|
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 23:41 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 21:55 Magic Powers wrote:
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? Bolded - we definitely dont. First of all he was not hired he got elected (whether he is qualified or not is a different discussion). Claiming that Trump is DEI hire has as much sense as claiming that Bezos is DEI hire. Edit: Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 23:30 NewSunshine wrote:On October 30 2024 23:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 23:08 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 30 2024 22:38 Magic Powers wrote:On October 30 2024 22:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 12:16 Turbovolver wrote:On October 30 2024 10:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Cool gaslighting, bro. You've mentioned that phrase over and over again in the past, and aimed it squarely at Harris and KBJ. Maybe stop bringing up their race and sex. I got curious about this so I searched all BlackJack posts. Five come up, all of them extremely recent, and four of them in response to others' posts. The first one, this one, “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?” sort of implies that BlackJack thinks her success is attributable to DEI, but is also a response to ongoing discussion in the thread. I'm not sure where the arguments about KBJ are, but no, BlackJack has not repeatedly used "this phrase" over and over again in the past. That was oBlade. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not invested in defending BlackJack's apparent opinions about Kamala's credentials, I just wanted to see if any gaslighting was going on. I agree that oBlade has talked a lot about that too. I don't want to relitigate all of the previous conversations surrounding BlackJack's takes on DEI, only caring about race and sex, diversity hires, what is/isn't racist or sexist, and other positions he's had about whether or not KBJ's and Harris's qualifications were truly considered by Biden/Democrats, but he's written a lot of posts in those conversations. Here's the bottom line for me: Merit also matters, period. BlackJack said that merit doesn't matter. I think that's wrong, and it seems to be the case that most people here also think that's wrong, because Harris (and KBJ) are indeed qualified individuals. To add to this, merit not only matters within the Democrat party, it is visibly the only thing that matters. I posted two infographics roughly a week ago proving this point. If DEI is responsible, then it has resulted in the ethnic/gender makeup of the party to be highly representative of the American population. That is as close to real merit as it gets (so far). Unless someone were to argue that merit should lead to unequal representation - not likely an argument that would convince a Democrat. The Republican party is the exact opposite. They represent white males above all else. It's close to 90%. If I had to judge these two parties based on merit, Democrats would get an A and Republicans would get an F. The argument is flawed from the start. Merit simply does not matter, just look at Trump. There was no one more "meritorious" than Hillary Clinton and look how far that got her. Merit doesn't matter for Trump supporters, but merit does matter for those who thought/think that Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris would be good presidents. Yeah, something like this. How the two party's candidates get treated by the media is obviously a nauseating double standard, Kamala has 0 room for mistakes but Trump gets to be a bumbling racist moron and gets every pass in the world. But in terms of the Democrat's priorities, they can and should be pushing for competency on the ground level. Harris has no shortage of qualifications for the job, especially when you consider that "be a citizen over 35" is the actual qualification and so many presidents, especially Trump, barely clear that much. Bolded - Claim that Trump is treated by media better than Kamala is surreal. Italic - most important qualification of president is ability to get elected, in primaries and presidential election. So far Trump won 3 primaries and one presidential. Kamala won exactly 0 of each.
Way to miss the point. Trump would've never been a presidential candidate at any point in history if not for the perfect match of the overwhelming Republican preference for his skin color and gender. If Trump was, hypothetically, a woman or a black man, regardless of rhetoric, policies or presentation, he wouldn't have even been considered by Republicans. There has never been a Republican woman or black man as a presidential candidate. All examples so far have been Democrats or otherwise.
Republicans are doing their own version of DEI literally all the time from top to bottom. They exclude everyone from the top position who doesn't fit the profile. They're completely incapable of doing otherwise. That is exactly what it means to do reverse DEI. And yet they receive barely any criticism over that, certainly never from within.
|
If we are discussing the US election system in general, from an outside perspective I would agree that FPTPs biggest problem is not the perceived lack of having your vote "matter".
