Kamala Harris Is Biden’s VP Pick

[Matticus13]

@Matticus - sabotaging the Post Office to make sure people can't safely vote during a pandemic is -absolutely- an authoritarian tactic

Agreed.

[flash2015]

It's flawed democracy vs flawed democracy.

You can make an argument that both parties are drifting towards their extremes (Fascism v Communism), but neither are there yet.

New England Firing Squad complained about the Democrats being the "party that passed NAFTA, that tore apart Glass-Steagall, that raises more money from wall st than the supposed 'big business' party have that is possibly in my best interests as a worker". I find it hard to understand how the democrats can be both too far to the right...and leading us to communism too.

[New England Fire Squad]

It's flawed democracy vs flawed democracy.

You can make an argument that both parties are drifting towards their extremes (Fascism v Communism), but neither are there yet.

New England Firing Squad complained about the Democrats being the "party that passed NAFTA, that tore apart Glass-Steagall, that raises more money from wall st than the supposed 'big business' party have that is possibly in my best interests as a worker". I find it hard to understand how the democrats can be both too far to the right...and leading us to communism too.

It's this incredibly weird mix of increasingly favoring corporations over workers economically and socially doing whatever tumblr wants. It's absolutely toxic to me.

[New England Fire Squad]

I opposed the Iraq war. I supported Barbara Lee as the lone dissenter in giving the war authority. I opposed Obama's deportation policy and the expansion of drone strikes. By no means do I think the Democrats are perfect (this is a straw man)

The choice here is not perfect Democracy, it's flawed Democracy vs. authoritarian fascism. I hope you can find space in this tent. I don't think you should prostrate yourself, who asked you to?

Glad to hear it, although I imagine it must be easy to see why if you can reconcile yourself with your candidates committing murders of civilians and laughing about it, it's easy for the other side to excuse their own deep moral failings. There are no good guys here.

As for the prostration, etc:

On this site, this pleasantly creepy quasi religious exchange sticks out in my memory:

//////How about, if we are white and aware of our relative privilege, how about we treat it in a similar way to the way a Christian might treat their original sin?

I have been told that Original Sin is very widely accepted by Christians. So, presumably, you accept that you were born a sinner. Through no specific act or fault of your own, but because of the sin committed by Adam, you were a sinful person from the moment of your birth. Right?

Try to think of your white privilege in the same way. To say that you have white privilege is not to say that you, personally, as a white person, have specifically committed horrible acts against non-white people. But, it is to say that to be born white in a country like the USA is to be born into a heritage of abuse and exploitation, to be born into a racial class whose forefathers (as a class) owned slaves, and mistreated and exploited and abused non-white people for their own gain.

Accepting this is to accept that white privilege does not imply that you are personally richer or more influential than the average non-white person in your country, just as accepting your original sin does not mean that you personally know exactly what the forbidden fruit tasted like. Just as original sin means you are born sinful irrespective of your own acts, white privilege means that to be born white in the USA is to be born into a generally privileged racial group, irrespective of your own acts.

If you believe in and accept your original sin as a Christian, presumably you will take this as a motivation to lead a good life, to do good deeds, and to generally be a better person.

Likewise, then, I implore you to accept your privilege as a white person, and take it as a motivation to understand how non-white people have suffered in your country, and to be motivated to do good by them, to understand them, to counteract your innate privilege and generally be a better person.////

Irl, basically since I went to college, and funnily enough, I was basically a liberal when I got there (abortion being the exception). This new and weird doctrine of 'white privilege', and that to build up non whites one must tear down whites is something I can't accept. It's ubiquitous on social media, on messageboards, on campuses, in HR departments, and beginning to permeate everything else. I'm subscribed to the ny times too, and this Robin Diangelo article https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/15/maga ... ngelo.html was enlightening on how far this shit has spread. Either we believe everyone is equal, or we don't, and I don't think quite a few people my age do anymore. I went to school and got my poli sci degree; for whatever reason I'm still friends with quite a few classmates who have low level jobs in politics (thank God I didn't go that route). They're your future leaders, quite unfortunately, and they talk about white people, especially white men, in terms that belong in the dustbin of history. I'm not welcome in your tent, even though 20 years ago I'd have been happy to be there.

It would really really piss me off if someone analogized my religion in this way.

