|
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 |
Norway28876 Posts
On October 30 2024 18:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote: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. And that's the same issue you've been wrong about in the past. It's *all else being equal*, not choosing bad players over good ones. It's breaking a general tie with the smallest distinction, selecting from a pool of highly qualified players and candidates of all races and sexes. We're choosing people like Larry Bird, not some random white kid who can't play ball.
But is all else equal? Isn't that basically the central question here, where people who state that KH was made VP primarily because of her identity metrics, argue that there are other choices that would be better at 'stuff that makes a politician a good politician'?
Basically how good a politician is boils down to a bunch of different factors. Not saying this list is exhaustive as I'm just spitballing here but-
How good you are at debating various issues can be one. How knowledgeable you are is another. How well you know the political system (meaning how good you'll be at implementing policies should you attain power) is a third. How electable you are is a fourth. Whether you're a visionary can be a fifth. Etc. Policy obviously matters in terms of 'would I vote for this person' but it's not necessarily a part of 'how good of a politician are you', although I would argue that your policies being coherent is one.
The electable one is where identity plays a factor, so you might even argue that having an identity that makes people vote for you is actually a skillset, for a politician - unlike virtually every other imaginable job. However, how big of a factor should that be? Someone like Pete is obviously far superior in terms of debating/oratory abilities. Someone like Hillary Clinton scores very high on point 2 and 3, but ended up being a shitty presidential candidate because she fails super hard at parts 4 and 5. Trump is the least qualified candidate there's ever been for 2, but somehow fares decently well in some of the other metrics.
I think KH seems pretty competent myself tbh. Pleasing the big tent that is the potential democratic voter seems like an immensely difficult task. But if we were to ignore her identity, would I think she's the best candidate the democratic party has to offer? To me that's clearly a no - and there are both white men and women I would prefer in terms of their ability to present a convincing vision for how they want to change or improve America and their ability to debate the more intricate aspects of various politics. Equating this with 'these people are equally good so we might as well go with the more marginalized group' is disingeneous, because that's generally not what people are opposing. Imagine that all those various metrics gives someone a 0-10 score. People aren't really arguing against having race/gender/sexuality be a factor in the case of a tie break where both are at 40 points, they're arguing against having race/gender/sexuality be +-10 points in itself. White man being +20 points for the republican party also isn't an argument against being opposed to non-white-man being +10 points for democrats.
|
On October 30 2024 19:27 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 18:54 Uldridge wrote:On October 30 2024 18:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
And that's the same issue you've been wrong about in the past. It's *all else being equal*, not choosing bad players over good ones. It's breaking a general tie with the smallest distinction, selecting from a pool of highly qualified players and candidates of all races and sexes. We're choosing people like Larry Bird, not some random white kid who can't play ball.
The big problem is that this has happened under the pretence of all else being equal. I very much like the DEI/affirmative action in the sense that we could find a way to know that all else is equal, but if you use it for self gain or have no way of knowing all else being equal but work under the guise that you, in face, do (claim to) know, you open the door to a very silippery slide. Truth is that we live in such an abundant society with so many potentially well suited people that it almost doesn't matter, so we could just select based on the cultural spread of the national/regional demographics. Sure, and we generally don't see Republicans considering any of Harris's experience to assess whether or not she'd have the merit to make a good president. Many just assume she's unqualified. Many see a black woman (+ Communist + Democrat, I guess), and that's the end of the story. (Other Republicans, of course, tie in a policy or issue to the situation - like immigration or the economy - but BlackJack has made this *only* about race and sex.) That's why assertions like BlackJack's - where what supposedly matters to Democrats is 1. Black; 2. Woman; 3. Nothing else - is frustrating to read. It's incorrect, and it projects the Republican caricature of DEI onto anyone who's not a white man, regardless of their level of qualification. It reduces the message to only race and sex, without looking at the entire person and their resume. That's the thing though. Republicans have successfully managed to turn the phrase "DEI" into a buzz word that people would rather not touch, so Democrats hide from it as much as possible kind of like the word "welfare." Affirmative Action and DEI is a well intentioned program, and it was policy they enacted and they continue to champion so they can't be afraid to call someone who gets promoted because of these policies what they are because it makes it look like they don't believe in it. Harris IS a DEI hire. She just is. Biden picked her because her being a black woman looked good on his ticket. It doesn't mean she doesn't have other good qualities and it doesn't mean she isn't qualified. But she is a DEI hire. She is exactly what proponents of the policy were hoping would happen. Don't be afraid to call her what she is, because the Republicans won't. Instead let her be the champion for Affirmative Action policies. Because if her presidency is a successful one it will be a victory for everyone who thinks the policy is a good idea. I'm neutral on Affirmative Action. I see both sides of the argument. I understand completely why people feel like it's just institutionalized racism of a different flavor. I understand the arguments against it being unconstitutional since the practice IS fundamentally discriminatory when viewed from a certain angle. I just don't think it's the most important issue at play here in this election, and I also dislike how Democrats are afraid to use the phrase to describe her when she IS a product of the policy no matter how much people want to pretend she's not. Spin it the other way. Use her to show that the policy can be a success.