The bigger problem with FPTP is that it lends itself to a duo party system. If anything I think that's the biggest flaw with the system because coalitions of smaller parties forming up to push legislation and elect the executive branch are fundamentally less divisive which the US would really need right now. Of course there are other problems with coalition governments as well, mainly that they are naturally less stable and decisive.
An interesting change would be to keep the senate with the current design while having congress moved from districts to proportional voting on a national level. Move legislative power further towards congress and have the senate elect the president.
Another US political problem is the legislative creep of the supreme court. It would be interesting to have an amendment that limits each decision to 10 years after which the legislative branch has to vote on the subject. 2/3 majority to pass it in to law, otherwise it's invalidated. Or they could opt to design their own legislation that covers the issue instead and pass that.
This would force politicians into doing what they hate more than almost anything; actually having to deal with hot potato issues instead of punting them somewhere else. Usually it's a good idea because it forces all sides to come together with a compromise that gets rid of the problem more permanently.
You wouldn't even have the abortion debate today if the legislative branch actually had done their jobs in the past.
|
On October 31 2024 02:37 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 23:41 Razyda wrote:On October 30 2024 23:30 NewSunshine wrote:On October 30 2024 23:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 23:08 EnDeR_ wrote:On October 30 2024 22:38 Magic Powers wrote:On October 30 2024 22:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 12:16 Turbovolver wrote:On October 30 2024 10:07 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Cool gaslighting, bro. You've mentioned that phrase over and over again in the past, and aimed it squarely at Harris and KBJ. Maybe stop bringing up their race and sex. I got curious about this so I searched all BlackJack posts. Five come up, all of them extremely recent, and four of them in response to others' posts. The first one, this one, “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?” sort of implies that BlackJack thinks her success is attributable to DEI, but is also a response to ongoing discussion in the thread. I'm not sure where the arguments about KBJ are, but no, BlackJack has not repeatedly used "this phrase" over and over again in the past. That was oBlade. EDIT: To be clear, I'm not invested in defending BlackJack's apparent opinions about Kamala's credentials, I just wanted to see if any gaslighting was going on. I agree that oBlade has talked a lot about that too. I don't want to relitigate all of the previous conversations surrounding BlackJack's takes on DEI, only caring about race and sex, diversity hires, what is/isn't racist or sexist, and other positions he's had about whether or not KBJ's and Harris's qualifications were truly considered by Biden/Democrats, but he's written a lot of posts in those conversations. Here's the bottom line for me: Merit also matters, period. BlackJack said that merit doesn't matter. I think that's wrong, and it seems to be the case that most people here also think that's wrong, because Harris (and KBJ) are indeed qualified individuals. To add to this, merit not only matters within the Democrat party, it is visibly the only thing that matters. I posted two infographics roughly a week ago proving this point. If DEI is responsible, then it has resulted in the ethnic/gender makeup of the party to be highly representative of the American population. That is as close to real merit as it gets (so far). Unless someone were to argue that merit should lead to unequal representation - not likely an argument that would convince a Democrat. The Republican party is the exact opposite. They represent white males above all else. It's close to 90%. If I had to judge these two parties based on merit, Democrats would get an A and Republicans would get an F. The argument is flawed from the start. Merit simply does not matter, just look at Trump. There was no one more "meritorious" than Hillary Clinton and look how far that got her. Merit doesn't matter for Trump supporters, but merit does matter for those who thought/think that Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris would be good presidents. Yeah, something like this. How the two party's candidates get treated by the media is obviously a nauseating double standard, Kamala has 0 room for mistakes but Trump gets to be a bumbling racist moron and gets every pass in the world. But in terms of the Democrat's priorities, they can and should be pushing for competency on the ground level. Harris has no shortage of qualifications for the job, especially when you consider that "be a citizen over 35" is the actual qualification and so many presidents, especially Trump, barely clear that much. Bolded - Claim that Trump is treated by media better than Kamala is surreal.Italic - most important qualification of president is ability to get elected, in primaries and presidential election. So far Trump won 3 primaries and one presidential. Kamala won exactly 0 of each. Trump is treated more fairly by the media than Harris is, when comparing what Trump is/says/does and what Harris is/says/does, and what the media decides to focus on. And for your italics part, I think you mean candidate, not president. The candidate needs to win the election, but the president needs to be able to actually do the job. Bolded - literary in this thread, some pages ago, I posted links showing that Kamala interview was edited to make her look better and Joe Rogan was edited to make it look like he is supporting Kamala. I am sorry, but anyone able to remain even a little objective should be able to admit that those two aren't treated the same and that Kamala gets clearly preferential treatment. Italic - you are correct, my bad.
