|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 30 2024 15:44 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 04:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On October 30 2024 03:34 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:So the Trump Rogan interview is at 38 million YouTube views and however many Spotify listens on top of that.The latest from Rogans twitter is Kamala demanded 1 hour instead of 3 and she wants Rogan to fly out to her rather than her going to Rogans Texas studio, which he is not up for. https://x.com/joerogan/status/1851118464447971595 That's not surprising; she's the sitting vice president who's also running a presidential campaign in a uniquely short amount of time. She doesn't have half a day to travel to/from Texas and talk about nothing for three hours. JD Vance is now set to appear on Rogan also, guess he doesn't have any strange demands. "As long as I get to sit on the couch, I'm good." The idea that going on the biggest podcast in the world primarily targeting young male listeners isn't a good move for Harris is pretty laughable, especially considering she is doing it after Trump so could theoretically debunk & fact check him if she had it in her. For instance it would be more worthwhile doing that than the CNN town hall she did the other night, these MSM outlets are dead in the water.When Bezos writes an editorial in the Washington Post stating people don't believe the news media anymore you know it's really getting bad.
Also it's not like she'd be the first politican or even the first presidential candidate to do his show.
https://jrelibrary.com/guests/politicians/
Just from a sheer numbers standpoint, you get WAY more ears doing Rogan than you doing a lot of other things, and you get to reach people that otherwise aren't listening to you. Doing things on CNN or NBC is just preaching to your base that are going to vote for you anyway.
|
I can see the angle that bringing in Kamala to look more attractable for a certain voter group.
I can also see why that's literally a non-issue and we should stop bringing it up. Why does this seem to be relevant? Why play the dogwhistling semantics hide-and-seek game here, when you know that's all it is when you bring it up and then raise your hands like: I didn't actually say DEI, that's you explicitely saying I'm implying this. Does it, or doesn't it matter? If it doesn't matter, then why talk about it?
Let's just let BJ make a summary of why he feels the need to bring Kamala's sex/race into the conversation every so often and then just accept that is his position and we can move on. He won't mention it any longer, and we won't mention it any longer. Simple, no?
|
On October 30 2024 16:30 Uldridge wrote:
I can see the angle that bringing in Kamala to look more attractable for a certain voter group.
I can also see why that's literally a non-issue and we should stop bringing it up. Why does this seem to be relevant? Why play the dogwhistling semantics hide-and-seek game here, when you know that's all it is when you bring it up and then raise your hands like: I didn't actually say DEI, that's you explicitely saying I'm implying this. Does it, or doesn't it matter? If it doesn't matter, then why talk about it?
Let's just let BJ make a summary of why he feels the need to bring Kamala's sex/race into the conversation every so often and then just accept that is his position and we can move on. He won't mention it any longer, and we won't mention it any longer. Simple, no?
It's relevant because it speaks to a relevant political issue which is DEI hiring in the workplace and Affirmative Action in College Admissions. That's an actual ongoing political issue with deep divides in this country. If you don't think it's an issue then why is it one of the issues that shows up on literally EVERY yougov political survey you take in the United States? It isn't a new issue, we've been arguing about for 50 years in the US, it's such an old issue that it shows up multiple times in the West Wing FFS. It's a sore subject for a lot of Americans to the point where it becomes one of the things we judge Supreme Court Nominees on.
It's one of the issues that's on the ballot and it matters to people.
You don't have to talk about it if you don't want to, you don't have to make it important if you don't want to. Just like when GreenHorizons comes in and derails the entire thread into a single issue about Israel/Gaza doesn't mean that it's the only poilitical issue on the ballot.
If it isn't an important political issue for you, don't engage with it. You see how easy it is to turn your "why can't you just" logic back on you?
There are hundreds of issues on the ballot this year that deciding who wins the Executive Branch are going to play into. Affirmative Action is one of them.
Again, just because it makes you uncomfortable to talk about, doesn't mean you get to call someone a racist for doing it.
Oh and before anyone starts to ad hominem me for anything, I already voted for Kamala Harris. My vote was counted almost a full week ago in California.
I just don't want to see this kind of bullshit coming from Liberals in these threads because it makes the rest of us look bad.
|
Remember kids, when Mike Pence gets picked as VP because he's an older white male Christian, that's a pick based on merit, but when you pick Kamala Harris to appeal to women and minorities that's DEI and bad.
|
On October 30 2024 16:30 Uldridge wrote:
I can see the angle that bringing in Kamala to look more attractable for a certain voter group.
