2 great things about Kamala Harris

[Jacky S]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I don’t believe so because although her gender and racial identity are attributes that Biden looked for I don’t believe that they were the only things that he considered.

The OP wrote, “She could have the exact same policies. All that matters is gender and color.”

Again, that’s racism and sexism.

When Biden chose her, the only consideration was race and gender.

Also, before Biden went brain dead in the debate, Kamala was considered a huge liability. The Peloci/Obama faction pulled off the coop, knowing they could control Kamala.
And, the rest of the Democrats minions will settle for stupid over Trump.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jacky S

When Biden chose her, the only consideration was race and gender.

Also, before Biden went brain dead in the debate, Kamala was considered a huge liability. The Peloci/Obama faction pulled off the coop, knowing they could control Kamala.
And, the rest of the Democrats minions will settle for stupid over Trump.

If that's what it takes, then sure!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

Recognizing racism or sexism, pardon the pun, is not a black and white issue. A lot of the time it requires context and some times prior experience to fully understand the language and situation in which it is used.

The problem with the argument that Lustylad and Waco are using is that it is a strawman argument...

They are trying to equate the fact that Biden chose a black woman as proof of racism...

Good grief. That's not my argument at all - and you know better. It's not racist or sexist to choose a person of ANY color/sex for a job, PROVIDED no one is excluded from the process based solely on their race/sex.

Joe Biden told us in advance that he would arbitrarily exclude 80% of Americans from consideration in choosing his 2020 running mate, Kamala Harris. He limited the pool of candidates - and did so explicitly based on race and sex - when he promised he would only choose a "woman of color".

Civil rights law proscribes discriminating against anyone or any group of people on the basis of race or sex. If a CEO implemented hiring guidelines the way Joe Biden picked Kamala Harris, they could be sued for discrimination.

I will admit that all Presidential nominees should be given wide discretion in selecting a running mate. IMO they should be free to choose whomever they are most comfortable with, for whatever reasons. Most of the time they are smart enough to keep those reasons to themselves. But we all know Joe Biden isn't very smart.

By proclaiming in advance he would only select a woman of color, he forever stigmatized Kamala as a "diversity pick". Intentionally or not, he insulted and demeaned her - by raising doubts whether she is qualified and capable enough to beat out a full, inclusive field of competing VP candidates, rather than a small subset.

That's my argument. Please don't distort it.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Why do you keep this going in thread where the OP is already banned ?


You have done this so many times. You start out by asking questions that don't need to be answered......then start badgering.....then demeaning because your question didn't get answered.

I'm not badgering or demeaning anyone. Txdot strikes me as intelligent, thoughtful, and capable of questioning and/or defending his own comments without your intervention.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Good grief. That's not my argument at all - and you know better. It's not racist or sexist to choose a person of ANY color/sex for a job, PROVIDED no one is excluded from consideration based solely on their race/sex.

Joe Biden told us in advance that he would arbitrarily exclude 80% of Americans from consideration in choosing his 2020 running mate, Kamala Harris. He limited the pool of candidates - and did so explicitly based on race and sex - when he promised he would only choose a "woman of color".

Civil rights law proscribes discriminating against anyone or any group of people on the basis of race or sex. If a CEO implemented hiring guidelines the way Joe Biden picked Kamala Harris, they could be sued for discrimination.

I will admit that all Presidential nominees should be given wide discretion in selecting a running mate. IMO they should be free to choose whomever they are most comfortable with, for whatever reasons. Most of the time they are smart enough to keep those reasons to themselves. But we all know Joe Biden isn't very smart.

By proclaiming in advance he would only select a woman of color, he forever stigmatized Kamala as a "diversity pick". Intentionally or not, he insulted and demeaned her - by raising doubts whether she is qualified and capable enough to beat out a full, inclusive field of competing VP candidates, rather than a small subset.

That's my argument. Please don't distort it.

I understand the point that you are trying to make but you are still making a strawman argument. What you fail to understand is just by picking a black or asian or woman vp some racist sexist jackhole is going to call her a “diversity hire “ like you just did. You and I both know that her sex and race were important criteria when Biden chose her but we also know that they are not the most relevant to how she does her job.

