Kamala Harris Is Biden’s VP Pick

[orathaic]

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.

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?

[orathaic]

Also, eliminating all candidates who match Biden's (male white) already represented demographics (in the P/VP ticket)...

[cormorant]

Here's an accounting of the selection process that's a bit less cartoonish than what's being discussed here. Biden is a thoughtful statesman, and I like him even when I disagree with with him.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/13/us/p ... arris.html

How Biden Chose Harris: A Search That Forged New Stars, Friends and Rivalries

Joe Biden winnowed a large list of candidates to four finalists before settling on Kamala Harris, in a process shaped by questions of loyalty. He is eyeing other contenders for top administration jobs.

It was early in Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s vice-presidential search when he asked his advisers a sensitive question about Senator Kamala Harris. He kept hearing so much private criticism of her from other California Democrats, he wanted to know: Is she simply unpopular in her home state?

Advisers assured Mr. Biden that was not the case: Ms. Harris had her share of Democratic rivals and detractors in the factional world of California politics, but among regular voters her standing was solid.

Mr. Biden’s query, and the quiet attacks that prompted it, helped begin a delicate audition for Ms. Harris that has never before been revealed in depth. She faced daunting obstacles, including an array of strong competitors, unease about her within the Biden family and bitter feuds from California and the 2020 primary season that exploded anew.

Though Ms. Harris was seen from the start as a front-runner, Mr. Biden did not begin the process with a favorite in mind, and he settled on Ms. Harris only after an exhaustive review that forged new political alliances, deepened existing rivalries and further elevated a cohort of women as leaders in their party.

Ms. Harris was one of four finalists for the job, along with Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Susan E. Rice, the former national security adviser. But in the eyes of Mr. Biden and his advisers, Ms. Harris alone covered every one of their essential political needs.

Ms. Rice had sterling foreign-policy credentials and a history of working with Mr. Biden, but was inexperienced as a candidate. Ms. Warren had an enthusiastic following and became a trusted adviser to Mr. Biden on economic matters, but she represented neither generational nor racial diversity. Ms. Whitmer, a moderate, appealed to Mr. Biden’s political and ideological instincts, but selecting her also would have yielded an all-white ticket.

Other candidates rose and faded in the process: Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois powerfully impressed Mr. Biden’s search team, but his lawyers feared she would face challenges to her eligibility because of the circumstances of her birth overseas. Representative Karen Bass of California emerged as a favorite among elected officials and progressives — Speaker Nancy Pelosi spoke glowingly of her to Mr. Biden — but the relationship-focused Mr. Biden barely knew her.

In the end, Mr. Biden embraced Ms. Harris as a partner for reasons that were both pragmatic and personal — a sign of how the former vice president, who is oriented toward seeking consensus and building broad coalitions, might be expected to govern. Indeed, Mr. Biden has already told allies he hopes a number of the other vice-presidential contenders will join his administration in other roles.

This account of Mr. Biden’s decision is based on interviews with more than three dozen people involved in the process, including advisers to Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris, allies of other vice-presidential prospects and Democratic leaders deeply invested in the outcome of the search.

Mr. Biden’s instincts were not destined to lead him to Ms. Harris: He and members of his family had long expressed discomfort with the way she attacked him at a Democratic primary debate, and his political advisers remembered well the seemingly constant dysfunction of her presidential campaign.

There was a particular distrust in the Biden camp for the sharp-elbowed California operatives with whom Ms. Harris has long surrounded herself, fearing that they might seek to undermine Mr. Biden in office to clear the way for Ms. Harris in 2024.

Yet no other candidate scored as highly with Mr. Biden’s selection committee on so many of their core criteria for choosing a running mate, including her ability to help Mr. Biden win in November, her strength as a debater, her qualifications for governing and the racial diversity she would bring to the ticket. No other candidate seemed to match the political moment better.

Joseph R. Biden Jr. embraced Ms. Harris as a partner for reasons that were both pragmatic and personal.Credit...Erin Schaff/The New York Times
Harry Reid, the former Senate majority leader, said race had been essential to Mr. Biden’s decision.

“I think he came to the conclusion that he should pick a Black woman,” Mr. Reid said. “They are our most loyal voters and I think that the Black women of America deserved a Black vice-presidential candidate.”

