+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: It's Kamala! (/Thread-It-s-Kamala)
RE: It's Kamala! - michaelsean - 08-13-2020
(08-12-2020, 09:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm a bit bored, so let me just ask one question: Why did it have to be a black woman? After all, there already was a black president, so one might say this ethnicity already was covered quite well recently in regards to WH honors. I might get why it is a woman, but it would have been way fairer to choose a latina woman this time around. Hispanic population in the US is 18%, blacks are 16%, so why was it their turn yet again?
I hope for at least one snarky response to that.
Because despite 7 pages of argument and analysis over the VP pick, nobody actually cares about who the VP pick is unless maybe you appeal to a certain group, and maybe that will bring more people out to vote who maybe wouldn't have bothered. Maybe.
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-13-2020
(08-13-2020, 09:52 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Because despite 7 pages of argument and analysis over the VP pick, nobody actually cares about who the VP pick is unless maybe you appeal to a certain group, and maybe that will bring more people out to vote who maybe wouldn't have bothered. Maybe.
I generally would agree wholly, but Biden is 78, probably a one-termer and this adds some more relevance to the pick this time around.
If it were just for appealing to a certain group, a hispanic woman would have made more sense still. Most blacks vote for Democrats anyway. In this regard hispanics are, how to put it, more diverse :)
RE: It's Kamala! - masterpanthera_t - 08-13-2020
(08-13-2020, 07:27 AM)Vas Deferens Wrote: If I was talking to you specifically I would use this ^ nifty technique.
But please, continue to impress us all with your knowledge of how her name is pronounced in your opinion versus how she pronounces it. “riv·et·ing”
Great! My intent the whole time was to impress people with my knowledge of how to pronounce her name. It's not as if it was in response to another post where pronunciation was discussed. Your ability to comment on my posts without reading or understanding the context of them is especially "riv-et-ing."
RE: It's Kamala! - masterpanthera_t - 08-13-2020
(08-13-2020, 07:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I knew the context, and my opinion is still the same. I mean, I am certain there are different ways to pronounce the word within Hindi because there would be dialectic differences based on many things, much like we see with every other language in the world.
Bels, I'm speaking from knowledge that there's no difference in Hindi, or Tamil ( her mother's mother tongue) in how to pronounce this word. The root word comes from Sanskrit.
WTS, I believe we're really picking nits at this point and quite frankly I don't want to focus on pronunciation in this thread or any other one. I made a response specifically to a post which mentioned pronunciation of her name. And every other post of mine so far has been in relation to other posts in response to mine. I'd rather let the thread go back to its original topic.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-13-2020
(08-13-2020, 07:45 AM)hollodero Wrote: Yeh kind of... blacks had their turn :) ... sure, I do not even intend to veil it, I find it odd in general to say, well I have no idea who my VP will be yet, but let's commit to a black woman nonetheless. Imho, this is also not ideal for Harris. Many can quite easily say, well mainly she got the gig because she checked the two major boxes, that aren't exactly accomplishments. And they wouldn't be wrong about that.
Of course I get why Biden did that. Still think it's not ideal.
I don't find this odd at all, ESPECIALLY for a VP pick.
During his campaign B promised, first, that he would pick a woman; then, that it would be a black woman. These announcements had as much to do with internal party dynamics* as the desire to hold and increase voters. It is a way of saying whom you really take seriously. As conservative commentator SE Cupp said on CNN yesterday, Biden could have easily gone a bridge to far, but chose someone likely acceptable to never Trumpers and center right Republicans (like herself).
When Repubs pick a Sarah Palin or a Mike Pence, they are signalling that they'll take a huge component of their base seriously. Same major box checking.
Being an evangelical pro-lifer isn't any more an accomplishment than "being black" or a woman, but yes our Fox friends will "quite easily say, mainly [Harris] got the gig because she checked the two major boxes, that aren't exactly accomplishments." And they'll take if further, as Laura Ingraham already has, calling the choice evidence of "racism" and a violation of the expectation that a president is supposed to choose the "best qualified" person for the job (the kinds of attitude and judgment I want to see OUT of our national politics now).
Given Comma-la's experience as a prosecutor and AG for the largest state in the union, plus her time on the Senate intel committee, I think she will be very qualified, a great asset on the campaign trail and do an excellent job as VP.
*In another post you wondered why a Hispanic pick would not get more votes, since there are more Hispanics. First, despite the fact there are more Hispanics, it is not clear that more, out of that total, vote Dem than out of the total number of Black voters. Second, NOT choosing a Hispanic would not majorly anger that constituency, possibly costing many votes, the way it would anger a group that has arguably been the party's most reliable work horse. With the Harris pick, Joe was showing that he not presuming he already had the black vote.