I don't think the active inclusion of others necessarily means the the exclusion of me. Demanding a seat at the table doesn't mean it has to be your seat. People who try to make you feel this way are being counterproductive to the cause they ostensibly support. People project all the time. People are human. I'm sorry if I offended you.,

Taking race out of it for a moment (so charged and emotional because of our history), there are all kinds of privilege for example able-bodied privilege. Many of us will physically be disabled for some period of rime in our life, giving us the temporary identity of "disabled person'. Now if we are not disabled, we might take something as simple as a high curb for granted, not even noticing it - part of the built environment so mundane and ordinary it totally escapes our notice. Now if disabled people are demanding access we might be surprised, having never considered that. But why not? It's really no skin off our as to have curb cuts. When we see can easily acknowledge the privilege that we have because we are not disabled. We sometimes see 'Not disabled' as the default, even though this is an illusory and temporary category.

Then please consider the social stigma of being disabled, and the many different ways individual disabled people cope with that. Emotionally, politically, practically on a day to day basis. Do they need to talk louder so people will notice them? etc.

Why the anger when people consider that other things about are body that are beyond our control give us more or less (or different) privilege?

Please consider the following statements:
He was accosted because he was white and in the wrong place.
She was accosted because she was a woman and in the wrong place.
He was accosted because he was black and in the wrong place.

are the 'wrong places' that these statements evoke in your imagination the exact same? I imagine probably not. Identity shapes the world that we can see, and the places we can go. We all have our biases sure, but we can recognize them and listem and try and improve things. I think that's the core of democracy.

You didn't offend me, so there's no need to apologize.

I like the idea of taking race out of the analogy and using a disability(tore my mcl in a moshpit, couldn't walk for two weeks, and didn't have healthcare so had to go back to work as soon as I could which sucks if you work at a factory). That said, I don't think that society must order itself for the exception that proves the rule rather than the rule itself. It's nice if it can be done, but constantly bending over backward to give into the whims of anyone who has a grievance is neither a way to have an ordered society or true equality.

And I thought of the same neighborhood for each one, the ghetto I lived in after college. It's by far the most dangerous place for anyone, regardless of their skin color.

I wish you the best, you don't seem hateful like some of the brilliant prognosticators we've got in this forum.

[flash2015]

Elimination of potential candidates by color of skin and sex is discrimination. You'll have to explain how discrimination is the opposite of that, because I simply cannot wrap my brain around it.

Historically candidates have been eliminated before of their skin colour and gender. That is why every VP in history ha sheen a white man.

Where is your outrage at that?

I am outraged by it. I continue to be outraged by it. Now they are simply changing how they discriminate, and I'm supposed to be OK with it. That's outrageous as well. I don't approve of discrimination in any form. It doesn't matter why or who.

Just letting you know that a majority of Americans don't agree with you here and are fine with how Biden made his choice:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bi ... is-harris/

[MajorMitchell]

Wow, six pages of posts & I haven't time to read them now. I'm pleased Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris as VP candidate. In some ways I'd prefer a Kamala Harris as Presidential candidate & Joe Biden as VP if that's the only two candidates the democrats are putting up. That'd be high risk, going for first Woman President, imo the USA isn't willing to embrace that now which is sad.
Maybe patience is the thing, assume that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win, at Joe's age is he a two term proposition?
He could decide to be a one term President and annoint Kamala Harris as a Presidential candidate and set up three terms of democrat presidencies. That's something to get enthusiastic about?

[MajorMitchell]

Of course Nature might play a hand in that scenario.

[New England Fire Squad]

Wow, six pages of posts & I haven't time to read them now. I'm pleased Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris as VP candidate. In some ways I'd prefer a Kamala Harris as Presidential candidate & Joe Biden as VP if that's the only two candidates the democrats are putting up. That'd be high risk, going for first Woman President, imo the USA isn't willing to embrace that now which is sad.
Maybe patience is the thing, assume that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win, at Joe's age is he a two term proposition?
He could decide to be a one term President and annoint Kamala Harris as a Presidential candidate and set up three terms of democrat presidencies. That's something to get enthusiastic about?

That is the general consensus, yes. Run the one placeholder who can maybe enough people like me in PA to win the election and anoint the obvious chosen successor so she can have the benefit of familiarity and incumbency. Gotta love nepotism.