I agree with you that editing interviews can raise questions, and I agree with you that Joe Rogan hasn't endorsed Kamala Harris. (He's given her a few compliments and said that she won the debate against Trump, but he's obviously complimented Trump as well, and I don't think Rogan has formally endorsed anyone.)
I still don't think that comes anywhere close to how Trump has been handled with kid gloves. We have a literal fascist with 34 felonies and like 50 or so other charges who can barely speak coherently - so much so that he's invented an excuse called "the weave" where he insists that his rambling is clever. He's a racist and sexist who brags about sexually assaulting women, and has almost no policy proposals whatsoever. The guy doesn't even know what a tariff is. He lies incessantly, only cares about himself, attempted to overturn our last election because he's a sore loser, and is trying to rig the third straight presidential election that he's been a part of.
Are these things being repeated every week? No. The only mention of Trump on https://www.washingtonpost.com/ is a pro-Trump headline that reads "These women are all in for abortion rights — and for Trump". On https://www.cnn.com/ there's an article that asserts that Harris is facing a "political mess" because Biden criticized the racist remarks about Puerto Rico that occurred at Trump's last rally. And don't even get me started on https://www.foxnews.com/ lol.
What do you think would happen if Kamala Harris was the one who had fabricated the "migrants eating pets" story? Or was called America's Hitler by Tim Walz? Or was found to be a sexual predator? Or covered up a cheating scandal so that it wouldn't affect her election chances? Or asked China to interfere in an election? Or had ten instances of obstruction of justice uncovered between her, her staff, and the Russians? Or was already impeached twice? The media - and voters - wouldn't let any of those go, and for very good reason. Each one is disqualifying on their own, but Trump has done so many immoral and illegal things that we're desensitized and the media (and people) don't even really care anymore.
|
On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote:
In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well 
Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA.
It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort.
|
On October 31 2024 04:40 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote:
In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA. It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort.
The thing that really intrigues me about your post is that Trump is apparently "suing Bucks County over claims of voter intimidation and long lines". He's doing this even though "votes in the presidential election cannot yet be counted -- or even opened -- by officials in Pennsylvania." https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/donald-trump-claims-without-evidence-that-pa-is-cheating-sues-bucks-county/4013396/
|
Right-wingers about SCOTUS before 2022: "Nothing to see here. These are all fairly normal choices based on merit. Mostly the correct demographics. Mostly male, mostly white. Some Italian, some Latino. Well, at least they're white looking I guess. Hahaha... no worries. Oh, the black guy? Yeah... I know. Not great. But he's conservative, it's alright. Picked by a Republican. Don't worry, he's our guy."
Right-wingers about SCOTUS after 2022: "Alarm, one black woman! Picked by a Democrat! Raise the red flag, this can't be right!"
|
On October 31 2024 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 04:40 BlackJack wrote:On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote:
In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA. It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort. The thing that really intrigues me about your post is that Trump is apparently "suing Bucks County over claims of voter intimidation and long lines". He's doing this even though "votes in the presidential election cannot yet be counted -- or even opened -- by officials in Pennsylvania." https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/donald-trump-claims-without-evidence-that-pa-is-cheating-sues-bucks-county/4013396/
I’ve no idea how that pivot makes sense
|
The really funny thing is the judge just ruled in favor of the suit saying they violated election code and ordered an extension of early voting deadlines.