I have no problem leaning into the conversation that she's a black woman who's qualified to be president. I'm not interested in denying her identity, or the relevance it has with her being chosen over the other amazing candidates, or the historical significance it would have if she becomes the first black/Indian/biracial/female president of the United States. I'm all for those discussions, as well as discussions about affirmative action.
I'm also happy to have a discussion on what DEI means in both academic and caricatured settings, but there would definitely be a semantics issue if one person is talking about the academic version of DEI while their interlocuter is using DEI in a very different, very dismissive manner. I have no problem pointing out the differences, and I also have no problem skipping the acronym altogether if the semantics issue ends up being too great.
From an academic perspective, I completely agree that Harris is a DEI hire. From a caricatured perspective, I completely disagree that Harris is a DEI hire. Again, I take no issue with BlackJack mentioning that Harris is black or a woman. I take issue with the fact that BlackJack said Harris's actual merits don't matter - and that's the difference between the two DEI perspectives.
|
On October 30 2024 19:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 18:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote: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. And that's the same issue you've been wrong about in the past. It's *all else being equal*, not choosing bad players over good ones. It's breaking a general tie with the smallest distinction, selecting from a pool of highly qualified players and candidates of all races and sexes. We're choosing people like Larry Bird, not some random white kid who can't play ball. But is all else equal? Isn't that basically the central question here, where people who state that KH was made VP primarily because of her identity metrics, argue that there are other choices that would be better at 'stuff that makes a politician a good politician'? Basically how good a politician is boils down to a bunch of different factors. Not saying this list is exhaustive as I'm just spitballing here but- How good you are at debating various issues can be one. How knowledgeable you are is another. How well you know the political system (meaning how good you'll be at implementing policies should you attain power) is a third. How electable you are is a fourth. Whether you're a visionary can be a fifth. Etc. Policy obviously matters in terms of 'would I vote for this person' but it's not necessarily a part of 'how good of a politician are you', although I would argue that your policies being coherent is one. The electable one is where identity plays a factor, so you might even argue that having an identity that makes people vote for you is actually a skillset, for a politician - unlike virtually every other imaginable job. However, how big of a factor should that be? Someone like Pete is obviously far superior in terms of debating/oratory abilities. Someone like Hillary Clinton scores very high on point 2 and 3, but ended up being a shitty presidential candidate because she fails super hard at parts 4 and 5. Trump is the least qualified candidate there's ever been for 2, but somehow fares decently well in some of the other metrics. I think KH seems pretty competent myself tbh. Pleasing the big tent that is the potential democratic voter seems like an immensely difficult task. But if we were to ignore her identity, would I think she's the best candidate the democratic party has to offer? To me that's clearly a no - and there are both white men and women I would prefer in terms of their ability to present a convincing vision for how they want to change or improve America and their ability to debate the more intricate aspects of various politics. Equating this with 'these people are equally good so we might as well go with the more marginalized group' is disingeneous, because that's generally not what people are opposing. Imagine that all those various metrics gives someone a 0-10 score. People aren't really arguing against having race/gender/sexuality be a factor in the case of a tie break where both are at 40 points, they're arguing against having race/gender/sexuality be +-10 points in itself. White man being +20 points for the republican party also isn't an argument against being opposed to non-white-man being +10 points for democrats.