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-13-2020
(08-13-2020, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: When Repubs pick a Sarah Palin or a Mike Pence, they are signalling that they'll take a huge component of their base seriously. Same major box checking.
Well, one might say with Palin they showed they do not take their base seriously... but sure, I see your point.
(08-13-2020, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: Being an evangelical pro-lifer isn't any more an accomplishment than "being black" or a woman, but yes our Fox friends will "quite easily say, mainly [Harris] got the gig because she checked the two major boxes, that aren't exactly accomplishments."
And they'll take if further, as Laura Ingraham already has, calling the choice evidence of "racism" and a violation of the expectation that a president is supposed to choose the "best qualified" person for the job (the kinds of attitude and judgment I want to see OUT of our national politics now).
I mean the racism thing is nonsense for sure, but I have to say that imho the overall point sounds like a fair one to make. By committing to a black female early on, Biden excluded many people preemptively, hence artificially limiting his choices based on factors like gender and race, that, yeah, just are not qualifications based on merit. I'm not trying to be foxier than FOX here, that just seems to be true.
The other way round, if someone asked me why Biden picked Harris, the first thing to respond imho is not "because she was the best choice", but to say "because she was a black female and possibly the best choice amongst this group". Which, in a sense, could be seen as bad for Harris as well. She'll always have this label now.
(08-13-2020, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: Given Comma-la's experience as a prosecutor and AG for the largest state in the union, plus her time on the Senate intel committee, I think she will be very qualified, a great asset on the campaign trail and do an excellent job as VP.
Fair enough, it might just turn out that way. I didn't imply she was unqualified.
(08-13-2020, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: *In another post you wondered why a Hispanic pick would not get more votes, since there are more Hispanics.
That was not quite what I tried to be getting at.... it's also that hispanics behave way more like a "swing demographic", if you will. Most blacks are in the Dem camp, the same is not true for most hispanics.
And often folk choose a VP to win a certain swing state or a certain undecided group, why not apply this logic here. It might just as well turn out more hispanics than a black VP turns out additional black votes.
My hint that there are more hispanics overall was rather tongue in cheek and directed at the argument of diversity. I just feel a case can be made for a hispanic female VP with the same logic applied. Aren't hispanic women also marginalized?
(08-13-2020, 10:41 AM)Dill Wrote: First, despite the fact there are more Hispanics, it is not clear that more, out of that total, vote Dem than out of the total number of Black voters. Second, NOT choosing a Hispanic would not majorly anger that constituency, possibly costing many votes, the way it would anger a group that has arguably been the party's most reliable work horse. With the Harris pick, Joe was showing that he not presuming he already had the black vote.
I get the strategy (also from your first sentences I just skipped), I also get that's a valid counterargument, but wouldn't he be right to presume he already has the black vote? I feel he has. The black states secured him the nomination in the first place, and I don't think it was because of his black female VP promise. They will still strongly prefer him over Trump no matter who is VP. Maybe.
RE: It's Kamala! - masterpanthera_t - 08-13-2020
(08-13-2020, 11:25 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, one might say with Palin they showed they do not take their base seriously... but sure, I see your point.
I agree.
Quote:I mean the racism thing is nonsense for sure, but I have to say that imho the overall point sounds like a fair one to make. By committing to a black female early on, Biden excluded many people preemptively, hence artificially limiting his choices based on factors like gender and race, that, yeah, just are not qualifications based on merit. I'm not trying to be foxier than FOX here, that just seems to be true.
Yes Biden definitely boxed himself in very early, but internal party dynamics probably dictated this to some extent. Also, as brought up in posts by others, the sentiment that black women have been carrying water for the party disproportionately to the party's benefit without getting the necessary say so in terms of policymaking or the ability to implement it in terms of position, probably led to this early limiting of choices. When that's taken into consideration, I can't fault the party too much.
Quote:The other way round, if someone asked me why Biden picked Harris, the first thing to respond imho is not "because she was the best choice", but to say "because she was a black female and possibly the best choice amongst this group". Which, in a sense, could be seen as bad for Harris as well. She'll always have this label now.
I get your point here and agree to an extent that this perspective cannot be completely discounted. However, I believe that the party brass probably thinks that there are plenty of qualified black women who can be picked for VP, and they will do a fine job and questions about qualification will be rendered moot. Probably not from FOX, but that's a lost cause or non cause from the DEM perspective. Especially in light of the importance symbolically and in real terms of getting a black woman VP nominee.