[cormorant]

Wow, six pages of posts & I haven't time to read them now. I'm pleased Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris as VP candidate. In some ways I'd prefer a Kamala Harris as Presidential candidate & Joe Biden as VP if that's the only two candidates the democrats are putting up. That'd be high risk, going for first Woman President, imo the USA isn't willing to embrace that now which is sad.
Maybe patience is the thing, assume that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win, at Joe's age is he a two term proposition?
He could decide to be a one term President and annoint Kamala Harris as a Presidential candidate and set up three terms of democrat presidencies. That's something to get enthusiastic about?

That is the general consensus, yes. Run the one placeholder who can maybe enough people like me in PA to win the election and anoint the obvious chosen successor so she can have the benefit of familiarity and incumbency. Gotta love nepotism.

No my dude, Javanka on secret money missions With no security clearance Is nepotism.
Kamala is _uniquely_ qualified, in some ways more than Biden to help extract us from this moment of accelerating authoritarian corruption. I pray.

I wish you would have had more time to heal
Your foot. That fucking sucks. What concert was it? Was it post-Obamacare?

And earlier you used the word ‘exception’, but women are more than half. And 60% of the Democrat party, so maybe they are the ‘rule’. I think a lot of dudes have a hard time handling spaces where that is the case. And the reason some could not bring themselves to ‘pull the lever’ for Hillary, with her annoying voice and what not.

Yes 2016 happened and maybe we can forgive many people for not being informed enough

Then 2018 also happened, integrate it into your PolitiCal analysis

Then 2020 and 170,000 dead and rising. They aren’t even pretending to care. Lucky they got the Bush AIDS guy still willing to work for the American people despite the death threats. And if you want to talk economics and NAFTA, this COVID hole is much deeper.

But you do care or you wouldn’t be on this thread

Who’s side are you on?

[cormorant]

Wow, six pages of posts & I haven't time to read them now. I'm pleased Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris as VP candidate. In some ways I'd prefer a Kamala Harris as Presidential candidate & Joe Biden as VP if that's the only two candidates the democrats are putting up. That'd be high risk, going for first Woman President, imo the USA isn't willing to embrace that now which is sad.
Maybe patience is the thing, assume that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win, at Joe's age is he a two term proposition?
He could decide to be a one term President and annoint Kamala Harris as a Presidential candidate and set up three terms of democrat presidencies. That's something to get enthusiastic about?

This is pretty much the consensus in the pro-reason pro-democracy wing of America.

[Matticus13]

Historically candidates have been eliminated before of their skin colour and gender. That is why every VP in history ha sheen a white man.

Where is your outrage at that?

I am outraged by it. I continue to be outraged by it. Now they are simply changing how they discriminate, and I'm supposed to be OK with it. That's outrageous as well. I don't approve of discrimination in any form. It doesn't matter why or who.

Just letting you know that a majority of Americans don't agree with you here and are fine with how Biden made his choice:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bi ... is-harris/

Thank you for that. I read 538 often.

Most who claim to be liberal do not fully grasp what it means to be liberal... So, no surprise here.

[New England Fire Squad]

Wow, six pages of posts & I haven't time to read them now. I'm pleased Joe Biden selected Kamala Harris as VP candidate. In some ways I'd prefer a Kamala Harris as Presidential candidate & Joe Biden as VP if that's the only two candidates the democrats are putting up. That'd be high risk, going for first Woman President, imo the USA isn't willing to embrace that now which is sad.
Maybe patience is the thing, assume that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win, at Joe's age is he a two term proposition?
He could decide to be a one term President and annoint Kamala Harris as a Presidential candidate and set up three terms of democrat presidencies. That's something to get enthusiastic about?

That is the general consensus, yes. Run the one placeholder who can maybe enough people like me in PA to win the election and anoint the obvious chosen successor so she can have the benefit of familiarity and incumbency. Gotta love nepotism.

No my dude, Javanka on secret money missions With no security clearance Is nepotism.
Kamala is _uniquely_ qualified, in some ways more than Biden to help extract us from this moment of accelerating authoritarian corruption. I pray.

I wish you would have had more time to heal
Your foot. That fucking sucks. What concert was it? Was it post-Obamacare?

And earlier you used the word ‘exception’, but women are more than half. And 60% of the Democrat party, so maybe they are the ‘rule’. I think a lot of dudes have a hard time handling spaces where that is the case. And the reason some could not bring themselves to ‘pull the lever’ for Hillary, with her annoying voice and what not.

