|
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 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.
I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message. Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that. I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them. In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably.
Except it's as simple as joining the reality the rest of us are living in to realize that her diversity is a large reason she was hired. It's an odd insistence from people on the left that we should give preferential treatment for people based on their sex and race when it comes to hiring but we're never allowed to mention it. Although maybe not that odd since I consider self-censoring factual things to be connected to the ideology. If you have to pretend like she wasn't chosen in large part because of her race/sex to be a good person then consider me a bad person, please.
Also it's you and DPB that keep adding the modifieres "unqualified" or "underqualified." Perhaps this has more to do with projection of some suppressed prejudices than it has anything to do with what I've said.
I said she was a terrible candidate. This has less to do with her genitalia and melanin content and a lot more to do with her inability to answer a simple question without giving a nonsensical word salad answer.
+ Show Spoiler +Also let me pre-empt you by saying Trumps answers aren't any better. Hah!
|
On October 30 2024 09:16 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.
I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message. Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that. I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them. In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably. That is kind of my point though, either she blows them away by not being a underqualified DIE hire, which is possible by being competent. Or she does not and they don't vote for her anyway. Basically a chance to gain votes with very little chance of losing them.
This is the equivalent of saying someone should just all-in with a shit hand and hope for the best, with "Well you would have lost anyways" prepared as an excuse. I'm glad they're playing the game with a little more care than that, especially after they already tried that with Biden and lost.
|
On October 30 2024 09:27 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 09:16 Billyboy wrote:On October 30 2024 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.
I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message. Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that. I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them. In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably. That is kind of my point though, either she blows them away by not being a underqualified DIE hire, which is possible by being competent. Or she does not and they don't vote for her anyway. Basically a chance to gain votes with very little chance of losing them. This is the equivalent of saying someone should just all-in with a shit hand and hope for the best, with "Well you would have lost anyways" prepared as an excuse. I'm glad they're playing the game with a little more care than that, especially after they already tried that with Biden and lost.
Not at all, first I reject your assumption that she will most likely do bad. I think she would do well especially compared to expectations that the Rogan fans bubble has set. If their going to as you said write her off no matter what, they are unchanged so it is not a risk.
Like take BlackJack, he has stated he is not voting for either, if Harris goes on Rogan he probably listens. Sure there is a chance she does exactly what he accepts and he still doesn't vote for Harris. But what if she goes on and is really good? Or even kind of good? Maybe then he goes and throws her his vote. Its a low floor high ceiling kind of play for her.
I don't think anyone currently voting Harris is going to be not voting for her anymore after Rogan.
|
On October 30 2024 09:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.
I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message. Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that. I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them. In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably. Except it's as simple as joining the reality the rest of us are living in to realize that her diversity is a large reason she was hired. It's an odd insistence from people on the left that we should give preferential treatment for people based on their sex and race when it comes to hiring but we're never allowed to mention it. Although maybe not that odd since I consider self-censoring factual things to be connected to the ideology. If you have to pretend like she wasn't chosen in large part because of her race/sex to be a good person then consider me a bad person, please. Also it's you and DPB that keep adding the modifieres "unqualified" or "underqualified." Perhaps this has more to do with projection of some suppressed prejudices than it has anything to do with what I've said.I said she was a terrible candidate. This has less to do with her genitalia and melanin content and a lot more to do with her inability to answer a simple question without giving a nonsensical word salad answer. + Show Spoiler +Also let me pre-empt you by saying Trumps answers aren't any better. Hah!
Dude, just own it:
On October 28 2024 13:39 BlackJack wrote:
It shouldn’t come as a surprise that someone chosen for their sex and race and not their merit is turning out to be a terrible candidate.
You've made comments like this over and over and over again. You keep saying that Harris isn't qualified and that she was only selected as an unqualified DEI candidate. You've brought this up multiple times. It seems like every week you just feel like reminding everyone that you think Harris is nothing more than a black woman. You made the same comments about SCJ Ketanji Brown Jackson too. And then you try to play a semantics game to backpedal your take when you get ganged up on.
On October 30 2024 03:31 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +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.
There are plenty of instances where BlackJack is called out by multiple people for very good reasons. See above.
|
Also I agree with you Fleetfeet that Kamala is in an unenviable position. The unenviable position is trying to toe the line of the moderates in her party as well as the fringe of her party. She's juggling 2 different realities in her head at all times. Her administration is great on the climate and also we're drilling more oil now than we ever have. We have to support our ally Israel and also Israel's military actions on the Palestinians are unjustified. Our executive actions helped reduce illegal crossings at the border and also there is no crisis at the border and there's no reason we needed to do those executive actions sooner. We don't want to see abortions in the 3rd term but also there should be no restrictions on abortions. etc.
