|
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 June 05 2025 07:42 BlackJack wrote:
Biden: I'm going to select a woman as my VP
Biden: I'm going to select a black woman for SCOTUS
Newsom: I'm going to select a black woman to fill Feinstein's vacant seat
The unique thing is liberals politicians thinking it's a good thing to publicly announce they are going to use sex/race/whatever as a criteria. They open the conversation and then whine when conservatives join it. It's a stupid self-own that could be avoided if they just kept their mouth shut but they can't because they want the credit for picking a minority.
You are still wrong on the SCOTUS thing, because you and I both do not know if he announced that before or after he knew who was the most qualified. And that you do not think she could even possibly the most qualified is telling, so you should stop bringing it up.
I do not see it as a bad thing that the Dems are more transparent on why they they pick their candidate. And I do not think it is bad thing that people want to see themselves and people like them represented in government. This is how sales works for basically every consumer product. Not selling to Korean women, hire a Korean woman. They understand the market better and are better able to understand their prospective client and overcome their objections.
You only have this issue with people of colour and women. Republicans do the same shit. Just their voters have different criteria.
Edit: It is also strange that you do not seem to notice that the Reps do not need to announce it is old white guy because that is the standard. A black women is historic and sadly unprecedented. Not surprisingly when Trump announced Amy Coney Barrett he led with, she is a woman.
|
On June 05 2025 08:07 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 07:42 BlackJack wrote:
Biden: I'm going to select a woman as my VP
Biden: I'm going to select a black woman for SCOTUS
Newsom: I'm going to select a black woman to fill Feinstein's vacant seat
The unique thing is liberals politicians thinking it's a good thing to publicly announce they are going to use sex/race/whatever as a criteria. They open the conversation and then whine when conservatives join it. It's a stupid self-own that could be avoided if they just kept their mouth shut but they can't because they want the credit for picking a minority. You are still wrong on the SCOTUS thing, because you and I both do not know if he announced that before or after he knew who was the most qualified. And that you do not think she could even possibly the most qualified is telling, so you should stop bringing it up.
Ah yes, your old theory that Biden had already pre-selected KBJ so his statement of “I’m going to nominate a black woman” was simply a statement of fact and not a declaration that he was only going to consider black women. I guess it’s plausible no matter how dumb it sounds. Although the big problem is that when it came time to nominate someone Biden interviewed several black women for the job which indicates he wasn’t set on KJB.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-biden-interviews-candidates/
So even if your theory is right then he still rounded up some black women to what…waste their time? To give the illusion that he was considering multiple black women? What’s the point of that? Your alternate theory would make his actions even more performative and stupid than just setting out to nominate a black woman so maybe you should drop it.
|
On June 05 2025 08:58 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 08:07 Billyboy wrote:On June 05 2025 07:42 BlackJack wrote:
Biden: I'm going to select a woman as my VP
Biden: I'm going to select a black woman for SCOTUS
Newsom: I'm going to select a black woman to fill Feinstein's vacant seat
The unique thing is liberals politicians thinking it's a good thing to publicly announce they are going to use sex/race/whatever as a criteria. They open the conversation and then whine when conservatives join it. It's a stupid self-own that could be avoided if they just kept their mouth shut but they can't because they want the credit for picking a minority. You are still wrong on the SCOTUS thing, because you and I both do not know if he announced that before or after he knew who was the most qualified. And that you do not think she could even possibly the most qualified is telling, so you should stop bringing it up. Ah yes, your old theory that Biden had already pre-selected KBJ so his statement of “I’m going to nominate a black woman” was simply a statement of fact and not a declaration that he was only going to consider black women. I guess it’s plausible no matter how dumb it sounds. Although the big problem is that when it came time to nominate someone Biden interviewed several black women for the job which indicates he wasn’t set on KJB. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-biden-interviews-candidates/So even if your theory is right then he still rounded up some black women to what…waste their time? To give the illusion that he was considering multiple black women? What’s the point of that? Your alternate theory would make his actions even more performative and stupid than just setting out to nominate a black woman so maybe you should drop it.
