Trump wants to "liberate" Virginia and this is what will happen. Florida shot itself in the face and people will be dropping dead in a week or two from the asinine Republican death cult running the state.
Here's Florida Man governor Ron Desantis (R) who made the call and is encouraging people to go out to their death. Here he is failing to put on a mask correctly.
Is there ANY other country having adults throw these kind of temper tantrums in public?? Because I see no evidence that there is. So maybe we should ask WHY. But we know the answer.
I've read at least half a dozen stories about people who didn't take it seriously who passed away. Whose kids told them to not listen to FOX News and stay home and they didn't. And that's sad. But you know who I feel 100x worse for?? The people who are trying to do everything right who were infected and are now in an ICU or the ground because these people made the CHOICE to believe their ignorance is a virtue.
At this point I have to assume they are causing the chaos on purpose. They didn't manufacture enough PPE in advance, and when states and hospitals as TRYING to get it themselves because they are getting no help, it's literally being hijacked by the Feds like DeNiro robbed the airport in "Goodfellas". This is what "the states need to take care of it themselves" gets you:
Jacksonville decided to reopen their beaches with "social distancing rules in place". It's been open for 30 minutes. Here's a photo. Marvel at the space between everyone:
There actually is a cure for having stupid policymakers. And this kind of nihilistic fatalism, especially when voiced by conservatives, is also part of the problem. Neither party in America is perfect, nor have they ever been. But right now, one party is disproportionately more stupid and dangerous than the other.
What passes for conservatism now is just religious fundamentalism anymore. I've lost my appetite for it myself. I can't really stomach the Democratic Party and their identity politics either though, and the Libertarians are going off the deep-end now too. I think I'm just going to write-in Bernie Sanders in November as my protest vote. Nobody else appeals to me...
I'm curious, but can you specify what unpalatable "identity politics" you see in the Biden campaign for example?
Because, for me, if your principal objection to supporting Democrats was that, you could not ask for a candidate less prone to centering those kinds of issues than Biden. I dunno, seems to me if that really is an issue for you, you're someone who is simply never going to support socially left-of-center politics ever. But I'm curious if you can name some specific campaign statements by Biden or his people that are turning you off.
IMO, it's undeniable that Trump and his campaign is playing much more on "identity politics" than Biden.
What Biden campaign? He's like the invisible man. They keep him hidden in the back room and only let him out to ramble once in a while so people don't completely forget about him. They might as well just put 'Not Trump' by the 'D' on the ballot...
I'm sorry but this is a dodge. Are you're saying there's no "identity politics" you can name?
I agree that the Biden campaign has been less visible than previous campaigns. Some of that is the virus situation. But there are plenty of resources out there to educate yourself on his positions, so it's not like he's actually an invisible candidate. He has a campaign website. He has done televised interviews with virtually every major news outlet. He participated in something like 10 televised debates.
Not to mention that Biden has an extremely long public career, going all the way back to the Vietnam War. There isn't a lack of information on his stances on issues over the decades, for those who are sincerely curious.
Again, I'm going to insist on the question, because you're the one who brought up "identity politics" as to why you can't vote D right now. But Biden is just about the most politically incorrect candidate I've seen the Democrats nominate in quite some time. So, again, what identity politics issues from Biden are unpalatable to you?
My problem is the way of thinking of the Democratic Party, not about the thinking of Biden. I don't really care about Biden at all. I don't hate him like I do Hillary and I don't like him like I do Bernie.
I have serious problems with ideas such as reparations and quotas, which I believe turn into hand-outs instead of actually improving the lives of the people they're supposed to help. I've seen the results of lowering standards for minorities. The results I've seen are people who end up way out of their league and management bending over backwards to disguise that fact. It's not reality, it's trying to fix a problem that is very complex by throwing money at it and making rich people feel better about themselves.
@DinoDin the very notion that Biden needs to have a female VP is identity politics.
