Kamala Harris Is Biden’s VP Pick

[Matticus13]

Not a Joke. The signers are people who have dedicated their lives to advancing gender and racial equality in the US, which you admitted you know little about. Maybe try to understand where they are coming from?

I understand what they are trying to do.

They are going about it the wrong way.

That's what Octavious has been trying to say, but no one is listening.

They used *color* and *gender* as a starting point in the search. It's wrong.

They made it a requirement. Wrong. All wrong.

I am absolutely listening...but you and Octavious keep ignoring that choosing a VP for a specific constituency is absolutely not new.

I cannot speak for Oct, but I realize the history of the VP vetting process. I can still chose to call out the increasingly flawed logic and immoral nature of the process. Call me a dreamer, but I expect more from people who want to run my country.

[cormorant]

@Matticus I sincerely appreciate your commitment to fairness!

the 'hypothetical example' you gave is almost all of American History and that is exactly the point. Although the declaration was implicit. It went without saying that the President, the V, senators, congresspeople would all be white men.

The historical legacy of white supremacy is the root cause of much of the unfairness in the US as a whole, and entire classes of people were excluded from the process within living memory.

[Matticus13]

@Matticus I sincerely appreciate your commitment to fairness!

the 'hypothetical example' you gave is almost all of American History and that is exactly the point. Although the declaration was implicit. It went without saying that the President, the V, senators, congresspeople would all be white men.

The historical legacy of white supremacy is the root cause of much of the unfairness in the US as a whole, and entire classes of people were excluded from the process within living memory.

Yes, but in a free, progressive society we should not be judging candidates based on gender/race. We consider all candidates and choose the best regardless of race/gender.

[cormorant]

Yes, but in a free, progressive society we should not be judging candidates based on gender/race. We consider all candidates and choose the best regardless of race/gender

Totally agree... but
Are we really in free, progressive society yet? Consider
-a majority of American voters had their will thwarted due an Electoral College that was originally devised to appease slave states. Installing an explicitly racist President
-Unprecedented protests against Police violence, but Breonna Taylor's killers are still free
-Voter suppression specifically targeting minorities
-A Senate that that it 3/4 male, almost all white, and under-represents states with higher proportions of non-whites
-Gerrymandered congressional and statehouse districts, such as in Wisconson, where Democrats can win 55% of the vote but only control 45% of the seats

I think we are not there yet, and that more equal representation is needed to help us get there.

[cormorant]

@Octavious

The people who dedicated their lives to advancing gender and racial equality in the UK count making discrimination on race and sex illegal amongst their finest achievements. An achievement I celebrate and defend with great enthusiasm.

according to Wikipedia...
-the UK anti-discrimination law was advanced by the Labour Party (Left, correct?)

and there is an exemption for
"Political parties who use 'protected characteristics' (age, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation) as candidate selection criteria"

Which sounds pretty much like what Joe Biden did. Feel free to correct me.

Octavious I graciously accept your surrender!

[Matticus13]

America has plenty of work to do. I already stated I wouldn't be against the Libertarians taking control, ripping it all down, so there would be fewer roadblocks to rebuild a better mouse trap (government). Gerrymandering, voter suppression, reforming law enforcement (another long, drawn out discussion on the *correct* way), education, healthcare, prison reform, etc are all on my list (some of those things you didn't list).

None of the things you mentioned justify discrimination. Two wrongs don't make a right. It's a slippery slope...

[flash2015]

Who is getting discriminated against here though? What constituency is being robbed of representation because of this decision?

[Matticus13]

Who is getting discriminated against here though? What constituency is being robbed of representation because of this decision?

Democrats who were qualified for the position excluded because of race/gender.

Democrats.

[flash2015]

Who is getting discriminated against here though? What constituency is being robbed of representation because of this decision?

Democrats who were qualified for the position excluded because of race/gender.

Democrats.

No-one is being robbed of representation by this decision. In fact we are improving representation because under-represented constituencies are getting the opportunity to be VP for the first time.

And if democrat members of congress, senate or governors (the usual groups where a VP will come from) are supposedly the ones discriminated against why are people that are not affiliated with the democrat party the most offended?

Again, I am not a big fan of the pick but this is getting silly.

[cormorant]

under-represented constituencies are getting the opportunity to be VP for the first time.

First Dem candidate for VP or president _ever_ from California or even west of Colorado! :)

[Matticus13]

Discrimination isn't silly; its roots are based in hate and fear, and should be trampled at every opportunity. It's one of the largest obstacles remaining to liberalism winning the battle against nationalism. You would think liberals would understand this by now... The hate and fear people have in their hearts for one another is the enemy of progress. The Democratic Party doesn't sound liberal to me...

I am a liberal. I want the party to actually practice what it preaches and learn how to balance a checkbook. Is that too much to ask?

[flash2015]

Discrimination isn't silly; its roots are based in hate and fear, and should be trampled at every opportunity. It's one of the largest obstacles remaining to liberalism winning the battle against nationalism. You would think liberals would understand this by now... The hate and fear people have in their hearts for one another is the enemy of progress. The Democratic Party doesn't sound liberal to me...

I am a liberal. I want the party to actually practice what it preaches and learn how to balance a checkbook. Is that too much to ask?

Oh, please. What I am calling silly is your effort to keep hanging on to calling this "discrimination" when the outcome is the exact opposite of it. Ratcheting up the hyperbole doesn't make your argument any less wrong.