Quote:Fair enough, it might just turn out that way. I didn't imply she was unqualified.
Addressed just above, but would like to add that she certainly holds qualifications well above any minimum reasonable standard for VP, and arguably much higher.
Quote:That was not quite what I tried to be getting at.... it's also that hispanics behave way more like a "swing demographic", if you will. Most blacks are in the Dem camp, the same is not true for most hispanics.
And often folk choose a VP to win a certain swing state or a certain undecided group, why not apply this logic here. It might just as well turn out more hispanics than a black VP turns out additional black votes.
My hint that there are more hispanics overall was rather tongue in cheek and directed at the argument of diversity. I just feel a case can be made for a hispanic female VP with the same logic applied. Aren't hispanic women also marginalized?
I think what you say here is correct, but ultimately the party likely felt they couldn't risk disillusionment among their base of black women, and that they're more "due" than hispanic women. Not that hispanic women aren't due, just that their turn is not as urgent. I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar concession to hispanics in the next election cycle.
Quote:I get the strategy (also from your first sentences I just skipped), I also get that's a valid counterargument, but wouldn't he be right to presume he already has the black vote? I feel he has. The black states secured him the nomination in the first place, and I don't think it was because of his black female VP promise. They will still strongly prefer him over Trump no matter who is VP. Maybe.
It's possible, but certainly a gamble. I doubt he would lose votes to Trump among this base, but there certainly could be less turnout which is not with risking. I also think there's a groundswell within the party that feels it's definitely time for selecting a black woman nominee for reasons of fairness, that it simply couldn't be ignored. I imagine that groundswell likely includes a large part of the hispanic base as well.
RE: It's Kamala! - BmorePat87 - 08-13-2020
(08-13-2020, 07:45 AM)hollodero Wrote: OK, looked up the senate, there were nine latino senators and ten black senators. Of course, right now it's 4-3 in favor of hispanics and 1-1 when regarding black women and hispanic women. In the current house, 56 members are black and 43 hispanic. Amongst them are 22 black women and only 12 hispanic women. Indeed there never was a black women governor until now, while there've been already three hispanic women governors, that much is true. However, there only was one female hispanic cabinet member ever, while there were four black female ones.
Does that mean much, no. It just imho means one could easily make a case that female hispanics are a marginalized group.
I’m counting 13 Hispanic and Latino Senators in US history.
The marginalization claim was based on how they’re treated in society. This is centuries of over sexualization of black women’s bodies, Inadequate access to healthcare (which causes Black women to be 3-4 times more likely to die in childbirth than White, Asian, or Latino women), and gross stereotypes (like the angry black woman or the welfare queen).
Latino women are marginalized. They’ve also had more success in being elected to top executive positions. There’s also the reality that systemic racism against the Black community is the current focus in this country and Biden promised a woman on his ticket.
RE: It's Kamala! - Dill - 08-13-2020
(08-13-2020, 11:25 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, one might say with Palin they showed they do not take their base seriously... but sure, I see your point.
I mean the racism thing is nonsense for sure, but I have to say that imho the overall point sounds like a fair one to make. By committing to a black female early on, Biden excluded many people preemptively, hence artificially limiting his choices based on factors like gender and race, that, yeah, just are not qualifications based on merit. I'm not trying to be foxier than FOX here, that just seems to be true.
The other way round, if someone asked me why Biden picked Harris, the first thing to respond imho is not "because she was the best choice", but to say "because she was a black female and possibly the best choice amongst this group". Which, in a sense, could be seen as bad for Harris as well. She'll always have this label now.
That was not quite what I tried to be getting at.... it's also that hispanics behave way more like a "swing demographic", if you will. Most blacks are in the Dem camp, the same is not true for most hispanics.
And often folk choose a VP to win a certain swing state or a certain undecided group, why not apply this logic here. It might just as well turn out more hispanics than a black VP turns out additional black votes.
My hint that there are more hispanics overall was rather tongue in cheek and directed at the argument of diversity. I just feel a case can be made for a hispanic female VP with the same logic applied. Aren't hispanic women also marginalized?
I get the strategy (also from your first sentences I just skipped), I also get that's a valid counterargument, but wouldn't he be right to presume he already has the black vote? I feel he has. The black states secured him the nomination in the first place, and I don't think it was because of his black female VP promise. They will still strongly prefer him over Trump no matter who is VP. Maybe.
1. LOL, sounds like YOU don't take the Republican base seriously, at least the Evangelical wing.
2. When Fox commentators affirm merit over race, gender etc., it's not because they are suddenly all about principle, affirming THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB and anti-identity politics; it's because they are for Trump.