I don't have a problem with Biden choosing a female VP. I think it's a great strategic move frankly. However, announcing it early was the type of ploy I'm talking about. Instead of announcing he's going to pick 'a woman' just for being a woman, he had a chance to say he picked 'this' woman because she was the best person for the job. That is exactly the identity politics I'm talking about. Perception instead of reality...
@DinoDin the very notion that Biden needs to have a female VP is identity politics.
I don't have a problem with Biden choosing a female VP. I think it's a great strategic move frankly. However, announcing it early was the type of ploy I'm talking about. Instead of announcing he's going to pick 'a woman' just for being a woman, he had a chance to say he picked 'this' woman because she was the best person for the job. That is exactly the identity politics I'm talking about. Perception instead of reality...
I agree.
Having a female VP is well and good. Limiting yourself to only female VPs, especially when your not going to announce who you have in mind until like a year later, is a bad look.
just pick the best candidate. If that's a woman fine. If it's not it's not. Saying "I will only pick a woman" is a problem. Consider the optics if he said "I will only pick a man as my VP candidate".
We have had almost 100 Presidents and Vice Presidents and exactly NONE of them have been a woman. Yeah, we do need one. Who are the male candidates who are more qualified than two former Attorneys General and sitting Senators?? What is this idea that these women are some kind of affirmative action hires who have no resume behind them?? Again, Harris and Klobuchar were the top lawyers in their respective states. Abrams should be the Governor of Georgia.
Maybe we should spend more time reflecting on the fact that a 250 year old nation has never put a woman in a top position in it's Government ONCE. The only person who you can argue has is Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. And that is because her caucus choose her, not the voters of the country. One woman in 2 1/2 centuries. That why comparing it to "I'll only pick a male" is a ridiculous equivalency. You don't have to say that because it's been the default and ONLY choice since the late 1700s. Geraldine Ferraro, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are the only ones who have even been on a damn ticket.
We have had almost 100 Presidents and Vice Presidents and exactly NONE of them have been a woman. Yeah, we do need one. Who are the male candidates who are more qualified than two former Attorneys General and sitting Senators??
Then she should have been picked without the 'qualifier' of being a woman. I don't give a shit about sex, skin color, or religion. Nobody else should either. I see human beings who are unique and have certain traits due to their unique stories. This bullshit about everybody of sex 'x' or race 'y' has to think the same or they're not 'really' sex 'x' or race 'y' is a crock. Everybody is different and that's not a bad thing at all...
Maybe we should spend more time reflecting on the fact that a 250 year old nation has never put a woman in a top position in it's Government ONCE. The only person who you can argue has is Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. And that is because her caucus choose her, not the voters of the country. One woman in 2 1/2 centuries. That why comparing it to "I'll only pick a male" is a ridiculous equivalency. You don't have to say that because it's been the default and ONLY choice since the late 1700s. Geraldine Ferraro, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are the only ones who have even been on a damn ticket.
Blame the fucking Boomers and their ancient beliefs for that fact. Also blame the young voters that can't be bothered to go to the polls. Once the younger electorate grows up and gives a shit that's going to change fast.
Hard disagree on the identity politics angle being taken here. Simply said, every president and VP in the country's history has been male. All but 1 of them has been white. When you keep saying "Just pick the best candidate!" and that candidate seems to always be and have been a white man (except once), it should compel you to stop a consider if "choose the best candidate' isnt just a code for "Dont feel bad picking another white man" - because functionally: That's exactly what it has meant for the literal history of the country.
I'm 100% in favor of rejecting that norm. If the best way to do that is to say precisely that you are going to pick a woman as VP, then so be it.
I tend to believe the best way to combat that norm is to have nominated a woman for President, but the electorate was subject to a normative backlash of Clinton losing the election, making all women appear less "electable" simple because they are women. If Obama had lost in 08, there would be no chances a black man would be the nominee in 2012.
