|
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 October 30 2024 15:44 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 04:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 03:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:So the Trump Rogan interview is at 38 million YouTube views and however many Spotify listens on top of that.The latest from Rogans twitter is Kamala demanded 1 hour instead of 3 and she wants Rogan to fly out to her rather than her going to Rogans Texas studio, which he is not up for. https://x.com/joerogan/status/1851118464447971595 That's not surprising; she's the sitting vice president who's also running a presidential campaign in a uniquely short amount of time. She doesn't have half a day to travel to/from Texas and talk about nothing for three hours. JD Vance is now set to appear on Rogan also, guess he doesn't have any strange demands. "As long as I get to sit on the couch, I'm good." The idea that going on the biggest podcast in the world primarily targeting young male listeners isn't a good move for Harris is pretty laughable, especially considering she is doing it after Trump so could theoretically debunk & fact check him if she had it in her. For instance it would be more worthwhile doing that than the CNN town hall she did the other night, these MSM outlets are dead in the water.When Bezos writes an editorial in the Washington Post stating people don't believe the news media anymore you know it's really getting bad.
Also it's not like she'd be the first politican or even the first presidential candidate to do his show.
https://jrelibrary.com/guests/politicians/
Just from a sheer numbers standpoint, you get WAY more ears doing Rogan than you doing a lot of other things, and you get to reach people that otherwise aren't listening to you. Doing things on CNN or NBC is just preaching to your base that are going to vote for you anyway.
|
I can see the angle that bringing in Kamala to look more attractable for a certain voter group.
I can also see why that's literally a non-issue and we should stop bringing it up. Why does this seem to be relevant? Why play the dogwhistling semantics hide-and-seek game here, when you know that's all it is when you bring it up and then raise your hands like: I didn't actually say DEI, that's you explicitely saying I'm implying this. Does it, or doesn't it matter? If it doesn't matter, then why talk about it?
Let's just let BJ make a summary of why he feels the need to bring Kamala's sex/race into the conversation every so often and then just accept that is his position and we can move on. He won't mention it any longer, and we won't mention it any longer. Simple, no?
|
On October 30 2024 16:30 Uldridge wrote:
I can see the angle that bringing in Kamala to look more attractable for a certain voter group.
I can also see why that's literally a non-issue and we should stop bringing it up. Why does this seem to be relevant? Why play the dogwhistling semantics hide-and-seek game here, when you know that's all it is when you bring it up and then raise your hands like: I didn't actually say DEI, that's you explicitely saying I'm implying this. Does it, or doesn't it matter? If it doesn't matter, then why talk about it?
Let's just let BJ make a summary of why he feels the need to bring Kamala's sex/race into the conversation every so often and then just accept that is his position and we can move on. He won't mention it any longer, and we won't mention it any longer. Simple, no?
It's relevant because it speaks to a relevant political issue which is DEI hiring in the workplace and Affirmative Action in College Admissions. That's an actual ongoing political issue with deep divides in this country. If you don't think it's an issue then why is it one of the issues that shows up on literally EVERY yougov political survey you take in the United States? It isn't a new issue, we've been arguing about for 50 years in the US, it's such an old issue that it shows up multiple times in the West Wing FFS. It's a sore subject for a lot of Americans to the point where it becomes one of the things we judge Supreme Court Nominees on.
It's one of the issues that's on the ballot and it matters to people.
You don't have to talk about it if you don't want to, you don't have to make it important if you don't want to. Just like when GreenHorizons comes in and derails the entire thread into a single issue about Israel/Gaza doesn't mean that it's the only poilitical issue on the ballot.
If it isn't an important political issue for you, don't engage with it. You see how easy it is to turn your "why can't you just" logic back on you?
There are hundreds of issues on the ballot this year that deciding who wins the Executive Branch are going to play into. Affirmative Action is one of them.
Again, just because it makes you uncomfortable to talk about, doesn't mean you get to call someone a racist for doing it.
Oh and before anyone starts to ad hominem me for anything, I already voted for Kamala Harris. My vote was counted almost a full week ago in California.
I just don't want to see this kind of bullshit coming from Liberals in these threads because it makes the rest of us look bad.
|
Remember kids, when Mike Pence gets picked as VP because he's an older white male Christian, that's a pick based on merit, but when you pick Kamala Harris to appeal to women and minorities that's DEI and bad.
|
On October 30 2024 16:30 Uldridge wrote:
I can see the angle that bringing in Kamala to look more attractable for a certain voter group.
I can also see why that's literally a non-issue and we should stop bringing it up. Why does this seem to be relevant? Why play the dogwhistling semantics hide-and-seek game here, when you know that's all it is when you bring it up and then raise your hands like: I didn't actually say DEI, that's you explicitely saying I'm implying this. Does it, or doesn't it matter? If it doesn't matter, then why talk about it?
Let's just let BJ make a summary of why he feels the need to bring Kamala's sex/race into the conversation every so often and then just accept that is his position and we can move on. He won't mention it any longer, and we won't mention it any longer. Simple, no?
Imagine the Los Angeles Lakers decided they are not diverse enough. There are too many black players and they want to be more inclusive. So when the draft comes along they skip over some more highly touted prospects to draft a white player. Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well the fan base won’t (rightfully) talk about the reason they were drafted? Of course they would. Of course they should. I’d talk about it. I don’t care who tries to shout me down. That is if anyone tries to shout me down for talking shit about the white player that got picked, y’know, double standards and all.
|
I'm not uncomfortable to talk about it, I think the conversation about Kamala being DEI and it detracting (or the implication of it) from her being the "best choice for a VP" needs to be broken out of its circle of argumentation. I want to offer an alternative where BJ summarizes his point of why he brings it up every so often for Kamala specifically, without leaving room for that implication, so that when his point is made we don't have to guess what his reasoning is, but we actually know it.