I think this is a useful discussion to have, and I'd imagine that different people will have slightly different lists with different weights/importances put on different criteria. There is also a very big difference between having a nuanced argument over where she would rank in a Democratic Presidential Candidate Tier List vs. the blanket assertion that her qualifications simply don't matter because she's black and a woman. The former is a fine idea, but the latter is what BlackJack said.
|
On October 30 2024 20:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 19:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 30 2024 18:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote: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. And that's the same issue you've been wrong about in the past. It's *all else being equal*, not choosing bad players over good ones. It's breaking a general tie with the smallest distinction, selecting from a pool of highly qualified players and candidates of all races and sexes. We're choosing people like Larry Bird, not some random white kid who can't play ball. But is all else equal? Isn't that basically the central question here, where people who state that KH was made VP primarily because of her identity metrics, argue that there are other choices that would be better at 'stuff that makes a politician a good politician'? Basically how good a politician is boils down to a bunch of different factors. Not saying this list is exhaustive as I'm just spitballing here but- How good you are at debating various issues can be one. How knowledgeable you are is another. How well you know the political system (meaning how good you'll be at implementing policies should you attain power) is a third. How electable you are is a fourth. Whether you're a visionary can be a fifth. Etc. Policy obviously matters in terms of 'would I vote for this person' but it's not necessarily a part of 'how good of a politician are you', although I would argue that your policies being coherent is one. The electable one is where identity plays a factor, so you might even argue that having an identity that makes people vote for you is actually a skillset, for a politician - unlike virtually every other imaginable job. However, how big of a factor should that be? Someone like Pete is obviously far superior in terms of debating/oratory abilities. Someone like Hillary Clinton scores very high on point 2 and 3, but ended up being a shitty presidential candidate because she fails super hard at parts 4 and 5. Trump is the least qualified candidate there's ever been for 2, but somehow fares decently well in some of the other metrics. I think KH seems pretty competent myself tbh. Pleasing the big tent that is the potential democratic voter seems like an immensely difficult task. But if we were to ignore her identity, would I think she's the best candidate the democratic party has to offer? To me that's clearly a no - and there are both white men and women I would prefer in terms of their ability to present a convincing vision for how they want to change or improve America and their ability to debate the more intricate aspects of various politics. Equating this with 'these people are equally good so we might as well go with the more marginalized group' is disingeneous, because that's generally not what people are opposing. Imagine that all those various metrics gives someone a 0-10 score. People aren't really arguing against having race/gender/sexuality be a factor in the case of a tie break where both are at 40 points, they're arguing against having race/gender/sexuality be +-10 points in itself. White man being +20 points for the republican party also isn't an argument against being opposed to non-white-man being +10 points for democrats. I think this is a useful discussion to have, and I'd imagine that different people will have slightly different lists with different weights/importances put on different criteria. There is also a very big difference between having a nuanced argument over where she would rank in a Democratic Presidential Candidate Tier List vs. the blanket assertion that her qualifications simply don't matter because she's black and a woman. The former is a fine idea, but the latter is what BlackJack said.
Again though, this kind of conversation leads back to frustrations people feel for how she got the nomination. I'm very sure this is where a lot of the frustration comes from at least from Moderates and other Liberals. I'm frustrated that Kamala won the nomination the way she did too, I went on big long rants about it back in July when it happened.
That debacle is going to leave a smell over this election, long after its over. There's nothing any of us can do about that except to acknowledge that it's there and to hope for the best that Kamala Harris makes us all think it was no big deal with her results later down the line.
I don't want to linger on it either. I'd rather just continue focusing on how horrible of a candidate Donald Trump is.
|
It is pretty telling that whenever someone who isn't a white guy gains prominence, the "DEI hire" narrative gets pushed so hard that it completely dominates the conversation. What was it that GH keeps saying "we can't seem to be able to help ourselves"? We just fall for this ploy constantly. I cannot imagine how depressing this must be for any under-represented group.