Yes 2016 happened and maybe we can forgive many people for not being informed enough

Then 2018 also happened, integrate it into your PolitiCal analysis

Then 2020 and 170,000 dead and rising. They aren’t even pretending to care. Lucky they got the Bush AIDS guy still willing to work for the American people despite the death threats. And if you want to talk economics and NAFTA, this COVID hole is much deeper.

But you do care or you wouldn’t be on this thread

Who’s side are you on?

>I agree that is also nepotism, but 'they did it too!' is a pretty bad argument,
>It was my knee, New England metalfest 2018, and yes, but I 'made too much' too qualify, and my work healthcare was over 200 a week so I chose not to get it. It's whatever, it ended up healing on its own after about a year.
>There we go with the 'sexism! racism!' stuff again. Do you get why you repeatedly lose winnable elections?Also gotta love that 'the rubes are just uninformed' bit too.
>Yeah. Local democrats ran on healthcare, jobs, and in moderation in general, just like 2006. That isn't happening this year.
>The coronavirus angle is just dumb. One of the worst states is CA, and one of the best is WV. It isn't a political issue imo. I get that you're a partisan, and that's fine, but the morality screeds ring hollow when your side is no better than the ones you hate.

[cormorant]

That is the general consensus, yes. Run the one placeholder who can maybe enough people like me in PA to win the election and anoint the obvious chosen successor so she can have the benefit of familiarity and incumbency. Gotta love nepotism.

No my dude, Javanka on secret money missions With no security clearance Is nepotism.
Kamala is _uniquely_ qualified, in some ways more than Biden to help extract us from this moment of accelerating authoritarian corruption. I pray.

I wish you would have had more time to heal
Your foot. That fucking sucks. What concert was it? Was it post-Obamacare?

And earlier you used the word ‘exception’, but women are more than half. And 60% of the Democrat party, so maybe they are the ‘rule’. I think a lot of dudes have a hard time handling spaces where that is the case. And the reason some could not bring themselves to ‘pull the lever’ for Hillary, with her annoying voice and what not.

Yes 2016 happened and maybe we can forgive many people for not being informed enough

Then 2018 also happened, integrate it into your PolitiCal analysis

Then 2020 and 170,000 dead and rising. They aren’t even pretending to care. Lucky they got the Bush AIDS guy still willing to work for the American people despite the death threats. And if you want to talk economics and NAFTA, this COVID hole is much deeper.

But you do care or you wouldn’t be on this thread

Who’s side are you on?

>I agree that is also nepotism, but 'they did it too!' is a pretty bad argument,
>It was my knee, New England metalfest 2018, and yes, but I 'made too much' too qualify, and my work healthcare was over 200 a week so I chose not to get it. It's whatever, it ended up healing on its own after about a year.
>There we go with the 'sexism! racism!' stuff again. Do you get why you repeatedly lose winnable elections?Also gotta love that 'the rubes are just uninformed' bit too.
>Yeah. Local democrats ran on healthcare, jobs, and in moderation in general, just like 2006. That isn't happening this year.
>The coronavirus angle is just dumb. One of the worst states is CA, and one of the best is WV. It isn't a political issue imo. I get that you're a partisan, and that's fine, but the morality screeds ring hollow when your side is no better than the ones you hate.

Perhaps you are personally not sexist at all. Hypothetically, can you name any living American woman that you think is more qualified to be President than the one we have now? Under what conditions would you vote for her?

Every country that has contained this virus orders of magnitude better than we have has had a national plan. All of western Europe is doing better than us by a factor of 1000s. South Korea, Vietnam and Myanmar are doing better than us. I don't understand how a person that is 'pro-life' can just shrug at 170,000 dead Americans unless they've completely lost sight of their principles. California is not doing great, but we were one of the first ones hit likely due to lots of back and forth with China, where the virus originated. There are economic factors that force a lot of people to work in unsafe conditions which I'm sure you can understand, it's not because we opened up bars like in Texas.

[Octavious]

@Octavious - I'm going to suggest that if you lived in the US you _might_ be a Democrat because you are at least conceding that Harris is a 'Yank', unlike our racist President. That comment about 'Spaniards' was pretty weird though.

You've made a lot of assumptions about who I am that are off base. I do have skin in this (non)game as I belong to a multi-racial non-Christian family.