|
On October 31 2024 05:42 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 31 2024 04:40 BlackJack wrote:On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote:
In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA. It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort. The thing that really intrigues me about your post is that Trump is apparently "suing Bucks County over claims of voter intimidation and long lines". He's doing this even though "votes in the presidential election cannot yet be counted -- or even opened -- by officials in Pennsylvania." https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/donald-trump-claims-without-evidence-that-pa-is-cheating-sues-bucks-county/4013396/ I’ve no idea how that pivot makes sense
As I said before, I have no interest in continuing your discussion on DEI and how you believe that merit wasn't relevant when Harris was picked. Feel free to talk about that with other people. So what are your thoughts on Trump preemptively suing Pennsylvania? I guess the more swing states he sues, the more ammunition he'll have to complain about states being rigged if he loses any of them?
|
On October 31 2024 05:14 Magic Powers wrote:
Right-wingers about SCOTUS before 2022: "Nothing to see here. These are all fairly normal choices based on merit. Mostly the correct demographics. Mostly male, mostly white. Some Italian, some Latino. Well, at least they're white looking I guess. Hahaha... no worries. Oh, the black guy? Yeah... I know. Not great. But he's conservative, it's alright. Picked by a Republican. Don't worry, he's our guy."
Right-wingers about SCOTUS after 2022: "Alarm, one black woman! Picked by a Democrat! Raise the red flag, this can't be right!"
On October 31 2024 01:42 BlackJack wrote:
Biden: I’m going to nominate a black woman for Supreme Court
Gavin Newsom: I’m gonna pick a black woman for this vacant Senate seat
Biden again: Kamala Harris is an example of the strengths of DEI
This thread: why do conservatives want to bring up sex and race
|
On October 31 2024 05:47 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 05:14 Magic Powers wrote:
Right-wingers about SCOTUS before 2022: "Nothing to see here. These are all fairly normal choices based on merit. Mostly the correct demographics. Mostly male, mostly white. Some Italian, some Latino. Well, at least they're white looking I guess. Hahaha... no worries. Oh, the black guy? Yeah... I know. Not great. But he's conservative, it's alright. Picked by a Republican. Don't worry, he's our guy."
Right-wingers about SCOTUS after 2022: "Alarm, one black woman! Picked by a Democrat! Raise the red flag, this can't be right!" Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 01:42 BlackJack wrote:
Biden: I’m going to nominate a black woman for Supreme Court
Gavin Newsom: I’m gonna pick a black woman for this vacant Senate seat
Biden again: Kamala Harris is an example of the strengths of DEI
This thread: why do conservatives want to bring up sex and race
You're not catching the point. It's never a problem when the expectation is that a white male gets appointed to a position of power. It's only ever a problem when the expectation is that it's a black male or a woman or, god forbid, a black woman.
You're refusing to see the problem on the other side. For you there is only a problem on one side, not the other. Overcome your double standard and I will no longer be able to point out a double standard.
|
On October 31 2024 05:54 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 05:47 BlackJack wrote:On October 31 2024 05:14 Magic Powers wrote:
Right-wingers about SCOTUS before 2022: "Nothing to see here. These are all fairly normal choices based on merit. Mostly the correct demographics. Mostly male, mostly white. Some Italian, some Latino. Well, at least they're white looking I guess. Hahaha... no worries. Oh, the black guy? Yeah... I know. Not great. But he's conservative, it's alright. Picked by a Republican. Don't worry, he's our guy."
Right-wingers about SCOTUS after 2022: "Alarm, one black woman! Picked by a Democrat! Raise the red flag, this can't be right!" On October 31 2024 01:42 BlackJack wrote:
Biden: I’m going to nominate a black woman for Supreme Court
Gavin Newsom: I’m gonna pick a black woman for this vacant Senate seat
Biden again: Kamala Harris is an example of the strengths of DEI
This thread: why do conservatives want to bring up sex and race
You're not catching the point. It's never a problem when the expectation is that a white male gets appointed to a position of power. It's only ever a problem when the expectation is that it's a black male or a woman or, god forbid, a black woman. You're refusing to see the problem on the other side. For you there is only a problem on one side, not the other. Overcome your double standard and I will no longer be able to point out a double standard.