So your theory is that he only picked her for optics, but then most assuredly would not interview people for optics. Very logically consistent.
My actual theory is that he looked at the candidates and thought, wow we have lots of competent black women, likely had a front runner, who was likely the one he picked.
I strongly believe it is possible that a Black woman was the most competent. Crazy to you I know.
Were the Republican picks the best and just happened to be young.... What makes the best candidate. Can you show that better candidates were not picked. I am guessing you can not because your whole case seems to be, it is obvious because they made a big deal out of it and obviously she can not be the best.
|
With Democrats you are allowed to openly insist on picking people for their race and gender. But, you are not allowed to suggest any particular individual was selected on that basis because it would be bigoted. Convenient.
|
On June 05 2025 09:38 Introvert wrote:
With Democrats you are allowed to openly insist on picking people for their race and gender. But, you are not allowed to suggest any particular individual was selected on that basis because it would be bigoted. Convenient.
Funny how that works
|
Its only funny if you think having diversity is a bad thing, and think that you can't find equally qualified people from different backgrounds, whos different background to the current bench is an advantage to the bench as a whole to have.
Like do you legitimately not think what Biden did saying he wanted a black woman in the supreme court and he's going to add one is a good thing for the Supreme Court or for people to want? The perception is that the only reason why you cling so hard to this is that what he did was a bad thing or what democrats do when they say and promote diversity is also a bad thing. Republicans could do it and have the same reaction from the left but they don't because republicans don't do it, or they don't believe the reasons behind them doing it. See the conservatives in England electing a black woman to be their new leader while they go through their worst period in a long long time.
Is this a case of you not understanding the why of liberals do this or you understand why they're doing it and think its a bad thing? Repeating "man its weird that people act differently when different things happen" isn't coherent or cohesive.
|
On June 05 2025 09:38 Introvert wrote:
With Democrats you are allowed to openly insist on picking people for their race and gender. But, you are not allowed to suggest any particular individual was selected on that basis because it would be bigoted. Convenient.
That is a dumb and lazy way to argue. First I am not a democrat. Next you mixing my argument with another persons argument does not make mine or theirs wrong. Or even combining two separate arguments.
I guess this is your way of saying you do not have an actual reason on why you have no problem with picking for age, even when openly stated. Competency is not actually what upsets you is it.
My main point is that no one knows exactly why Biden picked who he did for SOCTUS. That you think it is 100% because of her race and gender with no pause that she might have been the best is your issue not mine.
Next that you think VPs are picked on competence alone is stupid, and you know this if you take the time to really think about it. Hell the only thing that makes a VP competent is how many votes they pull for you. Like your really think Trump either time was like, hmmm who would be the best guy to run the country if I die.
On June 05 2025 09:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 09:38 Introvert wrote:
With Democrats you are allowed to openly insist on picking people for their race and gender. But, you are not allowed to suggest any particular individual was selected on that basis because it would be bigoted. Convenient. Funny how that works
Great tap out! See you again in a short time when you bring up one of your same arguments for the millionith time.
It is strange how most of your posts are about how dumb the all libs are and your second most common post is about how others should not paint everyone with the same brush. Self awareness is not really your thing.
|
Northern Ireland25318 Posts
There’s maybe an argument for like a SCOTUS appointment, or something of that ilk. Not weighing in on this particular tangent especially, but it’s a very ‘competency’ gig.
Something like a VP pick, or all sorts of frontline politics jobs they aren’t really exclusively competency gigs. Be it a certain type of personality to complement the main candidate’s deficiencies, or reach out to a particular demographic, or whatever it is.
In that particular domain it seems daft to complain, it’s been the name of the game for like the entire modern political era, especially since television became widespread.
I’ll criticise Trump for many a thing, Mike Pence as a VP pick clearly filled a rather gaping ‘Christian values’ hole in his ticket, just sensible politics. Trump realised that actually apparently doesn’t matter at all to the evangelical crowd and picked someone with a different profile this time around.