|
On October 30 2024 20:30 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 20:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 19:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 30 2024 18:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote: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. And that's the same issue you've been wrong about in the past. It's *all else being equal*, not choosing bad players over good ones. It's breaking a general tie with the smallest distinction, selecting from a pool of highly qualified players and candidates of all races and sexes. We're choosing people like Larry Bird, not some random white kid who can't play ball. But is all else equal? Isn't that basically the central question here, where people who state that KH was made VP primarily because of her identity metrics, argue that there are other choices that would be better at 'stuff that makes a politician a good politician'? Basically how good a politician is boils down to a bunch of different factors. Not saying this list is exhaustive as I'm just spitballing here but- How good you are at debating various issues can be one. How knowledgeable you are is another. How well you know the political system (meaning how good you'll be at implementing policies should you attain power) is a third. How electable you are is a fourth. Whether you're a visionary can be a fifth. Etc. Policy obviously matters in terms of 'would I vote for this person' but it's not necessarily a part of 'how good of a politician are you', although I would argue that your policies being coherent is one. The electable one is where identity plays a factor, so you might even argue that having an identity that makes people vote for you is actually a skillset, for a politician - unlike virtually every other imaginable job. However, how big of a factor should that be? Someone like Pete is obviously far superior in terms of debating/oratory abilities. Someone like Hillary Clinton scores very high on point 2 and 3, but ended up being a shitty presidential candidate because she fails super hard at parts 4 and 5. Trump is the least qualified candidate there's ever been for 2, but somehow fares decently well in some of the other metrics. I think KH seems pretty competent myself tbh. Pleasing the big tent that is the potential democratic voter seems like an immensely difficult task. But if we were to ignore her identity, would I think she's the best candidate the democratic party has to offer? To me that's clearly a no - and there are both white men and women I would prefer in terms of their ability to present a convincing vision for how they want to change or improve America and their ability to debate the more intricate aspects of various politics. Equating this with 'these people are equally good so we might as well go with the more marginalized group' is disingeneous, because that's generally not what people are opposing. Imagine that all those various metrics gives someone a 0-10 score. People aren't really arguing against having race/gender/sexuality be a factor in the case of a tie break where both are at 40 points, they're arguing against having race/gender/sexuality be +-10 points in itself. White man being +20 points for the republican party also isn't an argument against being opposed to non-white-man being +10 points for democrats. I think this is a useful discussion to have, and I'd imagine that different people will have slightly different lists with different weights/importances put on different criteria. There is also a very big difference between having a nuanced argument over where she would rank in a Democratic Presidential Candidate Tier List vs. the blanket assertion that her qualifications simply don't matter because she's black and a woman. The former is a fine idea, but the latter is what BlackJack said. Again though, this kind of conversation leads back to frustrations people feel for how she got the nomination. I'm very sure this is where a lot of the frustration comes from at least from Moderates and other Liberals. I'm frustrated that Kamala won the nomination the way she did too, I went on big long rants about it back in July when it happened. That debacle is going to leave a smell over this election, long after its over. There's nothing any of us can do about that except to acknowledge that it's there and to hope for the best that Kamala Harris makes us all think it was no big deal with her results later down the line. I don't want to linger on it either. I'd rather just continue focusing on how horrible of a candidate Donald Trump is.
I agree with - and share - your preference to continue focusing on the merits of both candidates, which is why I'm not a fan of BlackJack derailing the thread with his obsession over race and sex. (I also think there are valid discussions to be had about the nomination process, how she wasn't chosen through a primary, whether or not Harris being Biden's runningmate means there's an expectation that she'd be next in line for president, etc. I think there's been some discussion on this already, and other people can decide if they want to talk about that further.)