Ms. Harris worked to soothe misgivings in the Biden family, including from Jill Biden and Valerie Biden Owens, Mr. Biden’s sister and longtime adviser. But Ms. Harris also drew upon a family link unmatched by any other candidate: her friendship with Mr. Biden’s elder son, Beau, who died from cancer in 2015.

The potential for conflict between Biden and Harris advisers was resolved in another way, at least for now: Mr. Biden and his advisers conveyed to Ms. Harris that they expected to have the same understanding with respect to staff hiring that Mr. Biden had followed with former President Barack Obama. During the campaign and, if they win, during a Biden-Harris administration, Ms. Harris’s staff hiring would be approved by Mr. Biden.

Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, Mr. Biden’s campaign manager, told Ms. Harris plainly after she was picked that they would be one team, and that she would have the full support of the Biden staff. In a statement Thursday night, after this story was published online, Ms. O’Malley Dillon said some Harris aides would be coming on board.

“We’ve already begun welcoming members of Senator Harris’ team to the campaign and are all moving forward together, as one unit focused on beating Donald Trump this fall,” Ms. O’Malley Dillon said.

But other Biden advisers made clear that selecting Ms. Harris for the vice presidency did not mean selecting her full political entourage for jobs in the campaign or government — a reality Ms. Harris is said to have accepted.

Within the Biden team, it was understood that rule would apply even to her sister, Maya Harris, a former Hillary Clinton adviser who is Kamala Harris’s closest confidante. But a Biden spokesman said on Thursday night that the matter of Maya Harris did not come up in conversations with the senator.

Searching for a Partner
Having been through a vice-presidential search himself, Mr. Biden was clear from the start about what he wanted in a running mate — and in a selection process. He wanted a full partner in government with whom he felt personally “simpatico.” He did not want a “Survivor”-style process of elimination whereby a large pool of candidates would be gradually slashed down, with the losers identified as such in public, according to people who spoke to him about the process.

And for the most part, that is what Mr. Biden got — a discreet search team, led by four Democratic dignitaries, that held interviews with about a dozen women, a smaller number of whom were then asked to turn over a huge volume of private documents for review. To ensure the contenders’ privacy, he did not allow even his senior staff members to see some of their most personal vetting information.

Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles, one of the members of the search team, said Mr. Biden had been emphatic that the process should unfold in a dignified manner that would leave all the participants better off.

“He was committed to this being a career elevation for everybody, and finding the right running mate, and he did both,” said Mr. Garcetti, who declined to comment on the details of the search.

The interviews conducted by Mr. Biden’s search team were revealing and, in some cases, surprising — not because of confidential and damaging information that came to light, but because of the personal candor and raw political ability that some candidates brought to the conversations.

Two of the standout interviews were with Ms. Duckworth, an Asian-American veteran of the Iraq war, and Gov. Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island, a centrist with formidable academic and business credentials. Both left the search committee dazzled, but they faced other obstacles — in Ms. Raimondo’s case, her limited national profile and adversarial relationship with influential labor unions.

Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois powerfully impressed Mr. Biden’s search team, but his lawyers feared she would face challenges to her eligibility because she was born overseas.
Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois powerfully impressed Mr. Biden’s search team, but his lawyers feared she would face challenges to her eligibility because she was born overseas.Credit...Erin Schaff for The New York Times
Ms. Duckworth was regarded by Biden advisers as among the candidates likeliest to help him achieve a smashing electoral victory in November. But legal advisers to the campaign expressed urgent concern that Ms. Duckworth could face challenges to her nomination in court: She was born overseas, to an American father and a Thai mother. While Mr. Biden’s team believed Ms. Duckworth was eligible for national office, campaign lawyers feared that it would take just one partisan judge in one swing state to throw the whole Democratic ticket off the ballot.

Ms. Warren, too, was persuasive and compelling to the search committee in her interviews, pleasantly surprising a largely moderate panel, including several members who had looked askance at some of the policies and language she adopted in her own presidential campaign. But Ms. Warren told the committee she fully appreciated that the role of the vice president was different, and that the agenda of a Biden administration would be Mr. Biden’s.

“He won; I lost,” Ms. Warren said in one interview, according to people briefed on her comments.

What’s more, Ms. Warren noted that she was past her 70th birthday, and would not be looking to advance a long-range political career in the vice presidency, leaving some members of the search team convinced she did not aim to run for president again. The search team told Mr. Biden they believed they could rely on Ms. Warren as a cooperative governing partner — an assessment Mr. Biden shared.