This all reminds me of something you see in gaming or art a lot. You see a LOT of people who say things like "I dont want politics in my games!", or "Shut up and dribble". These people think they're advocating for a removal of politics from a game/sport, but in reality, they're arguing for the removal of politics they dont like from a game. Wanting no politics in art/games is tacitly a request that only the status quo of your politics be allowed to be present in a game.
I see the same issue with politics. Arguing against identity politics is a tacit acceptance that you think the way everything has worked for the last 200+ years is correct - including the fact that politicians are and have been overwhelmingly white and male. Seeking to balance that trend out shouldnt be seen as some nefarious plot to put a less capable person in power. In fact, Women and PoC tend to be held to a muuuuuch higher standard because of the implicit bias in society.
As a parting thought: our identity is absolutely fundamental to our own understanding of the world. If I was born a black woman in South Africa, my understanding would be different than it is today. If I had been born a black woman in Selma, my understanding would be different. Not better. Different. Those different points of view and understanding of the world are useful. Having a woman as VP implicitly offers a different perspective than if a man was VP. Not a better one, but a different one. That's not a bad thing. Valuing that is not a bad thing.
Edit - just to back this all up with a few more facts.
There are 105 women are currently seated in the House of Representatives (this include delegates and other positions, so not only voting members). 90 are Democrats, and 15 are Republican. The current split in the house is 232(D) vs 196 (R).
Math: 38% of the Democrats in the House are women. Republicans: 7%.
If the Republican (and Conservative) line of argumentation is that Identity politics are bad, and that only the best candidate should win each election, can we seriously believe that the GOP juuuuuuust so happened to find, in a country that is 50/50 Men to women, that women were only the best candidate 7% of the time?
Is it possible? Technically. A far more likely scenario is that when Conservatives say Identity politics are bad, and that only the best candidates should win, they are fundamentally engaging in a variant of Identity politics, allowing men to be dramatically over represented.
I could do the same thing with African Americans, by the way - and the same result will occur. Despite making up something like 17% of the country, they make up far less of the GOP's portion of congress. This is just more evidence that the argument that Republicans dont engage in identity politics is untrue. They over represent white men, and those are exactly the type of people most likely to be replaced by Democrats arguing for a more balanced representation.
Hard disagree on the identity politics angle being taken here. Simply said, every president and VP in the country's history has been male. All but 1 of them has been white. When you keep saying "Just pick the best candidate!" and that candidate seems to always be and have been a white man (except once), it should compel you to stop a consider if "choose the best candidate' isnt just a code for "Dont feel bad picking another white man" - because functionally: That's exactly what it has meant for the literal history of the country.
I'm 100% in favor of rejecting that norm. If the best way to do that is to say precisely that you are going to pick a woman as VP, then so be it.
I tend to believe the best way to combat that norm is to have nominated a woman for President, but the electorate was subject to a normative backlash of Clinton losing the election, making all women appear less "electable" simple because they are women. If Obama had lost in 08, there would be no chances a black man would be the nominee in 2012.
This all reminds me of something you see in gaming or art a lot. You see a LOT of people who say things like "I dont want politics in my games!", or "Shut up and dribble". These people think they're advocating for a removal of politics from a game/sport, but in reality, they're arguing for the removal of politics they dont like from a game. Wanting no politics in art/games is tacitly a request that only the status quo of your politics be allowed to be present in a game.
I see the same issue with politics. Arguing against identity politics is a tacit acceptance that you think the way everything has worked for the last 200+ years is correct - including the fact that politicians are and have been overwhelmingly white and male. Seeking to balance that trend out shouldnt be seen as some nefarious plot to put a less capable person in power. In fact, Women and PoC tend to be held to a muuuuuch higher standard because of the implicit bias in society.
As a parting thought: our identity is absolutely fundamental to our own understanding of the world. If I was born a black woman in South Africa, my understanding would be different than it is today. If I had been born a black woman in Selma, my understanding would be different. Not better. Different. Those different points of view and understanding of the world are useful. Having a woman as VP implicitly offers a different perspective than if a man was VP. Not a better one, but a different one. That's not a bad thing. Valuing that is not a bad thing.