By making this particular argument you are giving legitimacy to every jerk who uses sexist and racist language and attitudes against her.

Your argument doesn’t seem very colorblind to me.

[lustylad]

I think your anger is misdirected. I'm not the guy who stigmatized Kamala Harris as a "diversity hire". Joe Biden did. Can't you see that?

He could have just quietly named her as his running mate back in 2020 without making a big fuss about superficial things like her sex and skin color. He didn't. He undermined her even before naming her - by pandering and playing identity politics with the far left.

Despite all that, I was actually rooting for her at first. I wanted her to succeed as border Czar. I wanted her to develop some visible diplomatic skills whenever she traveled abroad. I wanted her to sound intelligent and well-briefed whenever she opened her mouth. She constantly disappointed me. Bigly.

Having seen all that, it's not at all racist or sexist for me or anyone else to conclude she wasn't hired for her abilities. She is an example of the Peter principle on steroids.

The unfortunate aspect is how much damage she is doing to future aspirants to high office who are female or minority. There are so many out there who are so much more capable and qualified. Nikki Haley and Tulsi Gabbard spring to mind. Both are strong, principled, capable and confident politicians. We deserve so much better than Kamala Harris!

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I think your anger is misdirected. I'm not the guy who stigmatized Kamala Harris as a "diversity hire". Joe Biden did. Can't you see that?

He could have just quietly named her as his running mate back in 2020 without making a big fuss about superficial things like her sex and skin color. He didn't. He undermined her even before naming her - by pandering and playing identity politics with the far left.

Despite all that, I was actually rooting for her at first. I wanted her to succeed as border Czar. I wanted her to develop some visible diplomatic skills whenever she traveled abroad. I wanted her to sound intelligent and well-briefed whenever she opened her mouth. She constantly disappointed me. Bigly.

Having seen all that, it's not at all racist or sexist for me or anyone else to conclude she wasn't hired for her abilities. She is an example of the Peter principle on steroids.

The unfortunate aspect is how much damage she is doing to future aspirants to high office who are female or minority. There are so many out there who are so much more capable and qualified. Nikki Haley and Tulsa Gabbard spring to mind. Both are strong, principled, capable and confident politicians. We deserve so much better than Kamala Harris!

First of all there is no anger on my side. Secondly part of why Biden chose Kamala Harris was because she appealed to certain parts of the electorate.

When Tim Walz and JD Vance were chosen part of why they were chosen was because of their appeal to certain parts of the electorate. But no one is calling them a diversity hire.

But those who think her gender and race are inherently inferior use that against her. Again if you want to criticize Harris because of her performance, or her diplomatic skills, or her performance feel free to do so. Commenting on her race or gender is racism and sexism. Why can’t you see that?

Again,

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

You’re being deliberately obtuse and I’m just not interested in trying to explain it to you anymore.

[VitaMan]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Intentionally or not, he insulted and demeaned her - by raising doubts whether she is qualified and capable enough to beat out a full, inclusive field of competing VP candidates, rather than a small subset.

That's my argument.

And completely wrong.


Political running mates are chosen for many attributes. JFK selected LBJ to help him carry the south. Etc, etc, etc.

Biden chose Harris to help get votes from segments of the population. There is not even a thread of truth in what you say that he raised doubts whether she was capable or qualified.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I understand the point that you are trying to make but you are still making a strawman argument. What you fail to understand is just by picking a black or asian or woman vp some racist sexist jackhole is going to call her a “diversity hire “ like you just did. You and I both know that her sex and race were important criteria when Biden chose her but we also know that they are not the most relevant to how she does her job.


what else is she???



By making this particular argument you are giving legitimacy to every jerk who uses sexist and racist language and attitudes against her.

Your argument doesn’t seem very colorblind to me.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

First of all there is no anger on my side. Secondly part of why Biden chose Kamala Harris was because she appealed to certain parts of the electorate.


the black female segment .. not at all sexist or racist, right!?!?!?