|
On October 30 2024 20:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 20:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 30 2024 20:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 19:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 30 2024 18:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote: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. And that's the same issue you've been wrong about in the past. It's *all else being equal*, not choosing bad players over good ones. It's breaking a general tie with the smallest distinction, selecting from a pool of highly qualified players and candidates of all races and sexes. We're choosing people like Larry Bird, not some random white kid who can't play ball. But is all else equal? Isn't that basically the central question here, where people who state that KH was made VP primarily because of her identity metrics, argue that there are other choices that would be better at 'stuff that makes a politician a good politician'? Basically how good a politician is boils down to a bunch of different factors. Not saying this list is exhaustive as I'm just spitballing here but- How good you are at debating various issues can be one. How knowledgeable you are is another. How well you know the political system (meaning how good you'll be at implementing policies should you attain power) is a third. How electable you are is a fourth. Whether you're a visionary can be a fifth. Etc. Policy obviously matters in terms of 'would I vote for this person' but it's not necessarily a part of 'how good of a politician are you', although I would argue that your policies being coherent is one. The electable one is where identity plays a factor, so you might even argue that having an identity that makes people vote for you is actually a skillset, for a politician - unlike virtually every other imaginable job. However, how big of a factor should that be? Someone like Pete is obviously far superior in terms of debating/oratory abilities. Someone like Hillary Clinton scores very high on point 2 and 3, but ended up being a shitty presidential candidate because she fails super hard at parts 4 and 5. Trump is the least qualified candidate there's ever been for 2, but somehow fares decently well in some of the other metrics. I think KH seems pretty competent myself tbh. Pleasing the big tent that is the potential democratic voter seems like an immensely difficult task. But if we were to ignore her identity, would I think she's the best candidate the democratic party has to offer? To me that's clearly a no - and there are both white men and women I would prefer in terms of their ability to present a convincing vision for how they want to change or improve America and their ability to debate the more intricate aspects of various politics. Equating this with 'these people are equally good so we might as well go with the more marginalized group' is disingeneous, because that's generally not what people are opposing. Imagine that all those various metrics gives someone a 0-10 score. People aren't really arguing against having race/gender/sexuality be a factor in the case of a tie break where both are at 40 points, they're arguing against having race/gender/sexuality be +-10 points in itself. White man being +20 points for the republican party also isn't an argument against being opposed to non-white-man being +10 points for democrats. I think this is a useful discussion to have, and I'd imagine that different people will have slightly different lists with different weights/importances put on different criteria. There is also a very big difference between having a nuanced argument over where she would rank in a Democratic Presidential Candidate Tier List vs. the blanket assertion that her qualifications simply don't matter because she's black and a woman. The former is a fine idea, but the latter is what BlackJack said. Again though, this kind of conversation leads back to frustrations people feel for how she got the nomination. I'm very sure this is where a lot of the frustration comes from at least from Moderates and other Liberals. I'm frustrated that Kamala won the nomination the way she did too, I went on big long rants about it back in July when it happened. That debacle is going to leave a smell over this election, long after its over. There's nothing any of us can do about that except to acknowledge that it's there and to hope for the best that Kamala Harris makes us all think it was no big deal with her results later down the line. I don't want to linger on it either. I'd rather just continue focusing on how horrible of a candidate Donald Trump is. I agree with - and share - your preference to continue focusing on the merits of both candidates, which is why I'm not a fan of BlackJack derailing the thread with his obsession over race and sex. (I also think there are valid discussions to be had about the nomination process, how she wasn't chosen through a primary, whether or not Harris being Biden's runningmate means there's an expectation that she'd be next in line for president, etc. I think there's been some discussion on this already, and other people can decide if they want to talk about that further.) They never make it about merit because Trump has none. They need the conversation to be about literally anything else. That's also why its also just 'DEI' and not about actual examples of how she is unqualified.
|
On October 30 2024 20:34 EnDeR_ wrote:
It is pretty telling that whenever someone who isn't a white guy gains prominence, the "DEI hire" narrative gets pushed so hard that it completely dominates the conversation. What was it that GH keeps saying "we can't seem to be able to help ourselves"? We just fall for this ploy constantly. I cannot imagine how depressing this must be for any under-represented group.
And I think Republicans only get to keep using it to dominate the conversation because Democrats are afraid to face it head on. Democrats hide from the phrase when they shouldn't. It's their policy, and however the Republicans want to use it to diminish Kamala Harris' accomplishments the fact is that there IS truth to the label.
So don't hide from it. Address it head on.
"Yea she's a DEI hire. So what? She's still better than your guy." and then move on.