The reason all of her responses look like nonsensical word salad non-answers is she's too busy thinking of the 10,000 things she's not supposed to say instead of thinking about what she should say. It's probably not an easy position to be in.
|
On October 30 2024 09:22 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.
I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message. Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that. I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them. In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably. Except it's as simple as joining the reality the rest of us are living in to realize that her diversity is a large reason she was hired. It's an odd insistence from people on the left that we should give preferential treatment for people based on their sex and race when it comes to hiring but we're never allowed to mention it. Although maybe not that odd since I consider self-censoring factual things to be connected to the ideology. If you have to pretend like she wasn't chosen in large part because of her race/sex to be a good person then consider me a bad person, please. Also it's you and DPB that keep adding the modifieres "unqualified" or "underqualified." Perhaps this has more to do with projection of some suppressed prejudices than it has anything to do with what I've said. I said she was a terrible candidate. This has less to do with her genitalia and melanin content and a lot more to do with her inability to answer a simple question without giving a nonsensical word salad answer. + Show Spoiler +Also let me pre-empt you by saying Trumps answers aren't any better. Hah!
Eh, you won't find me trying to carefully draw the line between where the sexism/racism stops and genuine, valid concerns begin. Sexism and racism are genuine issues that exist and impact how people make decisions. When you raise 'DEI' it is done to disqualify someone as a legitimate candidate. I get where that's coming from, but I also understand why nobody is gonna be like "Yeah, you're right."
|
On September 13 2024 08:29 BlackJack wrote:
I think we've been around this circle a few times already
Biden: I'm going to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS
People: Hey you shouldn't appoint someone based on the color of their skin
You: Why are you objecting to Biden's decision to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS? You must have an issue with black women or think they are unqualified
See the problem is you think the objection to forming policy around skin color is in itself making a judgement on skin color.
On July 27 2024 05:50 BlackJack wrote:
You made the incorrect assumption that I disagreed with hiring on the basis of race because it meant an unqualified person would be hired. When in reality I disagree with hiring on the basis of race, full stop. Period.
The fact that Kentaji Brown Jackson is qualified for her position is added context but it's completely irrelevant. You seem to think that people only disagree with hiring people for their skin color because they believe it will lead to less qualified people being hired. I'm letting you know that some people disagree with it because it's discriminatory and racist.
|
On October 30 2024 09:47 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On October 30 2024 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.
I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message. Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that. I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them. In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably. Except it's as simple as joining the reality the rest of us are living in to realize that her diversity is a large reason she was hired. It's an odd insistence from people on the left that we should give preferential treatment for people based on their sex and race when it comes to hiring but we're never allowed to mention it. Although maybe not that odd since I consider self-censoring factual things to be connected to the ideology. If you have to pretend like she wasn't chosen in large part because of her race/sex to be a good person then consider me a bad person, please. Also it's you and DPB that keep adding the modifieres "unqualified" or "underqualified." Perhaps this has more to do with projection of some suppressed prejudices than it has anything to do with what I've said. I said she was a terrible candidate. This has less to do with her genitalia and melanin content and a lot more to do with her inability to answer a simple question without giving a nonsensical word salad answer. + Show Spoiler +Also let me pre-empt you by saying Trumps answers aren't any better. Hah! Eh, you won't find me trying to carefully draw the line between where the sexism/racism stops and genuine, valid concerns begin. Sexism and racism are genuine issues that exist and impact how people make decisions. When you raise 'DEI' it is done to disqualify someone as a legitimate candidate. I get where that's coming from, but I also understand why nobody is gonna be like "Yeah, you're right."
If you disagree with DEI you're a racist.
If you disagree with women having penises you're a transphobe.
If you disagree with our policy on the border you're a xenophobe.
If you disagree on abortion you're a sexist.
 People are getting bored of this.
|
On October 30 2024 09:47 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On October 30 2024 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.