You’re contradicting yourself. You said that conservatives had no issues with SCOTUS pre 2022. Despite the fact that a female POC was as chosen by a Democrat President. Now they suddenly have an issue with SCOTUS because *checks notes* a female POC was chosen by a Democrat President?
The big thing that changed is not a female POC being appointed to the SCOTUS. The thing that changed is the President announcing he was going to use skin color and gender as qualifying criteria.
|
Northern Ireland26040 Posts
On October 31 2024 06:01 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 05:54 Magic Powers wrote:On October 31 2024 05:47 BlackJack wrote:On October 31 2024 05:14 Magic Powers wrote:
Right-wingers about SCOTUS before 2022: "Nothing to see here. These are all fairly normal choices based on merit. Mostly the correct demographics. Mostly male, mostly white. Some Italian, some Latino. Well, at least they're white looking I guess. Hahaha... no worries. Oh, the black guy? Yeah... I know. Not great. But he's conservative, it's alright. Picked by a Republican. Don't worry, he's our guy."
Right-wingers about SCOTUS after 2022: "Alarm, one black woman! Picked by a Democrat! Raise the red flag, this can't be right!" On October 31 2024 01:42 BlackJack wrote:
Biden: I’m going to nominate a black woman for Supreme Court
Gavin Newsom: I’m gonna pick a black woman for this vacant Senate seat
Biden again: Kamala Harris is an example of the strengths of DEI
This thread: why do conservatives want to bring up sex and race
You're not catching the point. It's never a problem when the expectation is that a white male gets appointed to a position of power. It's only ever a problem when the expectation is that it's a black male or a woman or, god forbid, a black woman. You're refusing to see the problem on the other side. For you there is only a problem on one side, not the other. Overcome your double standard and I will no longer be able to point out a double standard. You’re contradicting yourself. You said that conservatives had no issues with SCOTUS pre 2022. Despite the fact that a female POC was as chosen by a Democrat President. Now they suddenly have an issue with SCOTUS because *checks notes* a female POC was chosen by a Democrat President? The big thing that changed is not a female POC being appointed to the SCOTUS. The thing that changed is the President announcing he was going to use skin color and gender as qualifying criteria.
Oh noes, that’s so different than it was before!
|
On October 31 2024 06:01 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 05:54 Magic Powers wrote:On October 31 2024 05:47 BlackJack wrote:On October 31 2024 05:14 Magic Powers wrote:
Right-wingers about SCOTUS before 2022: "Nothing to see here. These are all fairly normal choices based on merit. Mostly the correct demographics. Mostly male, mostly white. Some Italian, some Latino. Well, at least they're white looking I guess. Hahaha... no worries. Oh, the black guy? Yeah... I know. Not great. But he's conservative, it's alright. Picked by a Republican. Don't worry, he's our guy."
Right-wingers about SCOTUS after 2022: "Alarm, one black woman! Picked by a Democrat! Raise the red flag, this can't be right!" On October 31 2024 01:42 BlackJack wrote:
Biden: I’m going to nominate a black woman for Supreme Court
Gavin Newsom: I’m gonna pick a black woman for this vacant Senate seat
Biden again: Kamala Harris is an example of the strengths of DEI
This thread: why do conservatives want to bring up sex and race
You're not catching the point. It's never a problem when the expectation is that a white male gets appointed to a position of power. It's only ever a problem when the expectation is that it's a black male or a woman or, god forbid, a black woman. You're refusing to see the problem on the other side. For you there is only a problem on one side, not the other. Overcome your double standard and I will no longer be able to point out a double standard. You’re contradicting yourself. You said that conservatives had no issues with SCOTUS pre 2022. Despite the fact that a female POC was as chosen by a Democrat President. Now they suddenly have an issue with SCOTUS because *checks notes* a female POC was chosen by a Democrat President? The big thing that changed is not a female POC being appointed to the SCOTUS. The thing that changed is the President announcing he was going to use skin color and gender as qualifying criteria.