Literally the only difference is Trump didn’t say what he was going to do in advance. If he had, I assume we’d be having the same ‘Christian DEI hire’ conversation aye?
|
On June 05 2025 09:59 Sermokala wrote:
Its only funny if you think having diversity is a bad thing, and think that you can't find equally qualified people from different backgrounds, whos different background to the current bench is an advantage to the bench as a whole to have.
Like do you legitimately not think what Biden did saying he wanted a black woman in the supreme court and he's going to add one is a good thing for the Supreme Court or for people to want? The perception is that the only reason why you cling so hard to this is that what he did was a bad thing or what democrats do when they say and promote diversity is also a bad thing. Republicans could do it and have the same reaction from the left but they don't because republicans don't do it, or they don't believe the reasons behind them doing it. See the conservatives in England electing a black woman to be their new leader while they go through their worst period in a long long time.
Is this a case of you not understanding the why of liberals do this or you understand why they're doing it and think its a bad thing? Repeating "man its weird that people act differently when different things happen" isn't coherent or cohesive.
Imo, this is the correct framing and approach to the "iTs DeI" types. Its like DEI is ceded as bad, when really its just getting more diverse perspectives and most positions arent capable of being perfectly rated on some sort of numerical scale where one candidate has more points than every other in a clear quantifiable way.
Bitching about DEI is dumb as hell, and the fundamental opposition is from racists and the general opposition to it has bled out from that through to dumb people.
|
On June 05 2025 09:59 Sermokala wrote:
Its only funny if you think having diversity is a bad thing, and think that you can't find equally qualified people from different backgrounds, whos different background to the current bench is an advantage to the bench as a whole to have.
Like do you legitimately not think what Biden did saying he wanted a black woman in the supreme court and he's going to add one is a good thing for the Supreme Court or for people to want? The perception is that the only reason why you cling so hard to this is that what he did was a bad thing or what democrats do when they say and promote diversity is also a bad thing. Republicans could do it and have the same reaction from the left but they don't because republicans don't do it, or they don't believe the reasons behind them doing it. See the conservatives in England electing a black woman to be their new leader while they go through their worst period in a long long time.
Is this a case of you not understanding the why of liberals do this or you understand why they're doing it and think its a bad thing? Repeating "man its weird that people act differently when different things happen" isn't coherent or cohesive.
It's not an absolutely good thing or absolutely bad thing. The idea that anyone that adds diversity must be an unqualified dumpster fire is the strawman that is frequently parroted here. If you want to add a woman to your company to better market to women it can be good. If you want to add jews to your NBA team to have more diversity in your team it can be bad.
Imagine a hypothetical where a President chooses a running mate based partly on their race and sex in order to balance out the ticket. Then imagine for whatever reason the President has to drop out of the next election and because it's too late in the cycle that VP gets foisted up as the alternate candidate. Imagine she ends up having no charisma, no backbone, and no answers and speaks in word salads when she doesn't even have the excuse of being geriatric to fall back on. Imagine she does so poorly she ends up losing to one of the most despised people in the world.
Now this may seem like a far-fetched hypothetical but if you use your imagination maybe you can understand why people think their are valid criticisms of DEI and selecting people partly for their race and gender might not be the best play.
|
On June 05 2025 10:05 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 09:38 Introvert wrote:
With Democrats you are allowed to openly insist on picking people for their race and gender. But, you are not allowed to suggest any particular individual was selected on that basis because it would be bigoted. Convenient. That is a dumb and lazy way to argue. First I am not a democrat. Next you mixing my argument with another persons argument does not make mine or theirs wrong. Or even combining two separate arguments. I guess this is your way of saying you do not have an actual reason on why you have no problem with picking for age, even when openly stated. Competency is not actually what upsets you is it. My main point is that no one knows exactly why Biden picked who he did for SOCTUS. That you think it is 100% because of her race and gender with no pause that she might have been the best is your issue not mine. Next that you think VPs are picked on competence alone is stupid, and you know this if you take the time to really think about it. Hell the only thing that makes a VP competent is how many votes they pull for you. Like your really think Trump either time was like, hmmm who would be the best guy to run the country if I die. Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 09:41 BlackJack wrote:On June 05 2025 09:38 Introvert wrote:
With Democrats you are allowed to openly insist on picking people for their race and gender. But, you are not allowed to suggest any particular individual was selected on that basis because it would be bigoted. Convenient. Funny how that works Great tap out! See you again in a short time when you bring up one of your same arguments for the millionith time. It is strange how most of your posts are about how dumb the all libs are and your second most common post is about how others should not paint everyone with the same brush. Self awareness is not really your thing.