3. I think it will be up to Harris whatever label she finally has. If she becomes president and manages a crisis well, no will say "She managed it well for a black female." Saying that she was picked because she was the best qualified only among black Dem females is no different that saying Pence was the best qualified among all the Evangelicals who might deliver votes. But Fox slant trots out the "merit" argument only when it comes to women and minorities.
4. Your counter argument about the Hispanic "swing" vote is a good one. Hispanic women certainly are marginalized, although historically not to the degree black women have been. The X factor which I introduced is that Black women have done so much groundwork for Dems, especially in the South. Ever since the great turn in 1964.
5. It is right to presume Biden will get more of the black vote than Trump. But he needs an Obama-level turn out. Remember how many women were offended when Obama won the nomination over Hillary, and many refused to vote. Then when it was Hillary's turn, she lost millions of Bernie supporters by not treating the Left-without-quotation-marks seriously. She got much more of the Black vote than Trump, but needed that extra 8-10% that stayed home. Biden was responding to an organized demand from within the party, most of it coming from people who would be doing the ground work of campaigning--or maybe not so much if they feel publicly dissed. Now he can figure out what to promise to keep the Bernie/Warren supporters without scaring off the moderates.
RE: It's Kamala! - GMDino - 08-13-2020
I just know y'all are going to be shocked but the guy who said he had proof that Obama wasn't born in Hawaii and never produced it is now saying that "he just heard" that Harris sin't really a citizen...
Holy shit. Trump pushes a baseless, birther-style theory about Kamala Harris that holds she's not a citizen because birthright citizenship isn't a thing.
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 13, 2020
"I just heard it today that she doesn't meet the requirements ... I have no idea if that's right." pic.twitter.com/ZIXYrleuVf
...and gosh darn it he just isn't sure.
Just asking! People have said!
What a frigging loser he is.
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-14-2020
(08-13-2020, 12:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I’m counting 13 Hispanic and Latino Senators in US history.
You're probably right, I did not exactly double-check, my overall point would be that there is no significant gap in representation.
(08-13-2020, 12:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The marginalization claim was based on how they’re treated in society. This is centuries of over sexualization of black women’s bodies, Inadequate access to healthcare (which causes Black women to be 3-4 times more likely to die in childbirth than White, Asian, or Latino women), and gross stereotypes (like the angry black woman or the welfare queen).
Yeah I don't want to compare grievances, and I guess blacks might win such a competition, on the grounds that their ancestors didn't come to the US by their own free will alone. The childbirth death rate is persuasive too. But Hispanics sure face some of those bad treatments as well. The cliche of the Mexican gardener and other gross stereotypes are well-known even to me, many are held in a semi-legal state, pay taxes, don't get healthcare, are threatened with deportation, the war on drugs hit them too, they too face violence on the streets within their community too etc,. it's not like all is fine with this demographic.
But as stated, comparing grievances imho is pointless. In a sense, I find the idea to pick a certain ethnicity or gender for an important post as some kind of compensation for bad treatments said ethnicities or genders had to endure as kind of a flawed approach. It feels like window dressing. Even more so for it's still about policies and not about faces and appearances. Condi Rice is a black woman and Bernie Sanders is anything but, but if it comes to healthcare the latter, one might argue, might still do way more for the community or the blck women you referenced.
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-14-2020
(08-13-2020, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. LOL, sounds like YOU don't take the Republican base seriously, at least the Evangelical wing.
I leave that to imagination, but I was not the one that threw a Sarah Palin in front of them and claimed that this person is exactly what you were praying for. This show of disrespect isn't on me.
(08-13-2020, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: 2. When Fox commentators affirm merit over race, gender etc., it's not because they are suddenly all about principle, affirming THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB and anti-identity politics; it's because they are for Trump.
Well, you took an argument of mine, compared it to an argument made on FOX and then you state that those FOX people usually make those arguments in bad faith. I agree with that, but I don't see that as an efficiant rebuttal of my initial argument. It's not on me that Ingraham made s amiliar one.
(08-13-2020, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: 4. Your counter argument about the Hispanic "swing" vote is a good one. Hispanic women certainly are marginalized, although historically not to the degree black women have been. The X factor which I introduced is that Black women have done so much groundwork for Dems, especially in the South. Ever since the great turn in 1964.
I see. Well, for one now hispanics could say, oh so that's why you are so engaged with black people, it is a reward for always picking you...! But shouldn't you be there for all americans? Are we less important just because we do not overwhelmingly vote for you?... I mean, that would be a fair point to make, and I guess for some a fair reason to not vote for Democrats. I could understand that (generally, not specifically in Trump times).