I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message. Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that. I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them. In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably. Except it's as simple as joining the reality the rest of us are living in to realize that her diversity is a large reason she was hired. It's an odd insistence from people on the left that we should give preferential treatment for people based on their sex and race when it comes to hiring but we're never allowed to mention it. Although maybe not that odd since I consider self-censoring factual things to be connected to the ideology. If you have to pretend like she wasn't chosen in large part because of her race/sex to be a good person then consider me a bad person, please. Also it's you and DPB that keep adding the modifieres "unqualified" or "underqualified." Perhaps this has more to do with projection of some suppressed prejudices than it has anything to do with what I've said. I said she was a terrible candidate. This has less to do with her genitalia and melanin content and a lot more to do with her inability to answer a simple question without giving a nonsensical word salad answer. + Show Spoiler +Also let me pre-empt you by saying Trumps answers aren't any better. Hah! Eh, you won't find me trying to carefully draw the line between where the sexism/racism stops and genuine, valid concerns begin. Sexism and racism are genuine issues that exist and impact how people make decisions. When you raise 'DEI' it is done to disqualify someone as a legitimate candidate. I get where that's coming from, but I also understand why nobody is gonna be like "Yeah, you're right."
And especially when conservatives have co-opted the academic term "DEI" to specifically talk about someone who is unqualified and only chosen for their race and sex - which is what BlackJack had said. He's using the exact same language as Republicans, in the exact same way, and then he goes all Surprised Pikachu Face meme when he's called out for saying what he's saying. Sigh.
|
On October 30 2024 09:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 09:47 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On October 30 2024 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.
I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message. Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that. I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them. In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably. Except it's as simple as joining the reality the rest of us are living in to realize that her diversity is a large reason she was hired. It's an odd insistence from people on the left that we should give preferential treatment for people based on their sex and race when it comes to hiring but we're never allowed to mention it. Although maybe not that odd since I consider self-censoring factual things to be connected to the ideology. If you have to pretend like she wasn't chosen in large part because of her race/sex to be a good person then consider me a bad person, please. Also it's you and DPB that keep adding the modifieres "unqualified" or "underqualified." Perhaps this has more to do with projection of some suppressed prejudices than it has anything to do with what I've said. I said she was a terrible candidate. This has less to do with her genitalia and melanin content and a lot more to do with her inability to answer a simple question without giving a nonsensical word salad answer. + Show Spoiler +Also let me pre-empt you by saying Trumps answers aren't any better. Hah! Eh, you won't find me trying to carefully draw the line between where the sexism/racism stops and genuine, valid concerns begin. Sexism and racism are genuine issues that exist and impact how people make decisions. When you raise 'DEI' it is done to disqualify someone as a legitimate candidate. I get where that's coming from, but I also understand why nobody is gonna be like "Yeah, you're right." If you disagree with our policy on the border you're a xenophobe. People are getting bored of this.
The Republicans torpedoed the border bill they all supported after Trump asked them not to vote for it because he needed it as ammunition for the election btw. Seems like the border isn't a big issue for Republicans after all 
|
On October 30 2024 09:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 09:47 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On October 30 2024 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.
I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message. Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that. I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them. In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably. Except it's as simple as joining the reality the rest of us are living in to realize that her diversity is a large reason she was hired. It's an odd insistence from people on the left that we should give preferential treatment for people based on their sex and race when it comes to hiring but we're never allowed to mention it. Although maybe not that odd since I consider self-censoring factual things to be connected to the ideology. If you have to pretend like she wasn't chosen in large part because of her race/sex to be a good person then consider me a bad person, please. Also it's you and DPB that keep adding the modifieres "unqualified" or "underqualified." Perhaps this has more to do with projection of some suppressed prejudices than it has anything to do with what I've said. I said she was a terrible candidate. This has less to do with her genitalia and melanin content and a lot more to do with her inability to answer a simple question without giving a nonsensical word salad answer. + Show Spoiler +Also let me pre-empt you by saying Trumps answers aren't any better. Hah! Eh, you won't find me trying to carefully draw the line between where the sexism/racism stops and genuine, valid concerns begin. Sexism and racism are genuine issues that exist and impact how people make decisions. When you raise 'DEI' it is done to disqualify someone as a legitimate candidate. I get where that's coming from, but I also understand why nobody is gonna be like "Yeah, you're right." And especially when conservatives have co-opted the academic term "DEI" to specifically talk about someone who is unqualified and only chosen for their race and sex - which is what BlackJack had said. He's using the exact same language as Republicans, in the exact same way, and then he goes all Surprised Pikachu Face meme when he's called out for saying what he's saying. Sigh.