Good Lord. How many times do I have to say I'm not a Republican and would never vote for Trump? You would suggest I might be a Democrat? No shit, Sherlock, as I believe the American expression goes. I am a centre right British member of the Liberal Democrats who believes in health care that's free at the point of use, doesn't understand the obsession with banning abortion, and thinks private citizens walking around with guns in cities is utter madness. There is very little common ground between myself and the Republicans. The very word "republican" I find politically offensive, although they've moved a long way from their revolutionary red flag waving traitorous roots.

I have made literally no assumptions about who you are. I have no idea why you like to imagine I have.

[Octavious]

That New York Times article of yours, micha, is revolting.

Senator Elizabeth Warren formed a close working relationship with Mr. Biden on economic matters, but she represented neither generational nor racial diversity.

So the Biden approach to Warren in a nutshell: She had tits, which was good, but they were old white tits, which was bad.

And Tammy Duckworth ruled out because of birther arguments?

The more I hear about the selection process, the more repulsive it sounds.

[flash2015]

That New York Times article of yours, micha, is revolting.

Senator Elizabeth Warren formed a close working relationship with Mr. Biden on economic matters, but she represented neither generational nor racial diversity.

So the Biden approach to Warren in a nutshell: She had tits, which was good, but they were old white tits, which was bad.

And Tammy Duckworth ruled out because of birther arguments?

The more I hear about the selection process, the more repulsive it sounds.

What fake outrage nonsense. So it would have been better to have two candidates over 70?

Where were you for the years of birther crap that Obama went through because he wasn't white (pushed by Trump himself)? Look at what they are doing to Kamala already.

[cormorant]

That New York Times article of yours, micha, is revolting.

Senator Elizabeth Warren formed a close working relationship with Mr. Biden on economic matters, but she represented neither generational nor racial diversity.

So the Biden approach to Warren in a nutshell: She had tits, which was good, but they were old white tits, which was bad.

And Tammy Duckworth ruled out because of birther arguments?

The more I hear about the selection process, the more repulsive it sounds.

What fake outrage nonsense. So it would have been better to have two candidates over 70?

Where were you for the years of birther crap that Obama went through because he wasn't white (pushed by Trump himself)? Look at what they are doing to Kamala already.

The fake outrage, the Performative misogyny, and the withholding of judgment on the murder of George Floyd in a different thread led me assume he was on the right. Our systems are so different! My bad.

[flash2015]

That New York Times article of yours, micha, is revolting.



So the Biden approach to Warren in a nutshell: She had tits, which was good, but they were old white tits, which was bad.

And Tammy Duckworth ruled out because of birther arguments?

The more I hear about the selection process, the more repulsive it sounds.

What fake outrage nonsense. So it would have been better to have two candidates over 70?

Where were you for the years of birther crap that Obama went through because he wasn't white (pushed by Trump himself)? Look at what they are doing to Kamala already.

The fake outrage, the Performative misogyny, and the withholding of judgment on the murder of George Floyd in a different thread led me assume he was on the right. Our systems are so different! My bad.

Octavious is unfortunately a troll who usually posts just to provoke reactions. A sign of a liberal I would argue is to actually try and make an argument...and recognise there is often some nuance to issues. As I said in the other thread Octavious just presents his conclusions and will often call you names or gives you labels if you disagree with him.

[Octavious]

Brilliant, Flash, brilliant. Label people you disagree with a troll an they're far easier to dismiss. How to maintain your bubble 101. There is no nuance here. There is just a blatantly racist and sexist selection policy and it's damned shameful to see so many people supporting it.

[Octavious]

That New York Times article of yours, micha, is revolting.

Senator Elizabeth Warren formed a close working relationship with Mr. Biden on economic matters, but she represented neither generational nor racial diversity.

So the Biden approach to Warren in a nutshell: She had tits, which was good, but they were old white tits, which was bad.

And Tammy Duckworth ruled out because of birther arguments?

The more I hear about the selection process, the more repulsive it sounds.

What fake outrage nonsense. So it would have been better to have two candidates over 70?

Where were you for the years of birther crap that Obama went through because he wasn't white (pushed by Trump himself)? Look at what they are doing to Kamala already.

It would have been better, light years better, to select a candidate not using sex, race and age as the primary drivers. There is an argument for saying that you're not selecting anyone past retirement age, but that argument vanishes when the person doing the selecting is far further past retirement age himself.

It is sexist, racist, ageist, and a damned disgrace.