I can also see why that's literally a non-issue and we should stop bringing it up. Why does this seem to be relevant? Why play the dogwhistling semantics hide-and-seek game here, when you know that's all it is when you bring it up and then raise your hands like: I didn't actually say DEI, that's you explicitely saying I'm implying this. Does it, or doesn't it matter? If it doesn't matter, then why talk about it?
Let's just let BJ make a summary of why he feels the need to bring Kamala's sex/race into the conversation every so often and then just accept that is his position and we can move on. He won't mention it any longer, and we won't mention it any longer. Simple, no?
Imagine the Los Angeles Lakers decided they are not diverse enough. There are too many black players and they want to be more inclusive. So when the draft comes along they skip over some more highly touted prospects to draft a white player. Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well the fan base won’t (rightfully) talk about the reason they were drafted? Of course they would. Of course they should. I’d talk about it. I don’t care who tries to shout me down. That is if anyone tries to shout me down for talking shit about the white player that got picked, y’know, double standards and all.
|
I'm not uncomfortable to talk about it, I think the conversation about Kamala being DEI and it detracting (or the implication of it) from her being the "best choice for a VP" needs to be broken out of its circle of argumentation. I want to offer an alternative where BJ summarizes his point of why he brings it up every so often for Kamala specifically, without leaving room for that implication, so that when his point is made we don't have to guess what his reasoning is, but we actually know it.
Because this is basically the template of the conversation:
- BJ triggered to say Kamala VP because diversity/woman or someone saying they remember BJ saying that
- People thinking it implies BJ thinks that Kamala is "just a DEI hire with the implication it's not based on merit"
- BJ trying to defend himself that has nothing to do with it
- Repeat
Breaking out means something has to change. If BJ, or anyone else can explain explicitely why it's important to talk about DEI regarding Harris, when it's not a "but is she the best candidate for the job" implication, or the other "to rake in more voters" reason, I don't see a reason why we need to come back to her being chosen as VP, no?
It all seems cut and dried to me, yet people try to make these grand narratives or imply conspiracies out of nothing: Harris is a Dem who Biden favored as VP for reasons and now, with the support of the Dems, she's trying to become president. Trying to get as many votes as possible is part of politics. You try to appeal to as many people as possible. Having likeable/electable people by your side is part of that formula.
|
On October 30 2024 17:50 Mikau313 wrote:
Remember kids, when Mike Pence gets picked as VP because he's an older white male Christian, that's a pick based on merit, but when you pick Kamala Harris to appeal to women and minorities that's DEI and bad.
Oof. Someone’s not paying attention to the thread very closely.
|
On October 30 2024 17:50 Mikau313 wrote:
Remember kids, when Mike Pence gets picked as VP because he's an older white male Christian, that's a pick based on merit, but when you pick Kamala Harris to appeal to women and minorities that's DEI and bad.
The office of Vice President is mostly ceremonial and not really important so it's not uncommon to see the selection be used as a move to pander to the base of your party. Pence was a move to pander to the religious right. Kamala was selected to pander to the diversity activists who didn't want to support Joe Biden especially after Barrack Obama because he was an old white guy.
It's actually quite relevant to compare the two of them because the motivations behind their nominations were very similar.
And until Joe Biden dropped out of the race and handed the nomination over the Kamala Harris those motivations never mattered, but because he did and because people are much more critical of how the President gets the nomination than the VP that's how we got to where we are.
Again. That's just the unbiased history of how we got here. Trying to pretend like none of this happened isn't doing anyone on either side any favors.
If you think Kamala is the best candidate in this race, then say so. Own it. Don't hide from it.
|
On October 30 2024 17:51 Uldridge wrote:I'm not uncomfortable to talk about it, I think the conversation about Kamala being DEI and it detracting (or the implication of it) from her being the "best choice for a VP" needs to be broken out of its circle of argumentation. I want to offer an alternative where BJ summarizes his point of why he brings it up every so often for Kamala specifically, without leaving room for that implication, so that when his point is made we don't have to guess what his reasoning is, but we actually know it. Because this is basically the template of the conversation: - BJ triggered to say Kamala VP because diversity/woman or someone saying they remember BJ saying that
- People thinking it implies BJ thinks that Kamala is "just a DEI hire with the implication it's not based on merit"
- BJ trying to defend himself that has nothing to do with it
- Repeat
Breaking out means something has to change. If BJ, or anyone else can explain explicitely why it's important to talk about DEI regarding Harris, when it's not a "but is she the best candidate for the job" implication, or the other "to rake in more voters" reason, I don't see a reason why we need to come back to her being chosen as VP, no? It all seems cut and dried to me, yet people try to make these grand narratives or imply conspiracies out of nothing: Harris is a Dem who Biden favored as VP for reasons and now, with the support of the Dems, she's trying to become president. Trying to get as many votes as possible is part of politics. You try to appeal to as many people as possible. Having likeable/electable people by your side is part of that formula.