Because this is basically the template of the conversation:
- BJ triggered to say Kamala VP because diversity/woman or someone saying they remember BJ saying that
- People thinking it implies BJ thinks that Kamala is "just a DEI hire with the implication it's not based on merit"
- BJ trying to defend himself that has nothing to do with it
- Repeat
Breaking out means something has to change. If BJ, or anyone else can explain explicitely why it's important to talk about DEI regarding Harris, when it's not a "but is she the best candidate for the job" implication, or the other "to rake in more voters" reason, I don't see a reason why we need to come back to her being chosen as VP, no?
It all seems cut and dried to me, yet people try to make these grand narratives or imply conspiracies out of nothing: Harris is a Dem who Biden favored as VP for reasons and now, with the support of the Dems, she's trying to become president. Trying to get as many votes as possible is part of politics. You try to appeal to as many people as possible. Having likeable/electable people by your side is part of that formula.
|
On October 30 2024 17:50 Mikau313 wrote:
Remember kids, when Mike Pence gets picked as VP because he's an older white male Christian, that's a pick based on merit, but when you pick Kamala Harris to appeal to women and minorities that's DEI and bad.
Oof. Someone’s not paying attention to the thread very closely.
|
On October 30 2024 17:50 Mikau313 wrote:
Remember kids, when Mike Pence gets picked as VP because he's an older white male Christian, that's a pick based on merit, but when you pick Kamala Harris to appeal to women and minorities that's DEI and bad.
The office of Vice President is mostly ceremonial and not really important so it's not uncommon to see the selection be used as a move to pander to the base of your party. Pence was a move to pander to the religious right. Kamala was selected to pander to the diversity activists who didn't want to support Joe Biden especially after Barrack Obama because he was an old white guy.
It's actually quite relevant to compare the two of them because the motivations behind their nominations were very similar.
And until Joe Biden dropped out of the race and handed the nomination over the Kamala Harris those motivations never mattered, but because he did and because people are much more critical of how the President gets the nomination than the VP that's how we got to where we are.
Again. That's just the unbiased history of how we got here. Trying to pretend like none of this happened isn't doing anyone on either side any favors.
If you think Kamala is the best candidate in this race, then say so. Own it. Don't hide from it.
|
On October 30 2024 17:51 Uldridge wrote:I'm not uncomfortable to talk about it, I think the conversation about Kamala being DEI and it detracting (or the implication of it) from her being the "best choice for a VP" needs to be broken out of its circle of argumentation. I want to offer an alternative where BJ summarizes his point of why he brings it up every so often for Kamala specifically, without leaving room for that implication, so that when his point is made we don't have to guess what his reasoning is, but we actually know it. Because this is basically the template of the conversation: - BJ triggered to say Kamala VP because diversity/woman or someone saying they remember BJ saying that
- People thinking it implies BJ thinks that Kamala is "just a DEI hire with the implication it's not based on merit"
- BJ trying to defend himself that has nothing to do with it
- Repeat
Breaking out means something has to change. If BJ, or anyone else can explain explicitely why it's important to talk about DEI regarding Harris, when it's not a "but is she the best candidate for the job" implication, or the other "to rake in more voters" reason, I don't see a reason why we need to come back to her being chosen as VP, no? It all seems cut and dried to me, yet people try to make these grand narratives or imply conspiracies out of nothing: Harris is a Dem who Biden favored as VP for reasons and now, with the support of the Dems, she's trying to become president. Trying to get as many votes as possible is part of politics. You try to appeal to as many people as possible. Having likeable/electable people by your side is part of that formula.
No it matters how she got the VP nomination, because the only reason and I mean the ONLY reason she is the Presidential Nominee is because she was VP. No one chose her in a primary. She's the nominee because Joe Biden won the 2020 election, picked her as his VP and then dropped out way too late in the 2024 election for the Democrats to have any other choice but to rally around Kamala by default.
Stop fucking hiding from this fact. It happened. Own it.
Yea our candidate got selected by default because our other guy dropped out. She's still a better candidate than anyone the Republicans have. Make that the defining point.
The more people try and hide the "how" she got here, the more it makes it look like we're ashamed of it and that we're hiding something.
The election is in a week. Lay the cards on the table face up. Kamala isn't perfect but she's a LOT better of a candidate than Trump is. If I had a choice between a DEI hire VP with her resume and Donald Trump then the choice is really fucking easy, she's getting my vote every time.
|
Being chosen as VP has nothing to do with how she became the presidential nominee.
I'm not denying how she became the presidential nominee at all. But it's also not necessarily a bad or worst pick, I simply don't have enough info to judge that.
|
On October 30 2024 18:15 Uldridge wrote:
Being chosen as VP has nothing to do with how she became the presidential nominee.
.
Dude. It happened. It literally happened.
Kamala Harris never won a Democratic primary for the Presidential Nomination. Never has, not once ever. She is the nominee because she was Joe Biden's VP and Joe Biden dropped out of the race after the primary was already decided for this election cycle.
She is the nominee by default.
That's literally how it happened. I don't know how else to explain this to you. It's what happened. It's reality. It's fact.
Arguing that it didn't happen is like arguing the sky isn't blue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