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

Senator Elizabeth Warren formed a close working relationship with Mr. Biden
Of all the interviews conducted, only Ms. Harris’s burst into public view as a matter of controversy, when one of the members of the search team, former Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, told associates that he had been dismayed by what he regarded as an inadequately contrite answer by Ms. Harris about her searing denunciation of Mr. Biden at a Democratic primary debate in June 2019.

Ms. Harris recognized from the start that her attack on Mr. Biden — for having worked with segregationist senators to oppose school busing — was a liability for her as a potential running mate, and she spent considerable time reaching out to Biden allies to seek their advice about how she should approach the former vice president.

One longtime Biden supporter told her bluntly that she should make clear she would not upstage Mr. Biden in the campaign, telling her, “You don’t need to be Sarah Palin to his John McCain.”

Another Biden ally, who served with him in the Obama administration, urged Ms. Harris to at least implicitly engage on the topic of their debate clash, proposing that she bring up George H.W. Bush’s criticism of Ronald Reagan’s “voodoo economics” in the 1980 Republican primary — an attack that did not stop the two from serving beside each other for eight years.

But Ms. Harris’s interviews covered far more ground than just a single debate, and like the other candidates, Ms. Harris faced intensive scrutiny of her personal and political history. Biden advisers asked, for instance, about contributions she received as state attorney general from Steven Mnuchin, President Trump’s Treasury secretary, who at the time was running a bank, OneWest, that was accused of violating foreclosure laws. Ms. Harris declined to pursue prosecutions in the case.

Ms. Harris has said consistently that political donations played no role in her legal decisions as attorney general.

In her interviews, and in a final-round conversation with Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris was emphatic on one point: that she would be loyal to Mr. Biden and support his agenda without reservation, according to a Biden aide briefed on their discussion.

Deliberation and Debate
By July, Mr. Biden and his team were converging on a theory of his decision, if not yet an actual vice-presidential pick.

There was broad agreement among his advisers that Mr. Biden should choose a woman of color, though Mr. Biden remained drawn to both Ms. Whitmer and Ms. Warren. There was unanimity that he needed someone with unimpeachable governing qualifications: Private Democratic polling and focus groups found that voters were keenly aware of Mr. Biden’s advanced age, and the possibility that his running mate could become president by medical rather than electoral means.

In some Democratic focus groups, too, voters expressed skepticism that Biden would choose a candidate with strong qualifications: By making gender a nonnegotiable requirement, they wondered, was Mr. Biden indicating he cared more about identity than experience? To Democratic strategists who have studied the obstacles for women in politics, the presumption that there would be better credentialed men available was not a surprising concern.

At least two women besides Ms. Harris seemed capable of matching all those criteria: Ms. Rice and Ms. Bass, the former speaker of the California Assembly.

Susan E. Rice, the former national security adviser, had sterling foreign-policy credentials and a close relationship with Mr. Biden, but was inexperienced as a political candidate.
Susan E. Rice, the former national security adviser, had sterling foreign-policy credentials and a close relationship with Mr. Biden, but was inexperienced as a political candidate.Credit...Doug Mills/ The New York Times
Ms. Rice benefited from her close relationship with Mr. Biden and a concerted push on her behalf by other alumni of the Obama administration, though not the former president himself. But she had never been a candidate for office before, and Mr. Biden was more familiar than most with how much of a vice president’s time is typically spent on political errands. He concluded it would be too risky to pick a running mate who had never been on the ballot.

Ms. Bass emerged late in the process as a formidable rival to Ms. Harris. Though she was little known outside California and Congress, Ms. Bass impressed the vetting committee, and Mr. Dodd took steps to elevate her during the search process. Several people close to Mr. Biden sang her praises to the former vice president, including Ms. Pelosi and Senator Chris Coons of Delaware.

But Ms. Bass knew she had political liabilities, according to people who spoke with her directly throughout the process. She had visited Cuba repeatedly as a young woman and at times had made somewhat admiring comments about the government of Fidel Castro. She discussed those matters openly with the vetting committee, recognizing how politically damaging they could be in the crucial swing state of Florida, with its large and politically active immigrant communities from repressive Latin American countries.

