Kamala's main role

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2020, 03:34 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Even if he [Mr. Biden] had concluded that a male running mate would be more beneficial, it wouldn't qualify as sexist. The decision would have been made for reasons deemed to be advantageous as to appealing to the electorate, not for reasons involving prejudice, discrimination or stereotyping -- which would be required to properly assert sexism. Rather, it would simply be a political calculation; a purely self-serving decision that every campaign makes in hopes of bolstering overall support and appealing to as many of the electorate as possible. 

So that's you stating you'd be OK if he announced his VP would be a man because he deemed it would be advantageous?

[Lucidus]

(11-12-2020, 04:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So that's you stating you'd be OK if he announced his VP would be a man because he deemed it would be advantageous?

Yes, for the reasons I've explained. 

[*PhilHos*]

(11-12-2020, 03:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: I have repeatedly explained why Biden would have legitimate reasons to select a woman as VP other than being sexist but the conservatives ignore those posts and act like the only possible explanation is sexism.

You can not make this shit up.

(11-12-2020, 03:01 PM)Lucidus Wrote: You continue to assert this notion that Mr. Biden is sexist for establishing the baseline criteria which required his running mate to be of the female persuasion, thereby eliminating male candidates from consideration. However, the simple act of concluding that a female running mate would be more beneficial and advantageous to your ticket does not equate to a sexist act -- either tacitly or overtly. Rather, it's an obvious political calculation; one that all Presidential candidates make when establishing an initial criteria for what type of person would best suit their needs in terms of appealing to the majority of the electorate. Regardless of what criteria is established for a candidate's choice in a running mate, that criteria will invariably create a specific pool and eliminate all that are not part of said pool. There's literally nothing to defend in this case. 

Should be real easy, then, to show where Biden has said his reasons for picking Harris and how it's because of how advantageous her gender would be to the country.

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2020, 03:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What if he determined he needed a male? Would you state that OK if he "concluded that a white male running mate would be more beneficial and advantageous to his ticket" and clearly stated it as a qualification?  

It would require a little more explaining but if he gave sound reasons then I would accept it.

Throughout the history of the United States straight white men have been the oppressors.  We never needed special laws to protect them from oppression.  So when someone choses a member from a group that has historically been the victim of discrimination, like a black woman, they usually are not required to explain why they are not guilty of discrimination.  That is pretty simple logic.

It is much harder for straight white men to play the victim card and claim they are being discriminated against because they are still members of the group that control a grossly disproportionate percentage of the power in this country.


So if Biden had chosen a straight white man as his running mate the people who have a legitimate right to complain about discrimination might have demanded an explanation, but if he gave good reasons then I would have accepted his choice.

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2020, 04:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Should be real easy, then, to show where Biden has said his reasons for picking Harris and how it's because of how advantageous her gender would be to the country.

When someone choses a member from a group that has historically been the victim of discrimination, like a black woman, they usually are not required to explain why they are not guilty of discrimination.  That is pretty simple logic.


It is much harder for straight white men to play the victim card and claim they are being discriminated against because they are still members of the group that control a grossly disproportionate percentage of the power in this country.

[*PhilHos*]

(11-12-2020, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When someone choses a member from a group that has historically been the victim of discrimination, like a black woman, they usually are not required to explain why they are not guilty of discrimination.  That is pretty simple logic.


It is much harder for straight white men to play the victim card and claim they are being discriminated against because they are still members of the group that control a grossly disproportionate percentage of the power in this country.

Ok. Thank you for not addressing a single word I said.

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2020, 04:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It would require a little more explaining but if he gave sound reasons then I would accept it.

Throughout the history of the United States straight white men have been the oppressors.  We never needed special laws to protect them from oppression.  So when someone choses a member from a group that has historically been the victim of discrimination, like a black woman, they usually are not required to explain why they are not guilty of discrimination.  That is pretty simple logic.

It is much harder for straight white men to play the victim card and claim they are being discriminated against because they are still members of the group that control a grossly disproportionate percentage of the power in this country.


So if Biden had chosen a straight white man as his running mate the people who have a legitimate right to complain about discrimination might have demanded an explanation, but if he gave good reasons then I would have accepted his choice.

I doubt you would have accepted if his first announcement about a running mate is "It will be a man" you'd be OK with it.

Now if he would have listed other qualifications and that person happened to be male; then you'd most likely be OK with it.

I just have a hard time believing you'd be OK with him removing women from the selection pool.

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2020, 04:23 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Ok. Thank you for not addressing a single word I said.

It is clearly assumed that her gender would be in the best interest of the country.

There is no assumption that he is just practicing discrimination because there is no history of men being discriminated against in this country.  They still control a grossly disproportionate percentage of the power.

So I did address what you said.

When Branch Rickey signed Jackie Robinson to play for the Dodgers was he required to explain why it was in the best interest of the Dodgers instead of just discriminating against white men?

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2020, 04:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: When someone choses a member from a group that has historically been the victim of discrimination, like a black woman, they usually are not required to explain why they are not guilty of discrimination.  That is pretty simple logic.


It is much harder for straight white men to play the victim card and claim they are being discriminated against because they are still members of the group that control a grossly disproportionate percentage of the power in this country.

What qualification(s) did Harris have that Mayor Pete did not?

Should Biden have to explain why he eliminated gay men from the selection pool?

[Lucidus]

(11-12-2020, 04:12 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Should be real easy, then, to show where Biden has said his reasons for picking Harris and how it's because of how advantageous her gender would be to the country.

Are you aware of any politician who doesn't make choices based on potential benefit or advantage when running for office? Kamala Harris checked two rather important boxes as it pertains to the current Democratic electorate-- being a female and being a minority. It's serves as a contrast to Mr. Biden being a 78 year white male, and serves to represent additional segments of the population. Other factors that the Biden campaign saw as beneficial [according to reports] were Harris' experience in law enforcement and as a US Senator, as well as her time with the Intel and Judiciary Committee.

It seems to be lost on some that gender was simply a baseline criteria; a starting point if you will. From there, Harris seemed to check a lot of boxes and provided the ticket with certain qualifications aside from gender and race. She seems to be well qualified and was chosen over many others who met the initial criteria. While her gender "qualified" her for consideration, it was her actual qualifications -- as a politician -- that made her the pick.

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2020, 04:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I doubt you would have accepted if his first announcement about a running mate is "It will be a man" you'd be OK with it.

Now if he would have listed other qualifications and that person happened to be male; then you'd most likely be OK with it.

I just have a hard time believing you'd be OK with him removing women from the selection pool.

Correct.  If he had just said he was going to chose a man then he would have had to provide an explanation.

But since there is no history of men discriminating against men in favor of women there is no real reason to require him to defend himself against charges of discrimination.

[*bfine32*]

(11-12-2020, 04:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: It is clearly assumed that her gender would be in the best interest of the country.

There is no assumption that he is just practicing discrimination because there is no history of men being discriminated against in this country.  They still control a grossly disproportionate percentage of the power.

So I did address what you said.

When Branch Rickey signed Jackie Robinson to play for the Dodgers was he required to explain why it was in the best interest of the Dodgers instead of just discriminating against white men?

Did Branch Rickey state he wouldn't sign White Players? He signed Robinson because he was the best ball player

[fredtoast]

(11-12-2020, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What qualification(s) did Harris have that Mayor Pete did not?

She is a woman

(11-12-2020, 04:30 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should Biden have to explain why he eliminated gay men from the selection pool?

Maybe if he had chosen a straight white man.  But since his choice was from a pool of historical victims of discrimination he really doesn't have to.