Since you mention gaming, it's really interesting, because I've NEVER heard anyone say they wanted politics removed from Bioshock. The first game is obviously hyper-focused on objectivism and the philosophy of Ayn Rand. While it ostensibly is a critique, it really isn't much of one. This became even more evident in Infinite, which is a game with great set-pieces that seems to BELIEVE it has alot to say about race, but in the end takes the coward's way out and tells you "the oppressed are just as bad as the oppressors when it really comes down to it". So, I have some huge problems with Bioshock from this standpoint. It doesn't mean it isn't overall a GREAT series of games. Even the one I kind of detest from a story perspective (Infinite) has some of the most stunning visual moments in gaming ever, that rival or beat 90% of movies I've ever seen. Point being, I would never call for politics to be removed from the Bioshock series, even though I think on balance they probably projected more wrong ideas than right ones.
Everyone has indeed been white and male.
So maybe stop electing politicians that do this.
What Biden should have done was acknowledge it's a problem. He could announce that much now in the phase where he's not actually announcing his VP pick. When he's ready to announce his pick then go ahead and announce his woman VP candidate, then explain why she's the best choice on qualifications. Move on.
Yes a certain percentage of conservatives would whine and cry - they always do - but there's less ammunition there to work with.
The problem here is announcing "I'll only pick a woman". Why not just actually the best candidate? Say I'm picking the best candidate, pick your woman and be done with it.
Excluding based on sex is exactly the identity politics that the right hates. And I think they have a point with the optics here. Now, whoever he picks there will be people that point out well he was ONLY picking from women he said do himself and not the best candidate.
There's been a lot of rumors Trump could replace Pence with Nikki Haley. If Trump were to announce Pence would not be his VP candidate going forward it would be fine for him to say and I'm replacing him with Nikki Haley. If he said "and I'll only replace him with a woman!" that would be on brand as the reality TV host he is but would also be identity politics.
Hard disagree on the identity politics angle being taken here. Simply said, every president and VP in the country's history has been male. All but 1 of them has been white. When you keep saying "Just pick the best candidate!" and that candidate seems to always be and have been a white man (except once), it should compel you to stop a consider if "choose the best candidate' isnt just a code for "Dont feel bad picking another white man" - because functionally: That's exactly what it has meant for the literal history of the country.
I'm 100% in favor of rejecting that norm. If the best way to do that is to say precisely that you are going to pick a woman as VP, then so be it.
I tend to believe the best way to combat that norm is to have nominated a woman for President, but the electorate was subject to a normative backlash of Clinton losing the election, making all women appear less "electable" simple because they are women. If Obama had lost in 08, there would be no chances a black man would be the nominee in 2012.
This all reminds me of something you see in gaming or art a lot. You see a LOT of people who say things like "I dont want politics in my games!", or "Shut up and dribble". These people think they're advocating for a removal of politics from a game/sport, but in reality, they're arguing for the removal of politics they dont like from a game. Wanting no politics in art/games is tacitly a request that only the status quo of your politics be allowed to be present in a game.
I see the same issue with politics. Arguing against identity politics is a tacit acceptance that you think the way everything has worked for the last 200+ years is correct - including the fact that politicians are and have been overwhelmingly white and male. Seeking to balance that trend out shouldnt be seen as some nefarious plot to put a less capable person in power. In fact, Women and PoC tend to be held to a muuuuuch higher standard because of the implicit bias in society.
As a parting thought: our identity is absolutely fundamental to our own understanding of the world. If I was born a black woman in South Africa, my understanding would be different than it is today. If I had been born a black woman in Selma, my understanding would be different. Not better. Different. Those different points of view and understanding of the world are useful. Having a woman as VP implicitly offers a different perspective than if a man was VP. Not a better one, but a different one. That's not a bad thing. Valuing that is not a bad thing.