[flash2015]

I am a liberal. I want the party to actually practice what it preaches and learn how to balance a checkbook. Is that too much to ask?

I wish both sides would learn how to balance a checkbook. If we were in such good economic shape before the pandemic, why did we have trillion dollar deficits? Usually a good economy should correspond to a budget surplus. Republicans only care about deficits when they aren't in power.

[Matticus13]

Oh, please. What I am calling silly is your effort to keep hanging on to calling this "discrimination" when the outcome is the exact opposite of it. Ratcheting up the hyperbole doesn't make your argument any less wrong.

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.

[Matticus13]

I am a liberal. I want the party to actually practice what it preaches and learn how to balance a checkbook. Is that too much to ask?

I wish both sides would learn how to balance a checkbook. If we were in such good economic shape before the pandemic, why did we have trillion dollar deficits? Usually a good economy should correspond to a budget surplus. Republicans only care about deficits when they aren't in power.

Agreed. I never said the Republicans were good at it. In many ways, they are worse.

[flash2015]

Oh, please. What I am calling silly is your effort to keep hanging on to calling this "discrimination" when the outcome is the exact opposite of it. Ratcheting up the hyperbole doesn't make your argument any less wrong.

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.

Oh please. How many times do we have to repeat this? Constituencies have a chance to get represented that have never been represented before in either VP or President position. This is helping reduce discrimination. The President and VP have never been chosen on merit, they are chosen at the ballot box. Biden made the pick which he hopes will help him win. Whether it does or not remains to be seen.

The people you claim are being discriminated against have shown no indication that they feel discriminated against. Instead they will be cheering Biden/Harris on until election day. How can you claim discrimination for them when they are not claiming discrimination themselves? Again this is all very silly.

[Matticus13]

-I get it. The ends justify the means. Their selection process blows. Like I said earlier, lame. Typical of American politics. All they care about is power, not how a progressive party should be run.

-I get it. I'm unrealistic. That's not how politics work. That's why independents unexpectedly voted more heavily in favor of Trump in 2016. There was a chance (an almost zero percent chance) that he could actually clean up some of the government. Because American politics/politicians/political parties are lame.

That's all I got. You can have the last word. I'm going to attempt to give up now. Goodnight.

[Octavious]

@Octavious

The people who dedicated their lives to advancing gender and racial equality in the UK count making discrimination on race and sex illegal amongst their finest achievements. An achievement I celebrate and defend with great enthusiasm.

according to Wikipedia...
-the UK anti-discrimination law was advanced by the Labour Party (Left, correct?)

and there is an exemption for
"Political parties who use 'protected characteristics' (age, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation) as candidate selection criteria"

Which sounds pretty much like what Joe Biden did. Feel free to correct me.

Octavious I graciously accept your surrender!

Surrender? Aww, bless. Young micha clearly thinks he's fighting a mighty battle on behalf of the beaten and suppressed. No, micha, it's a discussion on the Internet. People drop in and out of it as they do other things. Complex stuff to get your head around, I know .

Ah, but we have an opportunity to educate on a matter that micha knows very little about, so should not waste it. Micha previously suggested I shouldn't even be allowed to discuss the VP pick unless I had a detailed knowledge of regional US politics, yet apparently a cursory glance at Wikipedia is perfectly adequate for micha to comment on British politics. Nice to see that the principle of American exceptionalism is alive and well in the political left .

All women shortlists were trialed by left leaning parties in the 90s in order to address the fact that they were failing to get women elected. This resulted in a legal challenge built around the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and the practice was declared illegal.

Now Tony Blair wasn't a fan of the law telling him what he could and couldn't do, so he used his parliamentary majority to change it. He introduced the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002 that basically let him do what he wanted. In order to get this rather controversial legislation through both Houses smoothly he added a sunset clause, and the Act is due to expire within the next decade.

It should be noted that the Act applies only to where people are elected as part of a debating chamber. We're talking about The House of Commons, National Parliaments and Assemblies, local councils, that sort of thing. It does not apply to Mayoral elections as there is only one position, and the justification of increasing diversity within a debating chamber cannot apply. In selecting a shortlist of candidates for such a position it would be illegal to have an all women shortlist as this is clearly discriminatory.

So, if you had a college of Vice Presidents who met together each week to debate before providing advice to Biden, you would be correct that it would be permitted under current UK law.

But you don't have that.

So you are wrong.


If you still want to play war feel free to offer a surrender. I don't really care, but I wouldn't want to upset you unnecessarily.

[orathaic]

If you want the best person for the job, and have a better system for figuring out who that is, feel free to explain it

Perhaps a system that wouldn't, had it been applied in the British Isles, leave you open to prosecution for breaking UK or Irish discrimination laws would be a good start?

Actually, under irish law, political parties are expected to field at least (either) 30 or 40% female candidates (if they don't they face the loss of some state funding). I think it was 30% but increased to 40% since...

It is then up to the public to choose their preferred candidate, and they can also discriminate based on race or gender. No laws relating to the public vote exist.

[New England Fire Squad]

For the record, Octavious made several valid points before this all derailed into the predictable yelling match

The main one being:

- By narrowing the field SOLELY based on race and gender, the Democrats did Kamala (or whomever they had chosen) a disservice, and gave independent voters a reason to dismiss/downplay her appointment.

It's very sad. I used to be a registered Democrat. I am truly happy for Kamala, but the party is damn near beyond repair.

I come from a long line of Democrats. The party is about as representative of me as a goldfish would be at this point.