Um it's you and Fleetfeet that keep bringing up "DEI." I said she was chosen to balance the ticket because of her sex and race. I also said Mike Pence was chosen to balance the ticket for evangelicals.
Hilariously, you and Fleetfeet keep throwing out "DEI Hire" and now you're insisting I'm using that phrase as a dog whistle when I'm not even using it. In fact Biden is the one that referred to Kamala as a beneficiary of DEI. Yikes.
|
On October 30 2024 09:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 09:47 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On October 30 2024 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.
I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message. Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that. I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them. In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably. Except it's as simple as joining the reality the rest of us are living in to realize that her diversity is a large reason she was hired. It's an odd insistence from people on the left that we should give preferential treatment for people based on their sex and race when it comes to hiring but we're never allowed to mention it. Although maybe not that odd since I consider self-censoring factual things to be connected to the ideology. If you have to pretend like she wasn't chosen in large part because of her race/sex to be a good person then consider me a bad person, please. Also it's you and DPB that keep adding the modifieres "unqualified" or "underqualified." Perhaps this has more to do with projection of some suppressed prejudices than it has anything to do with what I've said. I said she was a terrible candidate. This has less to do with her genitalia and melanin content and a lot more to do with her inability to answer a simple question without giving a nonsensical word salad answer. + Show Spoiler +Also let me pre-empt you by saying Trumps answers aren't any better. Hah! Eh, you won't find me trying to carefully draw the line between where the sexism/racism stops and genuine, valid concerns begin. Sexism and racism are genuine issues that exist and impact how people make decisions. When you raise 'DEI' it is done to disqualify someone as a legitimate candidate. I get where that's coming from, but I also understand why nobody is gonna be like "Yeah, you're right." If you disagree with DEI you're a racist. If you disagree with women having penises you're a transphobe. If you disagree with our policy on the border you're a xenophobe. If you disagree on abortion you're a sexist. People are getting bored of this.
If a black woman is hired its DEI.
Tell me more about my boredom.
I don't see how you can discount racism, sexism, or xenophobia as part of the answer, yet insist that the primary reason Kamala is anything is DEI. Racism, sexism and xenophobia exist. Flatly.
-e- DEI use. Fair point. I shorthanded it in because it's effectively the argument you're making, and I'm low on time atm.
|
On October 30 2024 09:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 09:47 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On October 30 2024 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.
I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message. Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that. I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them. In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably. Except it's as simple as joining the reality the rest of us are living in to realize that her diversity is a large reason she was hired. It's an odd insistence from people on the left that we should give preferential treatment for people based on their sex and race when it comes to hiring but we're never allowed to mention it. Although maybe not that odd since I consider self-censoring factual things to be connected to the ideology. If you have to pretend like she wasn't chosen in large part because of her race/sex to be a good person then consider me a bad person, please. Also it's you and DPB that keep adding the modifieres "unqualified" or "underqualified." Perhaps this has more to do with projection of some suppressed prejudices than it has anything to do with what I've said. I said she was a terrible candidate. This has less to do with her genitalia and melanin content and a lot more to do with her inability to answer a simple question without giving a nonsensical word salad answer. + Show Spoiler +Also let me pre-empt you by saying Trumps answers aren't any better. Hah! Eh, you won't find me trying to carefully draw the line between where the sexism/racism stops and genuine, valid concerns begin. Sexism and racism are genuine issues that exist and impact how people make decisions. When you raise 'DEI' it is done to disqualify someone as a legitimate candidate. I get where that's coming from, but I also understand why nobody is gonna be like "Yeah, you're right." If you disagree with DEI you're a racist.If you disagree with women having penises you're a transphobe. If you disagree with our policy on the border you're a xenophobe. If you disagree on abortion you're a sexist. People are getting bored of this.
Out of all the times you and Republicans have trivialized Ketanji Brown Jackson and Kamala Harris as "DEI hires", claiming that they were chosen merely for their race and sex and not due to their qualifications, very rarely has the intent been to have a good-faith discussion on the actual policies and philosophies behind real DEI. And there's no reason to think you want to start now, because people are getting bored of you repeating these statements.
On October 30 2024 10:02 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 09:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 09:47 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On October 30 2024 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.