Since you mention gaming, it's really interesting, because I've NEVER heard anyone say they wanted politics removed from Bioshock. The first game is obviously hyper-focused on objectivism and the philosophy of Ayn Rand. While it ostensibly is a critique, it really isn't much of one. This became even more evident in Infinite, which is a game with great set-pieces that seems to BELIEVE it has alot to say about race, but in the end takes the coward's way out and tells you "the oppressed are just as bad as the oppressors when it really comes down to it". So, I have some huge problems with Bioshock from this standpoint. It doesn't mean it isn't overall a GREAT series of games. Even the one I kind of detest from a story perspective (Infinite) has some of the most stunning visual moments in gaming ever, that rival or beat 90% of movies I've ever seen. Point being, I would never call for politics to be removed from the Bioshock series, even though I think on balance they probably projected more wrong ideas than right ones.
Maybe we took different things from Bioshock 1. I thought it was a pretty clear and effective rebuke of Ayn Rand's political ethos. That said, Bioshock 2 does the exact same thing, this time focusing on collectivization - which isnt tit-for-tat the opposite of Egoism, but is ideologically one of the furthest points you can get from Rand's political message.
I cannot speak for Infinite. I really liked the game, but I never finished it.
Everyone has indeed been white and male.
So maybe stop electing politicians that do this.
What Biden should have done was acknowledge it's a problem. He could announce that much now in the phase where he's not actually announcing his VP pick. When he's ready to announce his pick then go ahead and announce his woman VP candidate, then explain why she's the best choice on qualifications. Move on.
Yes a certain percentage of conservatives would whine and cry - they always do - but there's less ammunition there to work with.
The problem here is announcing "I'll only pick a woman". Why not just actually the best candidate? Say I'm picking the best candidate, pick your woman and be done with it.
Excluding based on sex is exactly the identity politics that the right hates. And I think they have a point with the optics here. Now, whoever he picks there will be people that point out well he was ONLY picking from women he said do himself and not the best candidate.
There's been a lot of rumors Trump could replace Pence with Nikki Haley. If Trump were to announce Pence would not be his VP candidate going forward it would be fine for him to say and I'm replacing him with Nikki Haley. If he said "and I'll only replace him with a woman!" that would be on brand as the reality TV host he is but would also be identity politics.
I'm fine with agreeing the optics arent perfect. I dont think they're as bad as you think they are (Just a difference of opinion) - but I can see the argument that he could have roughly accomplished the same thing without the contextual point of forcing it to be a woman, and the outcome wouldnt havent been vastly different.
Not to change topics of whataboutism this, as it just reminds of me of this event: It's a lot like when Sanders defended his praise of Castro during the primary. He wasnt wrong technically - but the optics of his point gave ammunition to those who didnt like him, and hurt his chances. He could have said it differently or moved the conversation in a different direction, but didnt.
In an ideal world, I'd prefer if Biden didnt offer missteps like that. That said, if conservatives decide they arent going to vote for Biden simply because of this exact one thing, then I suspect they were never going to vote for him, and this is just an excuse. It's relatively small potatoes.
Everyone has indeed been white and male.
So maybe stop electing politicians that do this.
What Biden should have done was acknowledge it's a problem. He could announce that much now in the phase where he's not actually announcing his VP pick. When he's ready to announce his pick then go ahead and announce his woman VP candidate, then explain why she's the best choice on qualifications. Move on.
Yes a certain percentage of conservatives would whine and cry - they always do - but there's less ammunition there to work with.
The problem here is announcing "I'll only pick a woman". Why not just actually the best candidate? Say I'm picking the best candidate, pick your woman and be done with it.
Excluding based on sex is exactly the identity politics that the right hates. And I think they have a point with the optics here. Now, whoever he picks there will be people that point out well he was ONLY picking from women he said do himself and not the best candidate.