When Tim Walz and JD Vance were chosen part of why they were chosen was because of their appeal to certain parts of the electorate. But no one is calling them a diversity hire.

But those who think her gender and race are inherently inferior use that against her. Again if you want to criticize Harris because of her performance, or her diplomatic skills, or her performance feel free to do so. Commenting on her race or gender is racism and sexism. Why can’t you see that?

Again,

who's making a "straw man" argument???

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Biden made a deal with Jim Clyburn for his endorsement to both appoint a black female to the Supreme Court and a black FEMALE VP ... Harris. you do recall that yeah?


Clyburn: I Told Biden to Pick a Black Female Running Mate If He Wanted to Win

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jim-cl...-wanted-to-win


is this sexist? is this racist? if you say no to racism simply because Clyburn is black that's a "whitewash" of the outright racism and sexism of what Clyburn forced Biden into.

[txdot-guy]

I find it deeply disturbing that I have to defend the president as being “not” a racist simply because he chose a woman of color as his running mate. It’s like this thread exists in bizarro world.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I find it deeply disturbing that I have to defend the president as being “not” a racist simply because he chose a woman of color as his running mate. It’s like this thread exists in bizarro world.

i find it deeply disturbing that you and others claim Vance is a "sexist racist" candidate and Harris is not.


shoe's on the other foot friend. admit it. and wear it.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

i find it deeply disturbing that you and others claim Vance is a "sexist racist" candidate and Harris is not.

shoe's on the other foot friend. admit it. and wear it.

Except I’ve never said either of those things. Like I said, bizarro world.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I’m sure some people will vote for her because of her gender and some people will vote for her because of her race and even more people will vote for her because she’s a better candidate than Ol’ Schitzenpants.

But saying that her only redeeming qualities is her gender and race is just straight up racist.

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

First of all there is no anger on my side. Secondly part of why Biden chose Kamala Harris was because she appealed to certain parts of the electorate.

When Tim Walz and JD Vance were chosen part of why they were chosen was because of their appeal to certain parts of the electorate. But no one is calling them a diversity hire.

But those who think her gender and race are inherently inferior use that against her. Again if you want to criticize Harris because of her performance, or her diplomatic skills, or her performance feel free to do so. Commenting on her race or gender is racism and sexism. Why can’t you see that?

Again,

and yet there you claiming Walz and Vance .. white men .. were picked because they are white men, how exactly is that any different than Harris being picked because she's a black female?


shoe. foot. wear it.


and who's Ol’ Schitzenpants? at the least prejudiced, you are as biased as any other poster here.


shoe. foot. wear it.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

and yet there you claiming Walz and Vance .. white men .. were picked because they are white men, how exactly is that any different than Harris being picked because she's a black female?

shoe. foot. wear it.

and who's Ol’ Schitzenpants? at the least prejudiced you are as biased any any other poster here.


shoe. foot. wear it.

I was making the argument that the pick of walz, vance, and harris are identical. You are the one arguing that the pick of harris is racist on Biden’s part.

As far as Ol’ Schitzenpants is concerned that moniker for Trump was created by Michael Cohen. It’s not my fault it’s funny as hell.

As far as my bias goes it’s against Trump. I’ll be glad to admit how much I despise that fat gross orange turd of a human being. A total loser and the worst president in history.

PS. What’s with the shoe fetish?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

I was making the argument that the pick of walz, vance, and harris are identical. You are the one arguing that the pick of harris is racist on Biden’s part.

As far as Ol’ Schitzenpants is concerned that moniker for Trump was created by Michael Cohen. It’s not my fault it’s funny as hell.

As far as my bias goes it’s against Trump. I’ll be glad to admit how much I despise that fat gross orange turd of a human being. A total loser and the worst president in history.

PS. What’s with the shoe fetish?

and all three of them can be considered racist and sexist picks as candidates .. depending on who you ask. see how that works?


unless of course you think diversity, equity and inclusion doesn't apply to white men?





bhahahaha