|
On October 30 2024 20:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 20:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 20:30 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 30 2024 20:18 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 19:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 30 2024 18:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote: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. And that's the same issue you've been wrong about in the past. It's *all else being equal*, not choosing bad players over good ones. It's breaking a general tie with the smallest distinction, selecting from a pool of highly qualified players and candidates of all races and sexes. We're choosing people like Larry Bird, not some random white kid who can't play ball. But is all else equal? Isn't that basically the central question here, where people who state that KH was made VP primarily because of her identity metrics, argue that there are other choices that would be better at 'stuff that makes a politician a good politician'? Basically how good a politician is boils down to a bunch of different factors. Not saying this list is exhaustive as I'm just spitballing here but- How good you are at debating various issues can be one. How knowledgeable you are is another. How well you know the political system (meaning how good you'll be at implementing policies should you attain power) is a third. How electable you are is a fourth. Whether you're a visionary can be a fifth. Etc. Policy obviously matters in terms of 'would I vote for this person' but it's not necessarily a part of 'how good of a politician are you', although I would argue that your policies being coherent is one. The electable one is where identity plays a factor, so you might even argue that having an identity that makes people vote for you is actually a skillset, for a politician - unlike virtually every other imaginable job. However, how big of a factor should that be? Someone like Pete is obviously far superior in terms of debating/oratory abilities. Someone like Hillary Clinton scores very high on point 2 and 3, but ended up being a shitty presidential candidate because she fails super hard at parts 4 and 5. Trump is the least qualified candidate there's ever been for 2, but somehow fares decently well in some of the other metrics. I think KH seems pretty competent myself tbh. Pleasing the big tent that is the potential democratic voter seems like an immensely difficult task. But if we were to ignore her identity, would I think she's the best candidate the democratic party has to offer? To me that's clearly a no - and there are both white men and women I would prefer in terms of their ability to present a convincing vision for how they want to change or improve America and their ability to debate the more intricate aspects of various politics. Equating this with 'these people are equally good so we might as well go with the more marginalized group' is disingeneous, because that's generally not what people are opposing. Imagine that all those various metrics gives someone a 0-10 score. People aren't really arguing against having race/gender/sexuality be a factor in the case of a tie break where both are at 40 points, they're arguing against having race/gender/sexuality be +-10 points in itself. White man being +20 points for the republican party also isn't an argument against being opposed to non-white-man being +10 points for democrats. I think this is a useful discussion to have, and I'd imagine that different people will have slightly different lists with different weights/importances put on different criteria. There is also a very big difference between having a nuanced argument over where she would rank in a Democratic Presidential Candidate Tier List vs. the blanket assertion that her qualifications simply don't matter because she's black and a woman. The former is a fine idea, but the latter is what BlackJack said. Again though, this kind of conversation leads back to frustrations people feel for how she got the nomination. I'm very sure this is where a lot of the frustration comes from at least from Moderates and other Liberals. I'm frustrated that Kamala won the nomination the way she did too, I went on big long rants about it back in July when it happened. That debacle is going to leave a smell over this election, long after its over. There's nothing any of us can do about that except to acknowledge that it's there and to hope for the best that Kamala Harris makes us all think it was no big deal with her results later down the line. I don't want to linger on it either. I'd rather just continue focusing on how horrible of a candidate Donald Trump is. I agree with - and share - your preference to continue focusing on the merits of both candidates, which is why I'm not a fan of BlackJack derailing the thread with his obsession over race and sex. (I also think there are valid discussions to be had about the nomination process, how she wasn't chosen through a primary, whether or not Harris being Biden's runningmate means there's an expectation that she'd be next in line for president, etc. I think there's been some discussion on this already, and other people can decide if they want to talk about that further.) They never make it about merit because Trump has none. They need the conversation to be about literally anything else. That's also why its also just 'DEI' and not about actual examples of how she is unqualified.
Exactly! So spit it back at them.
Don't argue about whether Kamala is or isn't a DEI hire. She is. It's not important. She's still a better candidate than Trump is. Make their biggest insult unimportant and they'll have to attack her some other way.
|
What qualifications are people expecting for KH to be a presidential candidate anyway?
As intelligent Bush jr?
As sensible as Bill Clinton?
Give me a break.
There's only one qualification required. Getting elected.
|
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?
That'd be awesome. No one is stopping him from summarizing his view instead of posting derisive one-liners about sex and race.
|
It is not like the republicans are not picking based on identity. Kavanaugh was picked because of his age and faith, as was Barnett. Think of all the older and atheists that were screwed and not picked in spite of their merit.
The whole concept of merit is hard when you are talking about "representing" people to begin with mind you.
|
On October 30 2024 21:13 Billyboy wrote:
It is not like the republicans are not picking based on identity. Kavanaugh was picked because of his age and faith, as was Barnett. Think of all the older and atheists that were screwed and not picked in spite of their merit.
The whole concept of merit is hard when you are talking about "representing" people to begin with mind you.
And that right there is why I am NEUTRAL on Affirmative Action.
Because I know damn well that if policies like it were not in place, people WOULD discriminate their hiring practices on this sort of shit exactly.
