the person with the most votes became president, and the person with the 2nd most votes became vice president. So you could end up with cross party executive branches. This was abolished and now we vote purely for the entire ticket itself. Which, when people vote, the calculus is at least 99% for the president, and the VP could be a shoebox and still get basically the same result. VP choice has almost no effect - and although it has some, casting it as "she got as many votes as Biden" when you physically cannot vote for them separately is disingenuous. Should I wear a Rolex and a blue t-shirt today? Or an Omega and a red t-shirt? Look, the blue t-shirt is just as popular as the Rolex. She could win, sure, but her record isn't winning as much it's a career of being placed in deep blue situations by the party.
Pence's religious convictions are not a part of his immutable identity. Many people are born into religious families and abandon it. Many people are born outside of religious observation and adoption religion. Aside from Michael Jackson and apparently Kamala Harris, you cannot become more or less black as a function of time. I have never in my life seen an unironic DEI identity politicker say "we need more Christians." Nor did I see Drumpf's 2016 VP list saying "I've narrowed it down to 4 Evangelical Christians."
Do you not see the difference? Here's my breakdown, I think it's pretty middle of the road.
"I am going to things specifically for a protected class to buy your vote" - usually some combination of pandering, an utter lie, and theoretically illegal to actually do
"I am going to do things that will help you in these ways" - fine
"I am one of you because of this DNA test" - kindergartenism that voters have been tricked into allowing corporatist elites to use to ru(i)n half of the political parties in this country
Many people keep throwing around this black box word "qualified." Thousands or millions of people are paper "qualified," but most of them are shit, and in fact voters repeatedly choose ones that are shit, even when they're purely trying to choose the best one per se, let alone when they're trying to pick one including reasons other than them not being shit. So they don't seem to need any help moving towards shit candidates.
Even Kamala's own father, Donald J. (yep) Harris, professor, has fallen to the spell of internalized right wing racism as he made these statements on the fact that his daughter went on TV and said yes of course I've smoked pot, my family's Jamaican, after she convicted 1900 people for cannabis in California. He had this to say:
My dear departed grandmothers (whose extraordinary legacy I described in a recent essay on this website), as well as my deceased parents, must be turning in their grave right now to see their family’s name, reputation and proud Jamaican identity being connected, in any way, jokingly or not with the fraudulent stereotype of a pot-smoking joy seeker and in the pursuit of identity politics.
She is a classic politician who will do nothing and say anything.
|
On August 02 2024 08:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
I think I might have seriously misjudged Kamala's electability compared to Trump.
Bookies have her as favourite to win right now.
The problem with any odds is that a new nominee usually has a positive chance compared to where they are later. There hasn't been time to throw dirt at the person for months (modern US politics) and thus reduce their chances.
Vice presidents is the classical case of this. Usually well received and then as they and their opponent campaign it usually drops. Vance was the opposite in that he was a negative from the start, we'll see if he can turn that around.
|
On August 02 2024 15:03 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 02 2024 08:20 Jockmcplop wrote:
I think I might have seriously misjudged Kamala's electability compared to Trump.
Bookies have her as favourite to win right now. The problem with any odds is that a new nominee usually has a positive chance compared to where they are later. There hasn't been time to throw dirt at the person for months (modern US politics) and thus reduce their chances. Vice presidents is the classical case of this. Usually well received and then as they and their opponent campaign it usually drops. Vance was the opposite in that he was a negative from the start, we'll see if he can turn that around.
The only thing Vance will turn around are stomachs. Pence was an all-star pick compared to that weirdo. Harris has a pretty good pool to pick from, looking forward to the announcement. Walz or Shapiro would cover a lot of bases.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