There's been a lot of rumors Trump could replace Pence with Nikki Haley. If Trump were to announce Pence would not be his VP candidate going forward it would be fine for him to say and I'm replacing him with Nikki Haley. If he said "and I'll only replace him with a woman!" that would be on brand as the reality TV host he is but would also be identity politics.
Couple things: First, that Nikki Haley rumor has been circulating for 3 years and it's never been more than some rumor someone came up with somewhere. Pence's dead-eyed religious zealotry and his ability to crawl so far up Trump's ass he'll never get out is not getting removed from the ticket.
Second, those people on the right who hate identity politics are 1.) never going to vote for a Democrat and 2.) are also engaged in their own form of identity politics, unless someone can explain to me why Confederate flags are so prominent at these shutdown "protests".
And last, Biden should have never ran at all, but he did, and he won, and it is what it is. There is a lunatic in the White House who is getting people killed and encouraging people to engage in behavior that will get more people killed. I said awhile back the one guy I wouldn't vote for would be Bloomberg. Now I'd vote for Bloomberg. At this point, I'd be willing to take any only half-crazed Republican who hasn't completely sold his soul to Trump's cult of personality. Which basically boils down to about 3 people, but I digress.
We have had almost 100 Presidents and Vice Presidents and exactly NONE of them have been a woman. Yeah, we do need one. Who are the male candidates who are more qualified than two former Attorneys General and sitting Senators?? What is this idea that these women are some kind of affirmative action hires who have no resume behind them?? Again, Harris and Klobuchar were the top lawyers in their respective states. Abrams should be the Governor of Georgia.
Maybe we should spend more time reflecting on the fact that a 250 year old nation has never put a woman in a top position in it's Government ONCE. The only person who you can argue has is Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. And that is because her caucus choose her, not the voters of the country. One woman in 2 1/2 centuries. That why comparing it to "I'll only pick a male" is a ridiculous equivalency. You don't have to say that because it's been the default and ONLY choice since the late 1700s. Geraldine Ferraro, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are the only ones who have even been on a damn ticket.
One quibble, however it doesn't change much from your argument.
Instead of looking at all of American history, one should look for when women started gaining equality when it comes to both representation and voting rights. America today, and it's values, and culture wasn't the same America in 1700's and even the 1950's and 60's, people of the united states had a very different set of values and culture. Change needs to happen before equality can be established.
The first woman elected to congress happened in 1916, four years prior to the women obtaining the vote. In 1932, the US had its first elected woman senator. The next year, in 1933, Frances Perkins was named US Secretary of Labour becoming the first woman to serve in Cabinet.
Since then, and including Rebecca Felton who served the senate for a single day, there have been a total of 57 women senators, however, many of the earlier ones served brief one year or less terms until the late 70's early 80's , and not until a decade later in the late 80s and early 90s did prominent, long serving woman senators such as Feinstein, Mikulskiand and Boxer emerge.
Congress is a similar story. Many of the earlier congresswoman served brief terms and it wasn't until the late 70s when one would see longer appointments (there are some exclusion to this, if you're interested just click the link to see).
The history of women in US politics, IMO, should only be viewed from 1920 onward (last 100 years). It took them roughly 50 years to get equal footing in the other two branches of government compared to their male counterparts, and one can say it took another 40 years to have a serious woman candidate on the ticket, even if she didn't win.
That said, is 100 years too large of a gap? There were only 16 elected presidents since 1920 if one removed Ford who became president because Nixon resigned. Or maybe one should actually look at when Women started running for president in the actual primaries. Excluding Woodhull, it wasn't until 1964 that Margaret Chase Smith from the Republicans won any delegates and the only serious two prior were from Suffrage movement in the '20s. That brings us down to 9 US presidents in that time frame - 8 before one actually was on the ticket.