No it matters how she got the VP nomination, because the only reason and I mean the ONLY reason she is the Presidential Nominee is because she was VP. No one chose her in a primary. She's the nominee because Joe Biden won the 2020 election, picked her as his VP and then dropped out way too late in the 2024 election for the Democrats to have any other choice but to rally around Kamala by default.
Stop fucking hiding from this fact. It happened. Own it.
Yea our candidate got selected by default because our other guy dropped out. She's still a better candidate than anyone the Republicans have. Make that the defining point.
The more people try and hide the "how" she got here, the more it makes it look like we're ashamed of it and that we're hiding something.
The election is in a week. Lay the cards on the table face up. Kamala isn't perfect but she's a LOT better of a candidate than Trump is. If I had a choice between a DEI hire VP with her resume and Donald Trump then the choice is really fucking easy, she's getting my vote every time.
|
Being chosen as VP has nothing to do with how she became the presidential nominee.
I'm not denying how she became the presidential nominee at all. But it's also not necessarily a bad or worst pick, I simply don't have enough info to judge that.
|
On October 30 2024 18:15 Uldridge wrote:
Being chosen as VP has nothing to do with how she became the presidential nominee.
.
Dude. It happened. It literally happened.
Kamala Harris never won a Democratic primary for the Presidential Nomination. Never has, not once ever. She is the nominee because she was Joe Biden's VP and Joe Biden dropped out of the race after the primary was already decided for this election cycle.
She is the nominee by default.
That's literally how it happened. I don't know how else to explain this to you. It's what happened. It's reality. It's fact.
Arguing that it didn't happen is like arguing the sky isn't blue.
|
I know it happened. Okay, sorry, we're talking past each other. I'll explain it and we'll understand and we'll be happy.
Her being VP has had the consequence to her becoming the presidential nominee. Yes.
But the reasoning for her becoming VP (choice by Biden and entourage and their reasons for choosing her) has nothing to do with why she later became the presidential nominee. These are 2 different discussions.
|
On October 30 2024 15:06 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I'm not sure if you meant to reply to my post or someone else's, but I've made it very clear that there is an enormous difference between saying that race/sex also matter vs. race/sex only matter. BlackJack has said the latter, repeatedly, and people have corrected him, repeatedly. That's the issue that BlackJack is asserting - that Harris's qualifications weren't considered and that she was only given the job because she's a black woman.
Also, I didn't call BlackJack a racist o.O But he definitely deserves to be called out for making such dismissive statements. People can easily critique Harris without making snide remarks about her race and sex. Harris is far from a perfect candidate.
This happened with KBJ too, where we discussed how her being selected from a pool of top-tier candidates could have absolutely had sex/race be a potential tiebreaker, but it's not like she was unqualified and chosen over better candidates merely because of race/sex.
One last time: Race and sex were not the only reasons why Harris was chosen. Race and sex aside, Harris is a legitimately qualified candidate, which you and I agree on. And yet BlackJack asserts that her supporters don't care about where or not she has the merit:
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.
If BlackJack's post hadn't claimed that Harris's merit wasn't also a factor, and if there was a nuanced discussion about whether race and sex should be tiebreaking considerations, then that'd be fine. When he says Harris's merit wasn't considered, he's saying that Democrats are fine with picking any black woman because they're black and a woman, and that choices aren't also considering the qualifications of the black woman.
"Sure no one can argue the sitting Vice President isn't qualified to run for President"
And yet, one more time: BlackJack says that while her race and sex matter to Democrats (which is accurate), her qualifications as sitting Vice President don't also matter (which is inaccurate).
|
On October 30 2024 18:27 Uldridge wrote:
I know it happened. Okay, sorry, we're talking past each other. I'll explain it and we'll understand and we'll be happy.
Her being VP has had the consequence to her becoming the presidential nominee. Yes.
But the reasoning for her becoming VP (choice by Biden and entourage and their reasons for choosing her) has nothing to do with why she later became the presidential nominee. These are 2 different discussions.
Ok and that's where we get back to why her race and gender matter.
She was chosen for VP because having a young black woman on the ticket as Vice President did a LOT to energize young voters and minorities to vote for Joe Biden because without her the tickets would have looked like two way too old white men as the choices.