And secondly, I see this logic as flawed, as stated in my reply to Pat. Maybe not completely flawed, but the extremes of this line of thinking are. Blacks were loyal and were mistreated in the country for a long time and still are now, so that's an argument for a black president. Now sure, there now was a black president, but there are still black women and Obama was not a woman, so now we need to pick a black woman for VP and for president in 2024 (and this is quite likely the reality). She should probably pick a gay VP then, because let's face it this group also was treated poorly by society and the law and still is, and they are mostly loyal Dem voters. When do we throw a bone to the hispanics? What about Asians, they are 1/2 of the black population, but a ratio of 2 blacks : 1 asian seems only fair, and Asian Americans suffered concentration camps...
... I mean, maybe you can see my point.
In the end, it should be about something else than race or gender, imho more or less entirely. This, again, is not a shot at Kamala Harris or her abilities. It's a shot at the principle.
(08-13-2020, 03:09 PM)Dill Wrote: 5. It is right to presume Biden will get more of the black vote than Trump. But he needs an Obama-level turn out. Remember how many women were offended when Obama won the nomination over Hillary, and many refused to vote. Then when it was Hillary's turn, she lost millions of Bernie supporters by not treating the Left-without-quotation-marks seriously. She got much more of the Black vote than Trump, but needed that extra 8-10% that stayed home. Biden was responding to an organized demand from within the party, most of it coming from people who would be doing the ground work of campaigning--or maybe not so much if they feel publicly dissed. Now he can figure out what to promise to keep the Bernie/Warren supporters without scaring off the moderates.
It might have been the right move strategically to commit to a black woman as VP, I don't really know that. Biden might also have faced pressure, and I do not really question his specific course of action in all of that. He did what he felt he needed to do, might as well be out of conviction, no shot at him either.
But Biden faces little enthusiasm as an obstacle, which imho is a way less significant obstacle than those Hillary faced. She was widely hated. She was especially hated by Bernie people, for she was the primary villain to begin with, and then she also was not incredibly accused of trickery within the DNC. She came with the server issue, which actually imho is awful, and the shadow of an investigation hanging over her. Her name is linked to a bunch of scandals, sure probably many just overblown nonsense, but she still just was. She was the wall street and establishment candidate, the one that was entitled to the post and whose turn it now was. And Trump still could have turned out presidential (I mean, he couldn't, but now more people will know that). I think many things are different this time around.
What I will add at this point that if you really need a black female running mate to bother showing up and voting against Trump, you are a bit weird imho. But sure, what gives, a vote is a vote.
RE: It's Kamala! - BmorePat87 - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 08:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: You're probably right, I did not exactly double-check, my overall point would be that there is no significant gap in representation.
Yeah I don't want to compare grievances, and I guess blacks might win such a competition, on the grounds that their ancestors didn't come to the US by their own free will alone. The childbirth death rate is persuasive too. But Hispanics sure face some of those bad treatments as well. The cliche of the Mexican gardener and other gross stereotypes are well-known even to me, many are held in a semi-legal state, pay taxes, don't get healthcare, are threatened with deportation, the war on drugs hit them too, they too face violence on the streets within their community too etc,. it's not like all is fine with this demographic.
But as stated, comparing grievances imho is pointless. In a sense, I find the idea to pick a certain ethnicity or gender for an important post as some kind of compensation for bad treatments said ethnicities or genders had to endure as kind of a flawed approach. It feels like window dressing. Even more so for it's still about policies and not about faces and appearances. Condi Rice is a black woman and Bernie Sanders is anything but, but if it comes to healthcare the latter, one might argue, might still do way more for the community or the blck women you referenced.
Just to note, I didn’t say “most marginalized”, so like you said there isn’t a need to compare grievances. The point of it is to show the devaluation of a group for 4 centuries, which is particularly noted in the struggles of Black women to win elected executive positions, so as to show the importance of promoting Black women in American society. The most important factor, though, is the George Floyd protests and the emphasis it has put on elevating black voices.
Hell, just yesterday in the memes thread, someone posted an image of Kamala’s head on what appears to be a prostitute with a tattoo that implied that a former boyfriend had sexually conquered her. This is an incredibly successful, highly educated woman who has served in many high profiles offices being reduced to a sex worker owned by men. It’s pathetic.