Mr. Biden was aware of Ms. Bass’s Castro-era baggage well before it spilled into the news media. He told one longtime friend that her history with Cuba could cause political headaches, though to other people he suggested he did not see it as politically disqualifying — he intended to win the election in the Midwest, Mr. Biden told them, even if he were to fall short in Florida.

For Mr. Biden, Ms. Bass’s greatest shortcoming as a candidate was simpler: He did not really know her, and the coronavirus pandemic made it difficult to establish a close personal connection in short order.

One candidate who did forge such a bond with both Joe and Jill Biden was Representative Val Demings of Florida, a former Orlando police chief whom one adviser said the Bidens “loved.” Ms. Demings’s background in law enforcement may have hindered her in the vice-presidential search — Mr. Biden was briefed on specific allegations of police misconduct on her watch — but some Biden advisers are hopeful she will challenge Senator Marco Rubio in the 2022 election.

As Mr. Biden’s private deliberations wore on, the public dimension to the process began to grow ugly. A report in Politico on Mr. Dodd’s criticism of Ms. Harris enraged her admirers, and this week some of Mr. Biden’s top aides, still irritated at Mr. Dodd’s apparent lapse in discretion, sought to downplay the selection committee’s clout, suggesting its members had no more pull than his other advisers.


Representative Karen Bass of California emerged as a favorite among elected officials and progressives, but the relationship-focused Mr. Biden barely knew her.
Representative Karen Bass of California emerged as a favorite among elected officials and progressives, but the relationship-focused Mr. Biden barely knew her.Credit...Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times
Supporters of Ms. Harris saw the late surge of advocacy for Ms. Bass — another, more liberal Black woman from California — as the equivalent of a torpedo aimed at Ms. Harris alone, while allies of Ms. Bass and Ms. Rice privately complained that they believed Ms. Harris’s political advisers were circulating negative information about them to the news media.

Mr. Biden and his top aides were cognizant of the sniping, but advisers stressed to the former vice president that there was no way of knowing if it was authorized by Ms. Harris or was being done on a freelance basis — and that they shouldn’t let it color their decision.

Some Democratic women were uneasy, though, about how much criticism all four finalists faced, and made little attempt to hide their frustration.

“We need to be celebrating these women,” said Representative Debbie Dingell of Michigan. “They are all talented, passionate, capable people.”

Mr. Biden’s mind was nearly made up by the end of the weekend, but he kept talking with advisers into Monday. On Tuesday morning, the campaign set in motion the announcement that became public within hours. And Mr. Biden went about the hard business of letting down the runners-up that he had come to value as allies and friends.

One by one, Mr. Biden told them he hoped to have them “on the team” in one way or another, according to people briefed on his calls.

To Ms. Harris, he placed a video call and asked, “You ready to go to work?”

[cormorant]

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

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't leave for the same reason as Strom Thurmond? Hopefully you will not be supporting reelection of this malignancy.

[cormorant]

@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. Much of my family was murdered by a white nationalist regime, less than 100 years ago. It can happen here. At age 7, my grandmother police snatched from her classroom because she lacked citizenship papers for the country she was born in (though she was reunited with her family at the train station as she was being deported, unlike 1000s of children that have been separated under the orders of the current US President). When my grandfather arrived in the US as a young man, he first arrived in Florida and witnessed the 'whites only' sign and said 'Home of the free, huh?' His American friend hushed him and said 'be careful, you don't want people to think you are a communist'. Legal segregation _only_ ended because of black-led social movements mostly on the Left. The unprecedented Black Lives Matter movement is a continuation of that, and I am proud to stand in solidarity with it. Though I do don't have the same personal experience of police violence in the US, I believe the stories and am more than appalled. Representation matters because a democracy needs to
have people with different life experiences to govern effectively.
@Matticus
While we disagreed on some points I felt you were discussing this in good faith based on principle. I found this article on libertarianism interesting https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ ... bertarians

[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.

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.

[New England Fire Squad]

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

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't leave for the same reason as Strom Thurmond? Hopefully you will not be supporting reelection of this malignancy.

Lol, immediately implying that I'm racist. That's a new one. Thurmond switched parties 30+ years before I was born and I'm obviously not from a dixiecrat area.

And I wasn't going to vote for orange man bad, but hey, the more the new woke religious nutcases demand that I don't, the more I think I might.