Her being a young woman again matters because one of the reasons Joe Biden conceded the race was that voters were VERY apathetic to the fact that during the first debate both candidates looked like old frail white men (with Joe looking older and frailer) and the country was tired of that. So Joe Biden was pressured to step down knowing that his youthful diverse VP pick would be the presumptive nominee by default if he did.
I honestly wish I was making all of this up, but this is actually how this election has gotten to this point. This is literally what happened. No one and I mean NO ONE should be surprised or upset that people are bringing up Kamala Harris' gender or race as a question mark because they were two of the biggest reasons she got the VP selection and then Presidential nomination.
It happened. This isn't ancient history, all of this took place this year and you can scroll back a few dozen pages and read about it.
We can't revise history that happened so recently. All we can do is move past it. It happened. We know it happened. I still voted for Kamala anyway.
If people want to be upset about her being a DEI hire, they frankly have a valid complaint. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it. But it's valid. This election, the way it has transpired has MADE IT VALID. Acknowledging that fact won't suddenly push everyone into voting for Trump. But it does do a lot into making the Liberals and Democrats look like they actually stand by their ideals and aren't afraid to defend them.
You know what I say to people who call her a DEI hire?
"Yea she's a DEI hire. So what? She's still better than your guy. End of story."
|
On October 30 2024 17:51 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 16:30 Uldridge wrote:
I can see the angle that bringing in Kamala to look more attractable for a certain voter group.
I can also see why that's literally a non-issue and we should stop bringing it up. Why does this seem to be relevant? Why play the dogwhistling semantics hide-and-seek game here, when you know that's all it is when you bring it up and then raise your hands like: I didn't actually say DEI, that's you explicitely saying I'm implying this. Does it, or doesn't it matter? If it doesn't matter, then why talk about it?
Let's just let BJ make a summary of why he feels the need to bring Kamala's sex/race into the conversation every so often and then just accept that is his position and we can move on. He won't mention it any longer, and we won't mention it any longer. Simple, no? Imagine the Los Angeles Lakers decided they are not diverse enough. There are too many black players and they want to be more inclusive. So when the draft comes along they skip over some more highly touted prospects to draft a white player. Do you think if that white player doesn’t play very well the fan base won’t (rightfully) talk about the reason they were drafted? Of course they would. Of course they should. I’d talk about it. I don’t care who tries to shout me down. That is if anyone tries to shout me down for talking shit about the white player that got picked, y’know, double standards and all.
And that's the same issue you've been wrong about in the past. It's *all else being equal*, not choosing bad players over good ones. It's breaking a general tie with the smallest distinction, selecting from a pool of highly qualified players and candidates of all races and sexes. We're choosing people like Larry Bird, not some random white kid who can't play ball.
|
My guy? I seem like a Trump endorser?
As for my position, I don't care if she was a DEI hire. There might be better candidates, there might be worse candidates. I'm sure if we analyze all the historical primaries that not always the most "competent" person has been put forward (Bernie?), but the most "electable" instead probably almost always is put forward.
It's possible that if Biden stepped down earlier and we actually had primaries that she wouldn't be put forward, or it's possible she would have.
Race and gender matter in the sense that it's used to undermine her merit. We can have that discussion ad nauseam (and I mostly stay clear from that discussion), but my original attempt was to lay the BJ stance to bed because it seemed to be still not clear what his actual points are because people were laying words in each other's mouths all over the place.
|
On October 30 2024 18:42 Uldridge wrote:
My guy? I seem like a Trump endorser?
As for my position, I don't care if she was a DEI hire. There might be better candidates, there might be worse candidates. I'm sure if we analyze all the historical primaries that not always the most "competent" person has been put forward (Bernie?), but the most "electable" instead probably almost always is put forward.
It's possible that if Biden stepped down earlier and we actually had primaries that she wouldn't be put forward, or it's possible she would have.
Race and gender matter in the sense that it's used to undermine her merit. We can have that discussion ad nauseam (and I mostly stay clear from that discussion), but my original attempt was to lay the BJ stance to bed because it seemed to be still not clear what his actual points are because people were laying words in each other's mouths all over the place.
Apologies, I was directing that last bit at Conservatives attacking her as a DEI hire, not to you specifically. edited to clear up that confusion.
|
On October 30 2024 18:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
And that's the same issue you've been wrong about in the past. It's *all else being equal*, not choosing bad players over good ones. It's breaking a general tie with the smallest distinction, selecting from a pool of highly qualified players and candidates of all races and sexes. We're choosing people like Larry Bird, not some random white kid who can't play ball.
The big problem is that this has happened under the pretence of all else being equal.