RE: It's Kamala! - Nately120 - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 10:25 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Hell, just yesterday in the memes thread, someone posted an image of Kamala’s head on what appears to be a prostitute with a tattoo that implied that a former boyfriend had sexually conquered her. This is an incredibly successful, highly educated woman who has served in many high profiles offices being reduced to a sex worker owned by men. It’s pathetic.
Maybe I'm just too biased to see, but I find right wing humor to fall flat. It's just that right wingers tend to not be very entertaining, nor do they appeal to people who are themselves entertaining.
So we have another white candidate so we give Biden cornrows like they gave Hilary because they're pandering to the black vote and Kamala Harris is a woman so she's clearly a nasty sperm dump..it's just lazy satire. Then again, it's amusing that Trump uses grade school-level insults during press conferences to attack his opponents. Did politics just become more juvenile and stupid as I got older or did I really get so much wiser as I aged that the world of adults revealed itself to be gleefully juvenile and superficial?
And before any of you disagree with me, keep in mind that people who disagree with me are sleepy nasty idiots with poopy pants.
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 10:25 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Just to note, I didn’t say “most marginalized”, so like you said there isn’t a need to compare grievances. The point of it is to show the devaluation of a group for 4 centuries, which is particularly noted in the struggles of Black women to win elected executive positions, so as to show the importance of promoting Black women in American society. The most important factor, though, is the George Floyd protests and the emphasis it has put on elevating black voices.
Hell, just yesterday in the memes thread, someone posted an image of Kamala’s head on what appears to be a prostitute with a tattoo that implied that a former boyfriend had sexually conquered her. This is an incredibly successful, highly educated woman who has served in many high profiles offices being reduced to a sex worker owned by men. It’s pathetic.
No, no need to compare, it's just that I introduced the concept of marginalized hispanic women that under the introduced logic might deserve a similar recognition and you responded with a list of grievances black women have to endure. It's an implied comparison. My stance of maybe better not committing to a candidate's race or gender is largely based on the assumption that these implied comparisons are not the ideal way to look at things in the first place.
I mean, your argument seems to be black women had it worst and the issue of explicit and implicit racism is on top of minds at this moment, so they deserve a black female VP, and while the former might very well be true I still would not see the latter as a necessary consequence.
I am not radical within that thought. I would have found it perfectly fine if Biden had said I need a VP, I found a highly qualified person, that has merits from A to Z and also as a black women has an unique understanding of the grievances blacks and women have to face. I feel that would have been better, very much including for Kamala Harris. It's the early commitment to a black women that kind of "bothered" me. Or at least I have some questions about that approach.
As for the meme, I agree with your perspective on that, I don't see these instances as a particularly compelling reason to pick a black woman for VP. I can't really argue against a different viewpoint on that though.
RE: It's Kamala! - CJD - 08-14-2020
(08-12-2020, 09:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: I'm a bit bored, so let me just ask one question: Why did it have to be a black woman? After all, there already was a black president, so one might say this ethnicity already was covered quite well recently in regards to WH honors. I might get why it is a woman, but it would have been way fairer to choose a latina woman this time around. Hispanic population in the US is 18%, blacks are 16%, so why was it their turn yet again?
I hope for at least one snarky response to that.
I don't think it had to be a black woman. They were looking into white women like Whitmer, Warren and Klobuchar. They were looking into Asian women in Tammy Duckworth (and Kamala Harris). And they were looking into a variety of black women, like Bass, Rice and Harris. And they were vetting a few Latina women as well, as I detail below.
I think, among those that were given serious consideration, Harris was among the most qualified, being a Senator with a lot of national recognition. Early on, Klobuchar was being seriously considered but then the Floyd murder occurred in her state and...that kind of sank her chances.
With the current protests going on surrounding the mistreatment of black people in this country, I think choosing a black person was prudent given the situation as it can be, at worst, viewed as an olive branch to the black community.
As far as a Latina woman...did you have someone in mind? They couldn't just pick any Latina woman and name her Vice President. She still needs to actually be qualified and have some sort of appeal with voters. There are only two Latinx Senators in the Democratic Party, Bob Menendez and Catherine Cortez Masto. The former is not only a man but also one of the most unpopular senators in the country and Cortez Masto is...well, have you ever heard of her? I haven't. And, to be perfectly frank, she appears white so it's not like you'd win "woke points" for choosing her. And, apparently, she was in consideration before withdrawing her name anyway haha. They were apparently vetting Michelle Lujan Grisham, the Governor of New Mexico, as well.
It's also important to remember that Kamala Harris also has Indian ancestry. So this is kind of a double whammy in terms of diversity. She is the first Asian American person to be on a major national ticket, man or woman. So if you consider this an Asian person's "first turn" rather than a black person's "second turn" (whatever these terms mean), then maybe you can feel better about that.