If we could trust people to not be so goddamn biased and prejudiced with their hiring practices then we wouldn't need shit like Affirmative Action. But the Religious Right in this country loves to CONSTANTLY remind us exactly why it's a neccessary evil that we definitely do still need to have.
|
On October 30 2024 04:18 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 04:01 NewSunshine wrote:On October 30 2024 03:48 Razyda wrote:On October 30 2024 03:38 NewSunshine wrote:On October 30 2024 03:31 Razyda wrote:On October 30 2024 02:25 WombaT wrote:On October 30 2024 02:18 oBlade wrote:On October 30 2024 01:54 blomsterjohn wrote:
Although I'm an outsider with outsider-limited knowledge, the number of not-insignificant republican operatives/former white house officials etc. that have publicly rallied against Trump this time feels like quite a unique thing, especially when its from what was formerly seen (at least from a Sca/EU perspective) as the vanguard of the GOP right (Bush, Cheney, etc.)
Is there any historical precedent in US politics for the same kind of....thing for the US presidency?
You are correct with the word "formerly" as most of the people railing are not a "vanguard" but has-beens. This has happened with anyone from Jackson to Lincoln to Teddy to Truman to Johnson. Usually associated during realignments, which we are in one of now. It's completely expected as the party evolves to dump those people and more importantly their interests. From either personal pettiness or the Cheneys finding their interests better represented by the Democratic Party or a combination of both, it's a happy adoption in any case with both parent and child satisfied. Inter-faction pressure is a beautiful thing. The Democrats unfortunately don't have it. From 20 years ago the people of the US grew to hate the likes of the Cheneys. At least, half of them did, and actually did something about it by cleaning house in the GOP. McConnell not seeking Senate leadership is the nail in that coffin. But apparently to the blue half it was all just performative, it's not about anything real it's just about consensus opposition to whatever the current Republican party is. The Democrats don’t have inter-faction pressure? What are you talking about? I mean great the GOP cleaned house, only the newly cleaned house they chose was a cult of personality largely devoid of ideological consistency. I think "cult of personality" thing is kind of reasoning which costs Democrats election. What I would say happened is 2016 Trump - Republicans though 'some kind of fluke" - 2020 Trump "support he got is odd, but he lost so we were right", 2024 "that seems more like a pattern, we have to adapt" and I think thats what they trying to do. Meanwhile Democrats deluded themself into thinking that Trump is simply some kind of magnet for bad and stupid, which united them against so much better Democrats. It kinda feels sometimes like they decided on a path which is so right that any critique of it is like a heresy. I think thats loosing them votes. Look even on this forum: BJ is a democrat (far as I know) however, whenever he says something what can be a critique of democratic party he is pretty much ganged up upon, accused of bad faith arguments, moving goalposts, and so on. If Democrats keep their current trajectory I wouldnt be surprised if 2 elections from now he would vote Republicans (not saying he will, for all I know he may be devoted Democrat who will be last one on this forum voting for them). You know whats most funny about it? You guys would blame him. I would tend to hold someone responsible for the choices they make. Nobody forces someone to vote Republican, it's a choice they make. Same for making bad faith arguments and logical fallacies such as shifting goalposts. Nobody makes BlackJack's arguments transform beyond recognition the way they do, that's a choice he makes rather than acknowledge he made poor choices in his communication. Choices Democrats made cost them presidency, are you holding them responsible, or are you blaming Trump for that? I mean, yes, I blame the people who voted Trump in for Trump winning the election. There's also a number of liberals who in 2016 either abstained from voting, or cast a vanity third party vote because they assumed Hillary would win, and they have some share of the blame too. I don't think what I'm saying is controversial. But really only a few of them. That is the weird thing about the US system. Most votes don't matter. Your vote only matters if you are in a state which might go both ways. If you live in California, your vote doesn't matter. Same for Texas mostly. The system is inherently shitty. If you live in California, you can probably vote third party or abstain, and it doesn't matter.
California has had two Democratic Senators for 30 years, and Chicago has had a Democratic mayor for 90 years. In that sense your votes in those places do not "matter." The "system" you're referring to is called democracy, it's not the system's fault that one or other group is or isn't competitive in a certain area. The meaning of a vote is not its marginal effect on an apparently tight race. The meaning of a vote is existential based on your ability to vote for someone to represent you in a free society. The 30% of California who couldn't squeeze red out of a tomato anymore, the futility of their votes is balanced out by the fact that 70% of California are getting their way every time. That is actually a situation of GREATER satisfaction than winning 51% every time. More people are choosing and getting exactly who they want.