If you must know why the Democrats have bled support from me and my ilk is that 25 years ago, a Democrat was allowed to be: either opposed to abortion or in favor of limitations, in favor of limitations to immigration, anti war (absolutely laughable at this point that it was ever believed), for the working man/unions/blue collar workers. What on earth does a 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? What on earth do I have to gain from a party that REEEEEEES into my ear about how I must prostrate myself for my privilege? A party that orders thousands of illegal drone strikes on foreign soil, making it no better on war than the GOP (even blowing up an American citizen https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... an/264028/ ). A party that is so ludicrously radical on abortion that their nominee has to give up his 40 year support of the Hyde Amendment? A party that has a VP nominee who wants to abolish border enforcement?

When I was a kid, Democrats were perceived as being for the little guy, for general fairness, the social safety net, for unions and workers over big business, and even being socially conservative was fine ( it was just 10 years ago that the NRA's endorsement could easily go to a Democrat). It used to be a big tent party, where Gene Taylor and Nancy Pelosi could coexist- now I'm supposed to believe that Pelosi is in the moderate half of the caucus.

I'm sure you're happy about all the changes to the Democrat party since the end of the Clinton era, but millions of us aren't, and that's why in place like Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin, and the rest of the rural/industrial North and Appalachia have abandoned you after voting for Obama twice, along with just about every other Democrat since WW2 except for Mondale and McGovern (and it wasn't HURR DURR DEMOCRATS DIDN"T VOTE, if you look at a county by county, town by town, precinct by precinct map, you'll see that in most of these areas, the votes Trump gained fit almost 100% with the votes that Clinton lost from Obama- start in Maine and work your way down). The snowballing of increasingly leftist policies and being told that we're the equivalent of sinners for inborn qualities that we cannot change are just too much to stomach.

Since people like me are out now, have fun continuing to lose elections that were imminently winnable. (I know I know, you're glad people like me are gone and it's great to feel superior, but hey, we're why you lost to a boob from Manhatten )

[Matticus13]

@Matticus
While we disagreed on some points I felt you were discussing this in good faith based on principle. I found this article on libertarianism interesting https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/ ... bertarians

To be clear, I'm not a Libertarian. Socially, they are more liberal than Democrats, which I happen to be a big fan of. Tax policy, purpose of government, business regulatory environment, and so on... Not a fan.

I am quite liberal, and recognize both current and past injustices against people of color, women, sexual orientation, and so on. I was proud to be a Democrat when Obama won the WH in 2008, 2012.

The Democratic Party is the part of the Machine the left should be raging against. Ask Zack and Tom. *Insert favorite RATM song here*

[New England Fire Squad]

This really does feel like a different world. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documen ... y-platform

[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.

OK, so let's all agree that it would be great if at some point in the future it would be just as easy to become president/VP whatever your race, sex, religion (or lack of it), sexual preference, whether you have kids or not etc. In a perfect world we shouldn't need to worry about diversity in candidates as that would just come up naturally.

[cormorant]

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

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't leave for the same reason as Strom Thurmond? Hopefully you will not be supporting reelection of this malignancy.

Lol, immediately implying that I'm racist. That's a new one. Thurmond switched parties 30+ years before I was born and I'm obviously not from a dixiecrat area.

And I wasn't going to vote for orange man bad, but hey, the more the new woke religious nutcases demand that I don't, the more I think I might.

If you must know why the Democrats have bled support from me and my ilk is that 25 years ago, a Democrat was allowed to be: either opposed to abortion or in favor of limitations, in favor of limitations to immigration, anti war (absolutely laughable at this point that it was ever believed), for the working man/unions/blue collar workers. What on earth does a 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? What on earth do I have to gain from a party that REEEEEEES into my ear about how I must prostrate myself for my privilege? A party that orders thousands of illegal drone strikes on foreign soil, making it no better on war than the GOP (even blowing up an American citizen https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... an/264028/ ). A party that is so ludicrously radical on abortion that their nominee has to give up his 40 year support of the Hyde Amendment? A party that has a VP nominee who wants to abolish border enforcement?

When I was a kid, Democrats were perceived as being for the little guy, for general fairness, the social safety net, for unions and workers over big business, and even being socially conservative was fine ( it was just 10 years ago that the NRA's endorsement could easily go to a Democrat). It used to be a big tent party, where Gene Taylor and Nancy Pelosi could coexist- now I'm supposed to believe that Pelosi is in the moderate half of the caucus.