She was picked in 2022, not before. So before 2022 they had no issue with the justices because none of the picks was a black female. There was one black male, which would be considered very, very ungood. But he was conservative, so he was considered somewhat tolerable. Close one, phew. But Obama picked several women, and that was rather ungood. But they weren't black, so again we barely escaped certain disaster. But Biden picked a black woman and oh no the ship is sinking. Unacceptable.
|
Oh ok. So conservatives just have a very specific strand of racism and sexism where they are okay with black men, white women, Hispanic women, but definitely not black women. Got it.
|
Honestly I don't see much of a point getting upset about who gets nominated to the Supreme Court.
We know Republicans are going to appoint white Christian Conservatives to the court. We know Democrats are going to elect Liberal or Progressive judges with a high likliehood that they will aim for either women or minorities.
In order for any of these judges to end up actually sitting on the court, they need to be both named by the President and then confirmed by the Senate.
The party needs to control both the Senate and the Executive Branch to get who they want on the Supreme Court. If they only hold one of those, then neither side can have who they want and they have to compromise.
The point is, whichever side you like better in this regard is probably who you should vote for. We know what both parties want on the court, it's a cornerstone in both of their platforms. I'd argue that who the Republicans are going to put on the Supreme Court is the ONLY consistent political platform they actually still have other than their desire to give wealthy Americans tax cuts.
Who gets nominated and who gets placed on the court are the result of multiple elections. None of it should end up as a shock to anyone paying attention.
The minute Donald Trump won the election in 2016 and RBG died when she was too stubborn to retire when Obama was in office, was the minute we knew the balance of the court was going to go to the Conservatives. That should never have been a shock to anybody, it was the result of multiple elections.
|
Northern Ireland26040 Posts
On October 31 2024 06:12 BlackJack wrote:
Oh ok. So conservatives just have a very specific strand of racism and sexism where they are okay with black men, white women, Hispanic women, but definitely not black women. Got it.
It’s conservatives themselves that continually complain that folks outside of those demographics are DEI hires, so don’t blame everyone else for taking them on their word
Perhaps we can’t have different conversations within this specific thread, but wider trends do kinda point in a certain direction
|
On October 31 2024 06:12 BlackJack wrote:
Oh ok. So conservatives just have a very specific strand of racism and sexism where they are okay with black men, white women, Hispanic women, but definitely not black women. Got it.
Do you even know the makeup of the SCOTUS throughout the decades and what exactly caused that makeup to change in more recent years? You're making a fuss now. Did you also make a fuss when it was overwhelmingly non-black men and women? Did you? Right-wingers in general certainly didn't mind. If Clarence was liberal, right-wingers would've collectively lost their minds over him. They tolerate him, they certainly don't like him. They always strongly prefer a non-black pick, ideally a white one. And also ideally men over women. Obama is the reason why there's a reasonable amount of women in SCOTUS to begin with. Now it's another woman and oh no she's black on top of it. Lets make a fuss about it now. Not before, only now.
You're not fooling anyone.
|
First and foremost - Thanks, Vindicare, for your commentary a few pages back. I appreciate where your head is at on the subject even though there isn't anything particular I want to comment on.
On October 31 2024 04:40 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote:
In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA. It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort.
One, Turbolover just looked for you using specific phrases, which was the subject at the time. This is a stretch of truth or misunderstanding on your part that isn't wholly uncommon.
+ Show Spoiler +Shit like this isn't uncommon where you misunderstand someone or are otherwise incorrect and then don't address the correction. On October 30 2024 14:30 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 14:28 BlackJack wrote:
I actually don't disagree with Fleetfeet that "DEI Hire" is used as a pejorative dog whistle towards black people. That's why I've tried to avoid using it. But evidently it doesn't matter if I avoid using it because they will start using it, insist I'm the one using it, and then imply I'm racist for using it. Worth noting - I never claimed it was a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people, never used the phrase "DEI Hire" afaik (though for clarity not because I avoided doing so but because it's uncommon vocab for me and I don't know the nuance between DEI Hire / diversity hire / DEI etc) and also never insisted that you're using specifically those phrases nor are racist for using them. Also, thank you for informing me that it's a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people. In my circles 'diversity hire' leans more towards 'underqualified ethnic female' than specifically black people. I will stop using that phrase!