I very much like the DEI/affirmative action in the sense that we could find a way to know that all else is equal, but if you use it for self gain or have no way of knowing all else being equal but work under the guise that you, in face, do (claim to) know, you open the door to a very silippery slide. Truth is that we live in such an abundant society with so many potentially well suited people that it almost doesn't matter, so we could just select based on the cultural spread of the national/regional demographics.
|
On October 30 2024 18:54 Uldridge wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 18:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
And that's the same issue you've been wrong about in the past. It's *all else being equal*, not choosing bad players over good ones. It's breaking a general tie with the smallest distinction, selecting from a pool of highly qualified players and candidates of all races and sexes. We're choosing people like Larry Bird, not some random white kid who can't play ball.
The big problem is that this has happened under the pretence of all else being equal. I very much like the DEI/affirmative action in the sense that we could find a way to know that all else is equal, but if you use it for self gain or have no way of knowing all else being equal but work under the guise that you, in face, do (claim to) know, you open the door to a very silippery slide. Truth is that we live in such an abundant society with so many potentially well suited people that it almost doesn't matter, so we could just select based on the cultural spread of the national/regional demographics.
Sure, and we generally don't see Republicans considering any of Harris's experience to assess whether or not she'd have the merit to make a good president. Many just assume she's unqualified. Many see a black woman (+ Communist + Democrat, I guess), and that's the end of the story. (Other Republicans, of course, tie in a policy or issue to the situation - like immigration or the economy - but BlackJack has made this *only* about race and sex.) That's why assertions like BlackJack's - where what supposedly matters to Democrats is 1. Black; 2. Woman; 3. Nothing else - is frustrating to read. It's incorrect, and it projects the Republican caricature of DEI onto anyone who's not a white man, regardless of their level of qualification. It reduces the message to only race and sex, without looking at the entire person and their resume.
|
On October 30 2024 19:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 18:54 Uldridge wrote:On October 30 2024 18:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
And that's the same issue you've been wrong about in the past. It's *all else being equal*, not choosing bad players over good ones. It's breaking a general tie with the smallest distinction, selecting from a pool of highly qualified players and candidates of all races and sexes. We're choosing people like Larry Bird, not some random white kid who can't play ball.
The big problem is that this has happened under the pretence of all else being equal. I very much like the DEI/affirmative action in the sense that we could find a way to know that all else is equal, but if you use it for self gain or have no way of knowing all else being equal but work under the guise that you, in face, do (claim to) know, you open the door to a very silippery slide. Truth is that we live in such an abundant society with so many potentially well suited people that it almost doesn't matter, so we could just select based on the cultural spread of the national/regional demographics. Sure, and we generally don't see Republicans considering any of Harris's experience to assess whether or not she'd have the merit to make a good president. Many just assume she's unqualified. Many see a black woman (+ Communist + Democrat, I guess), and that's the end of the story. (Other Republicans, of course, tie in a policy or issue to the situation - like immigration or the economy - but BlackJack has made this *only* about race and sex.) That's why assertions like BlackJack's - where what supposedly matters to Democrats is 1. Black; 2. Woman; 3. Nothing else - is frustrating to read. It's incorrect, and it projects the Republican caricature of DEI onto anyone who's not a white man, regardless of their level of qualification. It reduces the message to only race and sex, without looking at the entire person and their resume.
That's the thing though. Republicans have successfully managed to turn the phrase "DEI" into a buzz word that people would rather not touch, so Democrats hide from it as much as possible kind of like the word "welfare."
Affirmative Action and DEI is a well intentioned program, and it was policy they enacted and they continue to champion so they can't be afraid to call someone who gets promoted because of these policies what they are because it makes it look like they don't believe in it.
Harris IS a DEI hire. She just is. Biden picked her because her being a black woman looked good on his ticket. It doesn't mean she doesn't have other good qualities and it doesn't mean she isn't qualified. But she is a DEI hire. She is exactly what proponents of the policy were hoping would happen.
Don't be afraid to call her what she is, because the Republicans won't. Instead let her be the champion for Affirmative Action policies. Because if her presidency is a successful one it will be a victory for everyone who thinks the policy is a good idea.
I'm neutral on Affirmative Action. I see both sides of the argument. I understand completely why people feel like it's just institutionalized racism of a different flavor. I understand the arguments against it being unconstitutional since the practice IS fundamentally discriminatory when viewed from a certain angle.
I just don't think it's the most important issue at play here in this election, and I also dislike how Democrats are afraid to use the phrase to describe her when she IS a product of the policy no matter how much people want to pretend she's not. Spin it the other way. Use her to show that the policy can be a success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