I'm sure you're happy about all the changes to the Democrat party since the end of the Clinton era, but millions of us aren't, and that's why in place like Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin, and the rest of the rural/industrial North and Appalachia have abandoned you after voting for Obama twice, along with just about every other Democrat since WW2 except for Mondale and McGovern (and it wasn't HURR DURR DEMOCRATS DIDN"T VOTE, if you look at a county by county, town by town, precinct by precinct map, you'll see that in most of these areas, the votes Trump gained fit almost 100% with the votes that Clinton lost from Obama- start in Maine and work your way down). The snowballing of increasingly leftist policies and being told that we're the equivalent of sinners for inborn qualities that we cannot change are just too much to stomach.

Since people like me are out now, have fun continuing to lose elections that were imminently winnable. (I know I know, you're glad people like me are gone and it's great to feel superior, but hey, we're why you lost to a boob from Manhatten )

Ah - 'pro-life' Democrat. But the left is imposing their religion on you?...mmkay. I'm old enough to remember when Republicans called for exceptions for 'rape and incest'

'HURR DURR DEMOCRATS DIDN"T VOTE' - Democrats did vote and won the majority, despite voter suppression throughout the country

I agree that the decline in Unions has been disastrous, that effort was bipartisan. I hope you will support the Postal Workers Union as Republicans try to dismantle this institution in further efforts to snuff out democracy in this country.

Also I'm old enough to remember the last time Republicans callously allowed thousands of Americans to die from a disease without doing anything to help, with Reagan and advisors laughed as friends died from AIDS

And dude is from Queens, the same place his pops was arrested at a KKK rally :)

[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.

OK, so let's all agree that it would be great if at some point in the future it would be just as easy to become president/VP whatever your race, sex, religion (or lack of it), sexual preference, whether you have kids or not etc. In a perfect world we shouldn't need to worry about diversity in candidates as that would just come up naturally.

I want it right meow.

[New England Fire Squad]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't leave for the same reason as Strom Thurmond? Hopefully you will not be supporting reelection of this malignancy.

Lol, immediately implying that I'm racist. That's a new one. Thurmond switched parties 30+ years before I was born and I'm obviously not from a dixiecrat area.

And I wasn't going to vote for orange man bad, but hey, the more the new woke religious nutcases demand that I don't, the more I think I might.

If you must know why the Democrats have bled support from me and my ilk is that 25 years ago, a Democrat was allowed to be: either opposed to abortion or in favor of limitations, in favor of limitations to immigration, anti war (absolutely laughable at this point that it was ever believed), for the working man/unions/blue collar workers. What on earth does a 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? What on earth do I have to gain from a party that REEEEEEES into my ear about how I must prostrate myself for my privilege? A party that orders thousands of illegal drone strikes on foreign soil, making it no better on war than the GOP (even blowing up an American citizen https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... an/264028/ ). A party that is so ludicrously radical on abortion that their nominee has to give up his 40 year support of the Hyde Amendment? A party that has a VP nominee who wants to abolish border enforcement?

When I was a kid, Democrats were perceived as being for the little guy, for general fairness, the social safety net, for unions and workers over big business, and even being socially conservative was fine ( it was just 10 years ago that the NRA's endorsement could easily go to a Democrat). It used to be a big tent party, where Gene Taylor and Nancy Pelosi could coexist- now I'm supposed to believe that Pelosi is in the moderate half of the caucus.

I'm sure you're happy about all the changes to the Democrat party since the end of the Clinton era, but millions of us aren't, and that's why in place like Maine, Ohio, Wisconsin, and the rest of the rural/industrial North and Appalachia have abandoned you after voting for Obama twice, along with just about every other Democrat since WW2 except for Mondale and McGovern (and it wasn't HURR DURR DEMOCRATS DIDN"T VOTE, if you look at a county by county, town by town, precinct by precinct map, you'll see that in most of these areas, the votes Trump gained fit almost 100% with the votes that Clinton lost from Obama- start in Maine and work your way down). The snowballing of increasingly leftist policies and being told that we're the equivalent of sinners for inborn qualities that we cannot change are just too much to stomach.