Ultimately, I think our best bet for a Latinx President or Vice President comes in 2024 when AOC becomes eligible to run. I don't know if she will choose to run nor do I know if she would be successful, but she'd definitely be high profile. Fox News would cover it all ad nauseum, I'm sure.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-14-2020
(08-12-2020, 02:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I understand why, but I also think it is a bit misinformed. This is why I continue to have these conversations with you.
I appreciate the effort on your part.
(08-12-2020, 09:43 PM)hollodero Wrote: I hate to interject constantly, weird I do it anyway: I guess the reason is that for many, including me, your case for loathing the Democratic party seems a tad underwhelming. Especially when it comes to Biden and Harris. This is not a far left ticket by any means, at the same time it (imho) is not a placeholder ticket for AOC et al. And other leading democrats, and the democrativc electorate, seem to be on a similar page still, they are all not that radical, not that far left, the majority of Democrats doesn't seem to be. Fringe fractions excepted.
And that's why for me it's sometimes a bit hard to grasp, why all that loathe you describe expands to include Trump's quite moderate opponent. A guy that probably wouldn't even imply universal healthcare and honestly comes across as overall pretty conservative to me.
To include someting specific, what about Biden's positions specifically would you loathe?
His extreme stance on gun control aside, it's not what he, personally, embodies, it's the idea of a Dem held Congress and White House. You're focusing too much on the office of the Presidency, I'm more concerned with what his holding it will enable the Dems to do on Capitol Hill. Here's the thing, I kept warning people that CA style gun control was coming to a theater near you, people scoffed at the idea. It's now happening, incrementally in some areas, but it's happening. I can see which way the wind is blowing and the Dems complete capitulation to the current far left sentiment has shown me that their being in power is something we should want to avoid at all cost. So Biden, on his own, is not some far left fringe lunatic. Harris is a political opportunist, always has been, she'll be whatever gets her what she wants, which is more power. Neither will stand up to the extremists in their own party. They might not always cater to them, but they certainly won't repudiate them.
RE: It's Kamala! - hollodero - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 11:46 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't think it had to be a black woman. They were looking into white women like Whitmer, Warren and Klobuchar. They were looking into Asian women in Tammy Duckworth (and Kamala Harris). And they were looking into a variety of black women, like Bass, Rice and Harris. And they were vetting a few Latina women as well, as I detail below.
Yeah his team allegedly was looking into Whitmer and he was immediately warned about further inquiring her. Same when Klobuchar's name came up. I guess over 100 black 'leaders' told him he has to pick a black woman, for they are the future in politics and whatnot, and specifically that if he did not pick a black woman, it would be akin to the black community having to vote for "a devil". The pressure for a black woman was not his idea probably, the pressure came from within the party structure and from prominent black people and it was massive enough that I for one did not doubt he had to go with a black woman. If he was formally committed, I can not quite remember, imho it was always implied that he would be.
Also, he has pledged that his first SC pick would be a black woman too. And I have to say, I am also not a fan of that commitment either.
(08-14-2020, 11:46 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: With the current protests going on surrounding the mistreatment of black people in this country, I think choosing a black person was prudent given the situation as it can be, at worst, viewed as an olive branch to the black community.
Weird how he picked "the cop" though. I know that particular expression comes from the right wing, but it's not like they misrepresent a prevalent notion of her. Kamala, as far as I can tell, is one of the least liked black women within the black community he could have chosen. Which kind of contradicts that whole olive branch notion.
(08-14-2020, 11:46 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: As far as a Latina woman...did you have someone in mind? They couldn't just pick any Latina woman and name her Vice President. She still needs to actually be qualified and have some sort of appeal with voters. There are only two Latinx Senators in the Democratic Party, Bob Menendez and Catherine Cortez Masto. The former is not only a man but also one of the most unpopular senators in the country and Cortez Masto is...well, have you ever heard of her? I haven't. And, to be perfectly frank, she appears white so it's not like you'd win "woke points" for choosing her. And, apparently, she was in consideration before withdrawing her name anyway haha. They were apparently vetting Michelle Lujan Grisham, the Governor of New Mexico, as well.
Well, there you have one, the New Mexico governor. You're right though, there aren't too many hispanic women around. Almost as if they were marginalized.
There are a few in the house, but I don't know any of them. But I'm a stranger, I'm excused.