I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message. Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that. I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them. In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably. Except it's as simple as joining the reality the rest of us are living in to realize that her diversity is a large reason she was hired. It's an odd insistence from people on the left that we should give preferential treatment for people based on their sex and race when it comes to hiring but we're never allowed to mention it. Although maybe not that odd since I consider self-censoring factual things to be connected to the ideology. If you have to pretend like she wasn't chosen in large part because of her race/sex to be a good person then consider me a bad person, please. Also it's you and DPB that keep adding the modifieres "unqualified" or "underqualified." Perhaps this has more to do with projection of some suppressed prejudices than it has anything to do with what I've said. I said she was a terrible candidate. This has less to do with her genitalia and melanin content and a lot more to do with her inability to answer a simple question without giving a nonsensical word salad answer. + Show Spoiler +Also let me pre-empt you by saying Trumps answers aren't any better. Hah! Eh, you won't find me trying to carefully draw the line between where the sexism/racism stops and genuine, valid concerns begin. Sexism and racism are genuine issues that exist and impact how people make decisions. When you raise 'DEI' it is done to disqualify someone as a legitimate candidate. I get where that's coming from, but I also understand why nobody is gonna be like "Yeah, you're right." And especially when conservatives have co-opted the academic term "DEI" to specifically talk about someone who is unqualified and only chosen for their race and sex - which is what BlackJack had said. He's using the exact same language as Republicans, in the exact same way, and then he goes all Surprised Pikachu Face meme when he's called out for saying what he's saying. Sigh. Um it's you and Fleetfeet that keep bringing up "DEI."
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 heard that the attempted stealing of ballot boxes has already happened two or three other times as well. Anyone messing with the election process needs to be properly prosecuted.
|
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.
|
On October 30 2024 12:16 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +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, Show nested quote +“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.
The reason that quote of mine uses quotation marks is because it was an ongoing discussion where Joe Biden said Kamala Harris was a testament to the successes of DEI. So literally the person that hired her credited DEI for her hiring.
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.
|
On October 30 2024 09:52 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 09:47 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 09:22 BlackJack wrote:On October 30 2024 09:09 Fleetfeet wrote:On October 30 2024 08:55 Billyboy wrote:
I think the opposite, most of the Rogan listeners have basically only heard of Harris from the unflattering meme's. Many are BlackJack like and are not hardcore MAGAs (there are those too of course). If she exceeds their likely very low bar, or even looks sensible and fun it could be a homerun.
I don't think it is a good idea to miss a 3 hour talk that is going to millions. Take the swing and believe in yourself and your message. Like Blackjack, who expects Harris may be a diversity hire and underqualified and would happily interpret dissatisying responses as evidence toward that. I don't mean to represent BJ as a bad human, much less a uniqely bad one, but stigmas and preconceived notions exist, and the work you have to put in (or the quality you need to bring) to be sure you're dispelling those preconceived notions is magnitudes of effort beyond what you have to fuck up to confirm them. In the calculus, it is very much not worth the risk. Kamala's great, I hope she wins, but I don't see her (yet?) as having the Obama-level charisma it would take to get through a JRE podcast favorably. Except it's as simple as joining the reality the rest of us are living in to realize that her diversity is a large reason she was hired. It's an odd insistence from people on the left that we should give preferential treatment for people based on their sex and race when it comes to hiring but we're never allowed to mention it. Although maybe not that odd since I consider self-censoring factual things to be connected to the ideology. If you have to pretend like she wasn't chosen in large part because of her race/sex to be a good person then consider me a bad person, please. Also it's you and DPB that keep adding the modifieres "unqualified" or "underqualified." Perhaps this has more to do with projection of some suppressed prejudices than it has anything to do with what I've said. I said she was a terrible candidate. This has less to do with her genitalia and melanin content and a lot more to do with her inability to answer a simple question without giving a nonsensical word salad answer. + Show Spoiler +Also let me pre-empt you by saying Trumps answers aren't any better. Hah! Eh, you won't find me trying to carefully draw the line between where the sexism/racism stops and genuine, valid concerns begin. Sexism and racism are genuine issues that exist and impact how people make decisions. When you raise 'DEI' it is done to disqualify someone as a legitimate candidate. I get where that's coming from, but I also understand why nobody is gonna be like "Yeah, you're right." If you disagree with DEI you're a racist. If you disagree with women having penises you're a transphobe. If you disagree with our policy on the border you're a xenophobe. If you disagree on abortion you're a sexist. People are getting bored of this.
I feel like the piece that is missing here is that being a racist isn't special.