1) I'm not really making an argument so much as I'm making an observation. It's the implication that pointing these things out or complaining about them is a sign of prejudice. You can't defend DEI/affirmative action and then complain when people point it out. BlackJack makes a good point by bringing up the obvious example of how that can backfire, we just saw it last election. It wasn't just that only Harris could use the war chest, it was that everyone was too scared to challenge her. See also: Claudine Gay, former president of Harvard (briefly).
2) I can readily acknowledge that Vice Presidents, and even Supreme Court justices, are not picked merely for their competence, but I also don't have to pretend that it's not happening. Pence was both a reasonable replacement should something have happened to Trump, and he was to shore up Trump's support with Evangelicals. That being said, I'm not sure how you can object to JD Vance being VP when Barack Obama became *president* with no relevant experience at all. Kamala's problem was that she wasn't a good pick even by meritorious standards (her record in CA, both electorally and as AG were less than stellar), and she proved it. She really was picked because the affirmative action-like standard Biden had set for himself left him with no good options. Sometimes it doesn't matter in the moment (e.g. Joe Biden who was picked basically because he was a white guy who had been around a long time and supposedly had foreign policy experience from being on the foreign relations committee). But sometimes it actually has consequences (e.g. Kamala). We haven't had a competent but boring president since Coolidge.
It's like the joke about how "generic Democrat" wins every poll, there is no such thing. Everyone has tradeoffs, I just prefer to start from the other end of the selection process.
|
On June 05 2025 12:43 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 09:59 Sermokala wrote:
Its only funny if you think having diversity is a bad thing, and think that you can't find equally qualified people from different backgrounds, whos different background to the current bench is an advantage to the bench as a whole to have.
Like do you legitimately not think what Biden did saying he wanted a black woman in the supreme court and he's going to add one is a good thing for the Supreme Court or for people to want? The perception is that the only reason why you cling so hard to this is that what he did was a bad thing or what democrats do when they say and promote diversity is also a bad thing. Republicans could do it and have the same reaction from the left but they don't because republicans don't do it, or they don't believe the reasons behind them doing it. See the conservatives in England electing a black woman to be their new leader while they go through their worst period in a long long time.
Is this a case of you not understanding the why of liberals do this or you understand why they're doing it and think its a bad thing? Repeating "man its weird that people act differently when different things happen" isn't coherent or cohesive. It's not an absolutely good thing or absolutely bad thing. The idea that anyone that adds diversity must be an unqualified dumpster fire is the strawman that is frequently parroted here. If you want to add a woman to your company to better market to women it can be good. If you want to add jews to your NBA team to have more diversity in your team it can be bad. Imagine a hypothetical where a President chooses a running mate based partly on their race and sex in order to balance out the ticket. Then imagine for whatever reason the President has to drop out of the next election and because it's too late in the cycle that VP gets foisted up as the alternate candidate. Imagine she ends up having no charisma, no backbone, and no answers and speaks in word salads when she doesn't even have the excuse of being geriatric to fall back on. Imagine she does so poorly she ends up losing to one of the most despised people in the world. Now this may seem like a far-fetched hypothetical but if you use your imagination maybe you can understand why people think their are valid criticisms of DEI and selecting people partly for their race and gender might not be the best play.