Since people like me are out now, have fun continuing to lose elections that were imminently winnable. (I know I know, you're glad people like me are gone and it's great to feel superior, but hey, we're why you lost to a boob from Manhatten )

Ah - 'pro-life' Democrat. But the left is imposing their religion on you?...mmkay. I'm old enough to remember when Republicans called for exceptions for 'rape and incest'

'HURR DURR DEMOCRATS DIDN"T VOTE' - Democrats did vote and won the majority, despite voter suppression throughout the country

I agree that the decline in Unions has been disastrous, that effort was bipartisan. I hope you will support the Postal Workers Union as Republicans try to dismantle this institution in further efforts to snuff out democracy in this country.

Also I'm old enough to remember the last time Republicans callously allowed thousands of Americans to die from a disease without doing anything to help, with Reagan and advisors laughed as friends died from AIDS

And dude is from Queens, the same place his pops was arrested at a KKK rally :)

>There hasn't been a GOP potus candidate in my lifetime who doesn't support those exceptions, so this claim is just patently false.
>Ignored entirely the reason why a place like Monroe county in Ohio went from an 8 point Romney margin to a 48 point Trump margin, or why my hometown when from a Romney 1 point margin to a 17 point Trump margin, but fine, strawman me if you want
>Of course I will, I'm not a Republican.
>over a decade before I was born has zero relevance to anything today, whether or not your accusations are true
>You're really heavy on making people pay for the sins of their ancestors, aren't you? Sounds almost...religious.

[cormorant]

re:

orange man bad

I would argue that forcibly separating children from their parents is not bad, it's evil. But if you want to support this man to 'own the libs' or whatever I suppose that's a moral choice you have wrestle in your concience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_adm ... ion_policy

[New England Fire Squad]

re:

orange man bad

I would argue that forcibly separating children from their parents is not bad, it's evil. But if you want to support this man to 'own the libs' or whatever I suppose that's a moral choice you have wrestle in your concience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_adm ... ion_policy

I would argue that blowing up American citizens without due process because 'their parents are bad' is also evil, but it seems you've resolved that conflict in yourself quite easily. It's fun to throw shit at people from a false moral high ground, I know. https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data Nah, though, I'm sure Biden won't kill people and brag about it too.

[cormorant]

re:

orange man bad

I would argue that forcibly separating children from their parents is not bad, it's evil. But if you want to support this man to 'own the libs' or whatever I suppose that's a moral choice you have wrestle in your concience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_adm ... ion_policy

I would argue that blowing up American citizens without due process because 'their parents are bad' is also evil, but it seems you've resolved that conflict in yourself quite easily. It's fun to throw shit at people from a false moral high ground, I know. https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data Nah, though, I'm sure Biden won't kill people and brag about it too.

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?

[Matticus13]

re:


I would argue that forcibly separating children from their parents is not bad, it's evil. But if you want to support this man to 'own the libs' or whatever I suppose that's a moral choice you have wrestle in your concience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_adm ... ion_policy

I would argue that blowing up American citizens without due process because 'their parents are bad' is also evil, but it seems you've resolved that conflict in yourself quite easily. It's fun to throw shit at people from a false moral high ground, I know. https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data Nah, though, I'm sure Biden won't kill people and brag about it too.

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?

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.

[cormorant]

I would argue that blowing up American citizens without due process because 'their parents are bad' is also evil, but it seems you've resolved that conflict in yourself quite easily. It's fun to throw shit at people from a false moral high ground, I know. https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data Nah, though, I'm sure Biden won't kill people and brag about it too.

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?

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.

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

[New England Fire Squad]

re:


I would argue that forcibly separating children from their parents is not bad, it's evil. But if you want to support this man to 'own the libs' or whatever I suppose that's a moral choice you have wrestle in your concience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_adm ... ion_policy

I would argue that blowing up American citizens without due process because 'their parents are bad' is also evil, but it seems you've resolved that conflict in yourself quite easily. It's fun to throw shit at people from a false moral high ground, I know. https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data Nah, though, I'm sure Biden won't kill people and brag about it too.

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.

[cormorant]

I would argue that blowing up American citizens without due process because 'their parents are bad' is also evil, but it seems you've resolved that conflict in yourself quite easily. It's fun to throw shit at people from a false moral high ground, I know. https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data Nah, though, I'm sure Biden won't kill people and brag about it too.

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.