More women candidates are coming. America has been trending in the right direction when it comes to this type of equality and I don't think anyone would have blinked if Warren, Harris or even Klobuchar won the ticket but there doesn't have to be a female candidate every election. It needs to happen naturally, where one doesn't even discuss the equality imbalance. Take baseball - I am not a fan, but I can say Jackie Robinson was the first black player. Can I (or even the most die hard fan) name the percentage of black baseball players in... well not today's COVID suspended games... but lets just say last year? Should the league actually be worried that the number has been decreasing? Not really because other ethnicity groups are playing the sport as much as blacks as the sport grows naturally around the world. The best players are no longer being excluded because of their skintone. The same is happening in politics.
So there is no reason to force a woman on as the VP ticket. IMO, it should have happened naturally, and I bet if Sanders won, it would have happened naturally. Biden really needs to come out and say "this is the one person I had in mind when I said I wanted a female VP, I just didn't discuss it with her yet nor did I want to get ahead of myself and claim the nomination before the people picked me as their candidate, but this person is the best candidate to be VP because...…" or else it's going to backfire.
Jackie Robinson was the first Major League black player. There were scores of black baseball players who were as good or better than their counterparts in the Negro Leagues. It's why many people discount the accomplishments of Babe Ruth, Ty Cobb and others. They weren't playing against the best competition, they were playing against the best competition that was actually allowed to participate.
Then we can take music. Elvis, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin are probably the most celebrated acts in history. They are absolutely nothing with basically copying Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, and scores of other black artists note for note in their formative years. The members of those bands themselves would readily acknowledge this fact, but the populace at large certainly doesn't.
While I'm happy to agree that the more relevant context of time to consider should start for when women become co-equal partners socially (something that is still being grappled with, although the differences as much smaller than they used to be). I disagree that this is some natural phenomenon that occurs within a vacuum. African Americans and Women did not gain the right to vote or stop being second class citizens because of inertia. It was due to a dedicated level of activism from a people in all different parts of the population to get that ball rolling. There are still people who are trying to *stop* that ball from rolling as well, so it's not like everyone who supports political activation for women can just pat them selves on the back and let things play out.
When Frances Perkins was appointed to be the secretary of labor, there were plenty of people and politicians suggesting she wasnt the best fit for the job, and that she shouldnt have been selected. Her position ended up trailblazing a path for women to have greater agency in government.
If in 50 years, we look back at Stacy Abrahms as the first President in US history after being Biden's VP, are we going to be fixed on how he vowed to make a woman his VP? Or will we celebrate that ticket for being an instrumental step in the first female president in US history?
If he loses, we wont be celebrating that fact, but then - if he loses, it wont be simply because of this one action. It'll be because of hundreds of moving parts.
I have difficulty believing that Biden would end up naming an unqualified VP as a result of wanting to name a female VP. It's not like it would be hard to find experienced female policymakers in the Democratic party.
I mean, if Biden said he wanted to check tons of boxes at once, and said he would only name a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer woman as his VP pick, just to hit every letter in "LGBTQ," then maybe he'd be constricting his options. I know more than one person who hits all those boxes besides me and my girlfriend, but none of us has years of experience as legislators.
But women in general? Yes, I don't think he'll have trouble finding a female politician. I don't think hiring a woman means hiring an inferior candidate.
My only complaint is that picking a woman rules out Sanders as a VP pick, unless Sanders comes out as a trans woman. That would actually be kind of awesome.
I have difficulty believing that Biden would end up naming an unqualified VP as a result of wanting to name a female VP. It's not like it would be hard to find experienced female policymakers in the Democratic party.
I mean, if Biden said he wanted to check tons of boxes at once, and said he would only name a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer woman as his VP pick, just to hit every letter in "LGBTQ," then maybe he'd be constricting his options. I know more than one person who hits all those boxes besides me and my girlfriend, but none of us has years of experience as legislators.
But women in general? Yes, I don't think he'll have trouble finding a female politician. I don't think hiring a woman means hiring an inferior candidate.