Regardless, I'm not that interested in that. What confuses me is that as part of your opposition to hiring with consideration to race and sex seems to deny that there are racist and sexist tendencies built within our structures. Sure 'forced diversity' is fucked if you remove the context that the opposite has historically been true. Your NBA analogy would be interesting if the general populace voted in drafts, so we could see that racism and sexism be systematically enacted in vote. The NBA isn't a democracy, it's a meritocracy, and so you see that reflected in its statistics. Do you believe that the position of president in the US is also a meritocracy and you've had 44 white dudes (?) because they're the GOAT?
|
On October 31 2024 06:34 Fleetfeet wrote:First and foremost - Thanks, Vindicare, for your commentary a few pages back. I appreciate where your head is at on the subject even though there isn't anything particular I want to comment on. Show nested quote +On October 31 2024 04:40 BlackJack wrote:On October 31 2024 02:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 31 2024 01:50 BlackJack wrote:
In my analogy you’re not drafting “some white kid that can’t play ball."
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote:
Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well Do you think this is some kind of contradiction? There’s lots of nba players that are trash compared to the superstars. That doesn’t make them unqualified for the NBA. It’s consistently you making the strawman that Kamala Harris is unqualified. Turbolover even searched my posts to look for evidence of your claims that I’ve repeatedly called Kamala an unqualified DEI hire and he found nothing of the sort. One, Turbolover just looked for you using specific phrases, which was the subject at the time. This is a stretch of truth or misunderstanding on your part that isn't wholly uncommon. + Show Spoiler +Shit like this isn't uncommon where you misunderstand someone or are otherwise incorrect and then don't address the correction. On October 30 2024 14:30 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 14:28 BlackJack wrote:
I actually don't disagree with Fleetfeet that "DEI Hire" is used as a pejorative dog whistle towards black people. That's why I've tried to avoid using it. But evidently it doesn't matter if I avoid using it because they will start using it, insist I'm the one using it, and then imply I'm racist for using it. Worth noting - I never claimed it was a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people, never used the phrase "DEI Hire" afaik (though for clarity not because I avoided doing so but because it's uncommon vocab for me and I don't know the nuance between DEI Hire / diversity hire / DEI etc) and also never insisted that you're using specifically those phrases nor are racist for using them. Also, thank you for informing me that it's a perjorative dogwhistle towards black people. In my circles 'diversity hire' leans more towards 'underqualified ethnic female' than specifically black people. I will stop using that phrase! Regardless, I'm not that interested in that. What confuses me is that as part of your opposition to hiring with consideration to race and sex seems to deny that there are racist and sexist tendencies built within our structures. Sure 'forced diversity' is fucked if you remove the context that the opposite has historically been true. Your NBA analogy would be interesting if the general populace voted in drafts, so we could see that racism and sexism be systematically enacted in vote. The NBA isn't a democracy, it's a meritocracy, and so you see that reflected in its statistics. Do you believe that the position of president in the US is also a meritocracy and you've had 44 white dudes (?) because they're the GOAT?
It's funny that you would mention the NBA, which seems to me to be a strikingly homogenous group of people in terms of race and social background. Contrary to what you are saying, I'd say that in meritocratic environments you tend to get homogeneous types of people on the top. In the NBA, most players are African Americans. In the math olympiad, the US team is mostly male asian Americans.
This probably has to do with deeply rooted cultural preferences and differences between groups more than anything else. Groups are very different. Maybe there aren't many black women who are top legal scholars? Just like there aren't many black women in the math olympiad or among the chess grand masters. None of these things are necessarily because of racism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