(08-14-2020, 11:46 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's also important to remember that Kamala Harris also has Indian ancestry. So this is kind of a double whammy in terms of diversity.
lol, yeah that is cool and that might be the solution to hand every group their periodic olive branch. You just need an black-asian-indian-native american lesbian woman, possibly also a veteran (it's still the US after all), she would come with an unique experience about all these groups' grievances and check multiple boxes in one turn.
(08-14-2020, 11:46 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Ultimately, I think our best bet for a Latinx President or Vice President comes in 2024 when AOC becomes eligible to run. I don't know if she will choose to run nor do I know if she would be successful, but she'd definitely be high profile. Fox News would cover it all ad nauseum, I'm sure.
Just to be clear, I'm exactly advocating that it is not ideal to give a specific group its turn and that I am not particularly fond of committing to a certain race and gender in advance. I brought up hispanics and asians as an example to illustrate why, not because I actually demand that someone from one of those ethnicities should get chosen as well.
RE: It's Kamala! - CJD - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 12:45 PM)hollodero Wrote: Weird how he picked "the cop" though. I know that particular expression comes from the right wing, but it's not like they misrepresent a prevalent notion of her. Kamala, as far as I can tell, is one of the least liked black women within the black community he could have chosen. Which kind of contradicts that whole olive branch notion.
Yea, I agree that that will be a hurdle for her. I made that same point in my original post about her nomination. The problem is the other major black contenders have issues themselves.
Quote:I think Susan Rice would have created controversy because she was NSA during the Obama administration which would have inevitably made people say "But Benghazi!" and that would have potentially relapsed us into a Hillary discussion which no one in the DNC wanted.
I think Karen Bass would have sparked "But communism!" because of her past comments on Fidel Castro which you want to avoid in this scenario as well.
And if he selected Val Demmings, I think a lot of people would have said "Who?" similar to the reaction when Tim "Who is Tim Kaine?" Kaine was selected in 2016.
Kamala is a recognizable person who gained a lot of fame for her questioning of Kavanaugh, which was viewed positively by a lot of people.
In recent polls, Kamala has a+49 approval rating among black voters and is +42 points among black voters when they were asked if her nomination will help Biden's campaign.
The thing we have to keep in mind is that a majority of voters are relatively uninformed. This means that, unfortunately, appearances are nearly as important (if not more so) than policy or past actions. Look at how black voters supported Biden in the primaries, despite his long history of racist policies. Despite his many issues with race related legislation, Biden still won a majority of black voters because they associate him with Obama.
The same basic thing may very well happen with Kamala. People will see her, identify her as black and then assume that she is the best person to vote for as a black person. Only a percentage of people will know her record on imprisoning people for marijuana possession, among other issues when she was District Attorney of California.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong and Trump wins 15+% of the black vote, which would likely be a death knell for Biden's chances to win the election.
RE: It's Kamala! - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 08-14-2020
(08-14-2020, 08:40 AM)hollodero Wrote: You're probably right, I did not exactly double-check, my overall point would be that there is no significant gap in representation.
Yeah I don't want to compare grievances, and I guess blacks might win such a competition, on the grounds that their ancestors didn't come to the US by their own free will alone. The childbirth death rate is persuasive too. But Hispanics sure face some of those bad treatments as well. The cliche of the Mexican gardener and other gross stereotypes are well-known even to me, many are held in a semi-legal state, pay taxes, don't get healthcare, are threatened with deportation, the war on drugs hit them too, they too face violence on the streets within their community too etc,. it's not like all is fine with this demographic.
Of course, they have nothing on Native Americans, comparatively. There just aren't enough of them for either party to care.
Quote:But as stated, comparing grievances imho is pointless. In a sense, I find the idea to pick a certain ethnicity or gender for an important post as some kind of compensation for bad treatments said ethnicities or genders had to endure as kind of a flawed approach. It feels like window dressing. Even more so for it's still about policies and not about faces and appearances. Condi Rice is a black woman and Bernie Sanders is anything but, but if it comes to healthcare the latter, one might argue, might still do way more for the community or the blck women you referenced.
I am consistently impressed with how accurate your assessments of US politics typically are. What you're describing, in a nice way, is pandering. Biden committed to a black woman because black oppression is the dominant discussion of the moment. He did so for no other reason. As you, correctly, point out, this excludes a large number of, IMO, more qualified and better overall (see Duckworth for one example) candidates. Defenders will excuse this for the exact same reasons that it was wrong to do, historical wrongs, current zeitgeist, etc.
Unfortunately in the US, race is the ultimate trump card (no pun intended). We obsess over it like the Brits do over social class. The Dems pander to it while the GOP try and ignore it is much as possible. Both approaches are flawed.