2020 US Presidential Nominees
- Thread starter GreyCrow
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Feb 25, 2013
- 51,309
- 58,468
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #10,405
Right, more same same but different.
You guys should get t-shirts printed
Can you make a point about how Biden choosing from black women for his VP is the same as Trump choosing from a pool of candidates that includes mostly white men and a mostly white man is picked?
The odds USA wide of choosing a black woman for VP is about 7%.
If that isn't excluding options to favor another based on race and gender, then what the hell is?
Only if you can show where BLM protest organisers encouraged everyone to come along and protest for anarchy.
The fact that the Unite The Right mob were taking a leisurely stroll around town with tiki torches the night before the actual rally kicked off might be a clue as to the organisers core beliefs.
I'm sorry but I can't see where Trump publically announced that his VP had to be an evangelical
Taylor are you saying that out of that 7% there couldn't possibly be a black woman qualified enough to be even considered as Trump's VP? Seems little racist of you
Seriously though, the original point was about slotting in a VP who, because of their characteristics, would 'balance' the candidate with a specific voting block. I would argue this is not a particularly new concept or something to get you undies in a twist over.
Nor am I interested in quibbling over semantics. "Oooh but Trump didn't say he was going to choose this type of candidate... he just ended up with one from a field of them, totally different"
I found this, but can't see anything about encouraging people to riot or protest for anarchy -> https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/
Possibly I'm in the wrong place? Link me up.
Well, you could point that out if there was one. Firstly, I'd point out I linked evidence for the claim. Secondly, equating a small protest organised by a specific organisation at a time when such protests were still niche events with limited to national outreach, where the people who attended continued to act in the same way as advertised (the chants and torches for example), to national protests over an event that everyone agreed was deplorable and in many cases was sporadic ....... is pretty logically dubious.
No, it is ridiculous position to hold without evidence. If the defenders of the brumbies, or a small group protesting the redevelopment of a pub, or some environmentalists chain themselves to trees, or a group does a sit-in, we would not make that assumption. Where a protest is on a small, local scale with a very specific complaint, it is usually a specific group involved. Attendees are usually drawn from a tight nit group or organisations.
Where you start to see diverse coalitions forming is for the really big protests, which have a lot of large scale coverage before the actual protest, and are about an issue important to a broad group.
The rally was organised by white supremacist groups. On radio the rally organiser stated that "the number one thing is I want to destigmatize Pro-White advocacy", the posters advertising the rally didn't mention the statue and listed the speakers as all white supremacist talkers. But you want to argue that "maybe some others who didn't support this turned up". In that case, the onus is on you, and the president, to show that that is reasonable.
What makes you think Pence didn't get the appointment on merit then? He has proven to be a damn fine VP after all. Should he have been excluded from the post because of his faith?Nor am I interested in quibbling over semantics. "Oooh but Trump didn't say he was going to choose this type of candidate... he just ended up with one from a field of them, totally different"
- Feb 25, 2013
- 51,309
- 58,468
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
SM
Bigfooty Legend
But on the list of potential VPs there were such "black" women as Elizabeth Warren?
Perhaps it's not so much pandering as it is recognising that different demographics deserve representation in office so as to reflect the demographics of the country? But that couldn't be it could it?
All your lot cry and scream about pandering and identity politics whenever a minority is selected as if there's a situation where you would accept it. These women were highly qualified candidates and all more than capable of holding the position.
SM
Bigfooty Legend
"Because I'm not offended by particular racial profiling or comments that get made then no one is allowed to be offended by it."
Has he though? His approval ratings are at about circa 43%. This aside, its ok to admit all politicians stack their Veep for a specific purpose of filling a voting block that their main candidate relies upon.
People shouldn't be pulled into Taylor's claims about Harris being a sexist appointment. It's just another one in the raft of baseless accusations that right wingers are currently throwing trying to get something to stick.
The VP selection always has three criteria, (1) do no harm, (2) improve the nominee's chances and (3) have the right credentials. The third is often the least important, just look at Palin's selection. Criteria (1) and (2) are used to narrow the pool, and frequently reduce the candidates to specific groups. This might be a woman, a man, a set of particular states, a religion, etc.
In this case it's been rumoured since before the SC primary that Biden had done a deal with Clyburn for his running mate to be African American for his endorsement. Choosing a black woman strengthens Biden's position with a large segment of his base who will be more enthused by the candidacy. This isn't a sexist or racist decision, it is cold hard politics. Solidifying his base and increasing their enthusiasm.
Taylor suggesting otherwise is just mud wracking. You didn't hear Republicans criticise Hillary for choosing Kaine, despite everyone knowing she was going to choose a man.
The VP selection always has three criteria, (1) do no harm, (2) improve the nominee's chances and (3) have the right credentials. The third is often the least important, just look at Palin's selection. Criteria (1) and (2) are used to narrow the pool, and frequently reduce the candidates to specific groups. This might be a woman, a man, a set of particular states, a religion, etc.
In this case it's been rumoured since before the SC primary that Biden had done a deal with Clyburn for his running mate to be African American for his endorsement. Choosing a black woman strengthens Biden's position with a large segment of his base who will be more enthused by the candidacy. This isn't a sexist or racist decision, it is cold hard politics. Solidifying his base and increasing their enthusiasm.
Taylor suggesting otherwise is just mud wracking. You didn't hear Republicans criticise Hillary for choosing Kaine, despite everyone knowing she was going to choose a man.
- Aug 2, 2012
- 34,820
- 56,394
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Is his wife going to stand up next to him on the podium as a chaperone when he debates Harris?
Plenty of people initially believed her. And then as more information came out, it became much less likely the allegations are accurate.
- Feb 25, 2013
- 51,309
- 58,468
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
Not at all.
Point is we all knew Trump's VP would be a white man, seems inconsistent to get worked up about knowing Biden would go with a black woman.
Last edited:
- Feb 25, 2013
- 51,309
- 58,468
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
That's why it's awkward for her!
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #10,423
Taylor are you saying that out of that 7% there couldn't possibly be a black woman qualified enough to be even considered as Trump's VP? Seems little racist of you
Seriously though, the original point was about slotting in a VP who, because of their characteristics, would 'balance' the candidate with a specific voting block. I would argue this is not a particularly new concept or something to get you undies in a twist over.
Nor am I interested in quibbling over semantics. "Oooh but Trump didn't say he was going to choose this type of candidate... he just ended up with one from a field of them, totally different"
I think we can agree that outcome doesn't determine what your motives were going in, but when you specifically narrow it down at the start then your motives are clear.
It's sexist and racist and the Democratic party are playing their supporters for fools expecting them to not see through this sort of token selection.
Just look at the women who did better than Harris at the most recent polls, discounted because they were white.
Awkward for Harris.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