Again repeating "man its werid that people act differently when different things happen", can you answer the post or do you not understand what the words in my post mean? Are you incapable of taking a stand on anything or what is this?
|
On June 05 2025 13:01 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 10:05 Billyboy wrote:On June 05 2025 09:38 Introvert wrote:
With Democrats you are allowed to openly insist on picking people for their race and gender. But, you are not allowed to suggest any particular individual was selected on that basis because it would be bigoted. Convenient. That is a dumb and lazy way to argue. First I am not a democrat. Next you mixing my argument with another persons argument does not make mine or theirs wrong. Or even combining two separate arguments. I guess this is your way of saying you do not have an actual reason on why you have no problem with picking for age, even when openly stated. Competency is not actually what upsets you is it. My main point is that no one knows exactly why Biden picked who he did for SOCTUS. That you think it is 100% because of her race and gender with no pause that she might have been the best is your issue not mine. Next that you think VPs are picked on competence alone is stupid, and you know this if you take the time to really think about it. Hell the only thing that makes a VP competent is how many votes they pull for you. Like your really think Trump either time was like, hmmm who would be the best guy to run the country if I die. On June 05 2025 09:41 BlackJack wrote:On June 05 2025 09:38 Introvert wrote:
With Democrats you are allowed to openly insist on picking people for their race and gender. But, you are not allowed to suggest any particular individual was selected on that basis because it would be bigoted. Convenient. Funny how that works Great tap out! See you again in a short time when you bring up one of your same arguments for the millionith time. It is strange how most of your posts are about how dumb the all libs are and your second most common post is about how others should not paint everyone with the same brush. Self awareness is not really your thing. 1) I'm not really making an argument so much as I'm making an observation. It's the implication that pointing these things out or complaining about them is a sign of prejudice. You can't defend DEI/affirmative action and then complain when people point it out. BlackJack makes a good point by bringing up the obvious example of how that can backfire, we just saw it last election. It wasn't just that only Harris could use the war chest, it was that everyone was too scared to challenge her. See also: Claudine Gay, former president of Harvard (briefly). 2) I can readily acknowledge that Vice Presidents, and even Supreme Court justices, are not picked merely for their competence, but I also don't have to pretend that it's not happening. Pence was both a reasonable replacement should something have happened to Trump, and he was to shore up Trump's support with Evangelicals. That being said, I'm not sure how you can object to JD Vance being VP when Barack Obama became *president* with no relevant experience at all. Kamala's problem was that she wasn't a good pick even by meritorious standards (her record in CA, both electorally and as AG were less than stellar), and she proved it. She really was picked because the affirmative action-like standard Biden had set for himself left him with no good options. Sometimes it doesn't matter in the moment (e.g. Joe Biden who was picked basically because he was a white guy who had been around a long time and supposedly had foreign policy experience from being on the foreign relations committee). But sometimes it actually has consequences (e.g. Kamala). We haven't had a competent but boring president since Coolidge. It's like the joke about how "generic Democrat" wins every poll, there is no such thing. Everyone has tradeoffs, I just prefer to start from the other end of the selection process.
Are you making the observation because you don't understand why they're making the decision and why people are reacting differently to this situation vs that situation? Its not a sign of prejudice its a sign of ignorance to not understand people when they react differently to different situations. You can't try to slight Kamala being picked because of "Affirmative action like standard" right after describing the affirmative action basis that Pence was picked. Saying a bunch of people have no relevant experience to being president doesn't mean anything, how many people alive do you think have relevant experience to being president?
Making judgements with the powers of hindsight doesn't make you look smart or cool. Trying to read the mind of biden when he was making a decision is werid but what the fuck does "I prefer to start from the other end of the selection process" even mean to you? Thats not how any of this works or has ever worked. You don't get to start at the end of a process and work your way back to the start. You're acting delusional if you think that the argument to make is to say "generic democrat doesn't exist", yeah we know everyone knows thats why they call it "Generic democrat". People not understanding the concept isn't a joke its just ignorance. do you think ignorance is funny? Did someone lie to you and tell you that "generic democrat" was suppose to be an actual person name? What are we doing here just talk about why do you don't like diversity equality or inclusion.