The fact that swing states might be coin flips so half the time you get exactly what you want and half the time you get the exact opposite, doesn't matter - the total amount of people getting what they want is fair because it's based on how many people want it. It's not unfair that in Swing State A you only need 1% more of the vote to get what you want, but in Deep State (hue) B you need 21% more of the vote to get what you want - that's explicitly fair because the whole reason you need more votes to get what you want is that 70% of the people don't want what you do. These are not written in the constitution to be swing or deep states. That is an accidental distribution of history: Other times the same states have been strongholds, and the strongholds have been coinflips. They can't all be coinflips forever. They aren't supposed to be. Nor would we want them to be. That would be absurd.
|
The "system" you're referring to is called democracy, it's not the system's fault that one or other group is or isn't competitive in a certain area.
No, it is not "democracy". It is explicitly the strange US electoral college FPTP system. You can have a democracy where every vote counts. Just have proportional representation, or for a singular position count all votes, and the person with more gets it.
The US has a very broken gamey system that allows a minority of votes overproportional relevance.
If i vote in Germany, my vote matters. No matter where i am in Germany. The more votes a party gets, the more seats in parliament they have.
If you vote in the US, your vote is almost certainly completely irrelevant. Because it is not about having more votes, it is about having slightly over 50% of the votes in the most areas. Which leads to a lot of abuse, like for example gerrymandering, or only swing state votes actually mattering.
|
This is a bit weird. The VP is always a DEI hire, that's the entire point. The position is basically there to shore up whatever demographic the main candidate doesn't appeal to, and being a member of that demographic is usually one of the essential criteria.
Walz is a DEI hire, Harris was a DEI hire, Pence was a DEI hire, hell Biden himself was a DEI hire the first time around. That's just the VP. The role has very few actual duties so it's always symbolic and selected for show rather than substance.
There's a useful conversation here, for sure, but imo the VP specifically is one of the worst contexts to actually discuss it in.
|
Senators in California and mayors in Chicago are not subject to an electoral college. Ask people if their votes for Senator and mayor there matter more than for president.
|
Trump is 100% unqualified to be president. Nobody in this thread has ever brought up the fact that he's so unqualified because he's a rich white male, but that case can certainly be made (I certainly would). Do we all agree that Trump is an unqualified DEI hire? If so, then we have a very valid starting point from which we can also discuss Harris' merit based on DEI or otherwise. Because then at least I see no double standard.
We wouldn't be talking about Harris being a DEI-based presidential candidate if someone else was VP instead of her. Assume, purely hypothetically, that any white male with equal qualifications was chosen as Biden's VP. Strike that, the white male could even be less qualified. If that VP was then chosen to run for office as Biden's replacement, no one would bat an eye. Literally not a single person would be saying anything about that white male's identity. The fact that we're having this discussion, but we literally never have that same discussion in the other direction, proves a double standard.
Why are white male Republicans never being criticized for being unqualified due to their white-maleness?
|
On October 30 2024 21:50 oBlade wrote:
Senators in California and mayors in Chicago are not subject to an electoral college. Ask people if their votes for Senator and mayor there matter more than for president.
And were we just talking about senators? No, we were talking about presidents.
Also, of course you specify senators in California. But if you talk about senators in general, you once again get the problem that some votes matter a lot more than others. If you live in California, you get about 1 in 20 millionth of a senator. If you live in Montana, you get about 1 in 500kth of a senator, or 40 times as many senators. Once again, some votes count more than others.
|
On October 30 2024 21:57 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 21:50 oBlade wrote:
Senators in California and mayors in Chicago are not subject to an electoral college. Ask people if their votes for Senator and mayor there matter more than for president. And were we just talking about senators? No, we were talking about presidents. Also, of course you specify senators in California. But if you talk about senators in general, you once again get the problem that some votes matter a lot more than others. If you live in California, you get about 1 in 20 millionth of a senator. If you live in Montana, you get about 1 in 500kth of a senator, or 40 times as many senators. Once again, some votes count more than others.
And multiply that by 2 and you get the share of a governor that a citizen is voting for. What percent of the mayor does a resident of Chicago vote for vs. a resident of Bozeman?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