I don't think only republicans are racists, or that there's a level where you could say "Okay yeah this person is 'a racist'". I don't think that's particularly useful. What is useful is knowing and accepting that xenophobia is natural, racism is commonly derived from xenophobia, and xenophobia (like jealousy or other natural emotions) isn't necessarily desirable.
You're acting like I'm cracking back with "Well ya ur a racist" when in reality my point is that people crying about diversity, especially in the case of DEI where it's, as best I understand, corrective action against systemic sexism and racism, might have something to do with the objecting peoples' comfort in the status quo where all the billionaires and presidents are white dudes. Not "You're a racist", it's "Racism and sexism very likely have something to do with this, especially given our countries histories with racism and sexism"
With that as context, I would say:
If you disagree with DEI, perhaps you've got some thinking to do about your feelings on sex and race.
If you disagree with women having penises, I'm only confused on your behalf.
If you disagree with US policy on the border it's worth considering your own xenophobia, especially in cases where you're willing to believe "They're eating the cats" because that just -feels like something they would do-
If you disagree on abortion, that's fine. Removing bodily autonomy from women is pretty fucked, though.
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!
|
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.
Sorry DarkPlasmaBall but there is no universe where Kamala's sex and race are not relevant to her candidacy.
She was VP before she got the Presidential nomination. Sure no one can argue the sitting Vice President isn't qualified to run for President especially since the only legal qualifications a person needs to have to be nominated in the United States is to be a natural born citizen over the age of 35.
But why was she picked for VP? She was a relatively unknown barely in her first year Senator from California. Why was she nominated and chosen for that position over all of the other politicians with WAY better resumes than hers?
Because she is a young black woman and having her next to Joe Biden on the ticket in 2020 makes the ticket look a LOT better to moderates and liberals and makes the ticket contrast with Donald Trump's ticket of 2 old white guys.
That's the actual reality here. To say otherwise is simply lying. The Democrats made the fact that the Republicans were running 2 old white guys a talking point in their campaign and it made a measurable impact on voter turnout from younger voters and minorities, which you can fact check by looking at the articles that were printed on the topic before and after the 2020 election.
She was chosen as Vice President for the optics her combo of race and gender had on the presidential ticket. She was nominated to make Joe Biden look better.
Now she's going to win the Presidency because of it.
If anyone is gaslighting here trying to pretend like Kamala's race or gender is unimportant in why she is being elected it's you. You can't erase the history just because you don't like what the opposition is doing with it.
I don't agree with everything or even most of what BlackJack says in this thread, but you are completely out of line for attacking him as a racist for pointing this stuff out. It's valid criticism. Just because you're uncomfortable with it doesn't make it invalid.
If you want to attack his point, then do it by defending Kamala's resume, her legal history, or do it by attacking the fact that there is absolutely NOBODY on the Republican ticket with any kind of legitimate argument for being more qualified than her, especially Donald Trump.
Don't turn this into an ad hominem attack from the left. No one wins that fight.
|
On October 30 2024 04:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 03:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:So the Trump Rogan interview is at 38 million YouTube views and however many Spotify listens on top of that.The latest from Rogans twitter is Kamala demanded 1 hour instead of 3 and she wants Rogan to fly out to her rather than her going to Rogans Texas studio, which he is not up for. https://x.com/joerogan/status/1851118464447971595 That's not surprising; she's the sitting vice president who's also running a presidential campaign in a uniquely short amount of time. She doesn't have half a day to travel to/from Texas and talk about nothing for three hours. Show nested quote +JD Vance is now set to appear on Rogan also, guess he doesn't have any strange demands. "As long as I get to sit on the couch, I'm good."
The idea that going on the biggest podcast in the world primarily targeting young male listeners isn't a good move for Harris is pretty laughable, especially considering she is doing it after Trump so could theoretically debunk & fact check him if she had it in her.
For instance it would be more worthwhile doing that than the CNN town hall she did the other night, these MSM outlets are dead in the water.When Bezos writes an editorial in the Washington Post stating people don't believe the news media anymore you know it's really getting bad.
So Trump is even to ahead in all swing states, yet the polls in 2016 and 2020 underestimated his support by at least 3%+ so the math isn't complicated.Harris needs to try something new, something big right? Something bigger than CNN town halls. Calling Trumps supporters Nazis won't cut it, not when you've got NYC Democratic mayor Adams coming out and stating he does not think Trump is a fascist.Crazy stuff.Learnt nothing from 2016.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