|
The whataboutism is on shaky ground here. Pence was not picked on an affirmative action basis, because of historical underrepresentation due to legal and societal oppression of white male Christian social conservatives in the Republican Party, nor a need to finally have the first white male VP in history. Nor did Trump announce that for the world to know. If you distill and abstract "affirmative action" to refer to "doing something for a reason" and therefore equivocate everything everyone does ever, something has gone wrong.
|
The Republican party, not the Democrat party, is the one that picks candidates based on preferred race and gender. BlackJack knows that, he just doesn't want to admit it.
|
On June 05 2025 14:02 Magic Powers wrote:
The Republican party, not the Democrat party, is the one that picks candidates based on preferred race and gender. BlackJack knows that, he just doesn't want to admit it.
Yeah, but they don't say that that is the reason they pick those candidates.
Of course they only pick white men, but they don't say that the reason is that those people are white men. They simply believe that those white men are the most qualified for the job. The fact that they are all white men is mere coincidence.
|
On June 05 2025 13:30 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 13:01 Introvert wrote:On June 05 2025 10:05 Billyboy wrote:On June 05 2025 09:38 Introvert wrote:
With Democrats you are allowed to openly insist on picking people for their race and gender. But, you are not allowed to suggest any particular individual was selected on that basis because it would be bigoted. Convenient. That is a dumb and lazy way to argue. First I am not a democrat. Next you mixing my argument with another persons argument does not make mine or theirs wrong. Or even combining two separate arguments. I guess this is your way of saying you do not have an actual reason on why you have no problem with picking for age, even when openly stated. Competency is not actually what upsets you is it. My main point is that no one knows exactly why Biden picked who he did for SOCTUS. That you think it is 100% because of her race and gender with no pause that she might have been the best is your issue not mine. Next that you think VPs are picked on competence alone is stupid, and you know this if you take the time to really think about it. Hell the only thing that makes a VP competent is how many votes they pull for you. Like your really think Trump either time was like, hmmm who would be the best guy to run the country if I die. On June 05 2025 09:41 BlackJack wrote:On June 05 2025 09:38 Introvert wrote:
With Democrats you are allowed to openly insist on picking people for their race and gender. But, you are not allowed to suggest any particular individual was selected on that basis because it would be bigoted. Convenient. Funny how that works Great tap out! See you again in a short time when you bring up one of your same arguments for the millionith time. It is strange how most of your posts are about how dumb the all libs are and your second most common post is about how others should not paint everyone with the same brush. Self awareness is not really your thing. 1) I'm not really making an argument so much as I'm making an observation. It's the implication that pointing these things out or complaining about them is a sign of prejudice. You can't defend DEI/affirmative action and then complain when people point it out. BlackJack makes a good point by bringing up the obvious example of how that can backfire, we just saw it last election. It wasn't just that only Harris could use the war chest, it was that everyone was too scared to challenge her. See also: Claudine Gay, former president of Harvard (briefly). 2) I can readily acknowledge that Vice Presidents, and even Supreme Court justices, are not picked merely for their competence, but I also don't have to pretend that it's not happening. Pence was both a reasonable replacement should something have happened to Trump, and he was to shore up Trump's support with Evangelicals. That being said, I'm not sure how you can object to JD Vance being VP when Barack Obama became *president* with no relevant experience at all. Kamala's problem was that she wasn't a good pick even by meritorious standards (her record in CA, both electorally and as AG were less than stellar), and she proved it. She really was picked because the affirmative action-like standard Biden had set for himself left him with no good options. Sometimes it doesn't matter in the moment (e.g. Joe Biden who was picked basically because he was a white guy who had been around a long time and supposedly had foreign policy experience from being on the foreign relations committee). But sometimes it actually has consequences (e.g. Kamala). We haven't had a competent but boring president since Coolidge. It's like the joke about how "generic Democrat" wins every poll, there is no such thing. Everyone has tradeoffs, I just prefer to start from the other end of the selection process. Are you making the observation because you don't understand why they're making the decision and why people are reacting differently to this situation vs that situation? Its not a sign of prejudice its a sign of ignorance to not understand people when they react differently to different situations. You can't try to slight Kamala being picked because of "Affirmative action like standard" right after describing the affirmative action basis that Pence was picked. Saying a bunch of people have no relevant experience to being president doesn't mean anything, how many people alive do you think have relevant experience to being president? Making judgements with the powers of hindsight doesn't make you look smart or cool. Trying to read the mind of biden when he was making a decision is werid but what the fuck does "I prefer to start from the other end of the selection process" even mean to you? Thats not how any of this works or has ever worked. You don't get to start at the end of a process and work your way back to the start. You're acting delusional if you think that the argument to make is to say "generic democrat doesn't exist", yeah we know everyone knows thats why they call it "Generic democrat". People not understanding the concept isn't a joke its just ignorance. do you think ignorance is funny? Did someone lie to you and tell you that "generic democrat" was suppose to be an actual person name? What are we doing here just talk about why do you don't like diversity equality or inclusion.
I already said it today, Kamala had a record after over a decade in elected office. There is no hindsight required here. She flamed out in 2020 for a reason. Biden had bad, affirmative action like criteria. It needed to be a black woman and the best he could do was Harris. Many knew that she was not a good pick at the time. That is, as BlackJack pointed out an (imo) undeniable downside of having DEI like criteria. I also gave thr example of Claudine Gay.
By starting from the other side I mean starting with "qualified" (whatever that means specifically) and then finding someone who has other traits you might like.
Don't even try to argue about experience for the presidency. Obviously being a governor is better experience than being a backbencher in the House. It doesn't mean they can't be a good president, but really what you said is just silly, as is much of what you seem to be mad about.
1) Yes, it's true that people are picked for more reasons than just their competency.
2) Picking people depsite their incompetence is probably a bad move that could backfire.
|
On June 05 2025 14:16 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 05 2025 14:02 Magic Powers wrote:
The Republican party, not the Democrat party, is the one that picks candidates based on preferred race and gender. BlackJack knows that, he just doesn't want to admit it. Yeah, but they don't say that that is the reason they pick those candidates. Of course they only pick white men, but they don't say that the reason is that those people are white men. They simply believe that those white men are the most qualified for the job. The fact that they are all white men is mere coincidence.
The Republican party is racist and sexist, and because of that fact they pick in a biased fashion. If you mean that by coincidence then I agree.
The Democrat party is actively anti-racist and anti-sexist, and because of that fact they pick in an unbiased fashion. People such as BJ can't wrap their heads around that concept, because he looks at the signalling and not the outcome. The outcome is that the Democrat party is almost equitable regarding race and gender. BJ hears the signalling and says "that's kinda racist".
My job is to point out that BJ spends 1 hour criticizing Democrats for their perceived racism (?) and sexism (?) while I can't remember the last time he acknowledged the provable racism (!) and sexism (!) of the Republican party.
The fact that BJ has his priorities flipped is the first thing I've noticed, but to this day people are playing defense against BJ instead of attacking his backwards priorities. They're playing the game all wrong.
|
The conversation started when someone accused GreenHorizons of buying into Trump's propaganda of Kamala being a "DEI hire" for saying she was a shitty candidate that failed upwards. Let's not lose the plot that GH is the real racist here.
|
On June 05 2025 15:56 BlackJack wrote:
The conversation started when someone accused GreenHorizons of buying into Trump's propaganda of Kamala being a "DEI hire" for saying she was a shitty candidate that failed upwards. Let's not lose the plot that GH is the real racist here.
No, you don't get to turn this back on GH. He has one instance of this, you've done this countless times.
We can criticize GH, you on the other hand have some self-reflection to do. Start criticizing the Republican party dammit. You're always chastizing the Democrat party because they're not literally perfect angels. It's time you start attacking the real culprit of racism and sexism in America instead of deflecting towards the political party that is trying to actually do something about it. Whether or not they always succeed or they can make further improvements are different questions. At least they try, and you're wrong for chastising them for trying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