My only complaint is that picking a woman rules out Sanders as a VP pick, unless Sanders comes out as a trans woman. That would actually be kind of awesome.
I agree, because the candidates available are phenomenal, but there is always going to be that echo of "this person was only picked because he said he was going to have a female VP," diminishing any merits they may actually have.
That also doesn't mean it hasn't happened in the past. I'd be shocked if anyone actually believed Sarah Palin was the best candidate to be VP for McCain and I believe they picked her to diversify the republican ticket against a black candidate. They were hoping to win over the women voters who may have felt jilted that Clinton lost the primary. It didn't work mainly because Palin was more of distraction than anything else.
I have difficulty believing that Biden would end up naming an unqualified VP as a result of wanting to name a female VP. It's not like it would be hard to find experienced female policymakers in the Democratic party.
I mean, if Biden said he wanted to check tons of boxes at once, and said he would only name a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer woman as his VP pick, just to hit every letter in "LGBTQ," then maybe he'd be constricting his options. I know more than one person who hits all those boxes besides me and my girlfriend, but none of us has years of experience as legislators.
But women in general? Yes, I don't think he'll have trouble finding a female politician. I don't think hiring a woman means hiring an inferior candidate.
My only complaint is that picking a woman rules out Sanders as a VP pick, unless Sanders comes out as a trans woman. That would actually be kind of awesome.
I agree, because the candidates available are phenomenal, but there is always going to be that echo of "this person was only picked because he said he was going to have a female VP," diminishing any merits they may actually have.
That also doesn't mean it hasn't happened in the past. I'd be shocked if anyone actually believed Sarah Palin was the best candidate to be VP for McCain and I believe they picked her to diversify the republican ticket against a black candidate. They were hoping to win over the women voters who may have felt jilted that Clinton lost the primary. It didn't work mainly because Palin was more of distraction than anything else.
Sarah Palin was the proto-Trump and she revealed herself in interview after interview to be completely unqualified for the position she was about to take because she clearly didn't know the first thing about any subject she was asked about that didn't specifically deal with Alaska. Ask any McCain staffer how they view that pick in retrospect. They said she was even more of a horror-show behind the scenes. A few days before the pandemic, she ended up on "The Masked Singer." She had all the advantages of being a rock star of the conservative movement before Trump was doing more than calling into Fox and Friends once a week. But her only ambition after the 2008 loss was to be a celebrity. She didn't even finish her term as Governor. She quit. But her in your face brand of anti-intellectual populism was the third to last step in making Trump possible. The last two steps were a black man becoming President, and then the Dems have the nerve to nominate a woman right afterwards.
Trump is again trying to blame Obama today, saying he was left with "horrible ventilators" (whatever the fuck that means). Let's play a game here. Suppose you buy a pizza parlor from a guy. 1100 days later, you are given advance warning about a huge party that is going to take place at your restaurant. But it turns out you have no sausage, no cheese, no marinara sauce, and no dough. What % of blame goes to the previous owner in this scenario??
My problem is the way of thinking of the Democratic Party, not about the thinking of Biden. I don't really care about Biden at all. I don't hate him like I do Hillary and I don't like him like I do Bernie.
I have serious problems with ideas such as reparations and quotas, which I believe turn into hand-outs instead of actually improving the lives of the people they're supposed to help. I've seen the results of lowering standards for minorities. The results I've seen are people who end up way out of their league and management bending over backwards to disguise that fact. It's not reality, it's trying to fix a problem that is very complex by throwing money at it and making rich people feel better about themselves.
Hmm... Biden has never backed any policy of "reparations" so I dunno what you're talking about here, nor is the mainstream of the party backing such a policy. And outside of things like college admissions -- which isn't a federal government issue -- quotas based on identity aren't really a huge push by his campaign or the mainstream of the legislature right now. So, honestly, it seems to me like you're inventing phantom reasons to not back the candidate here, not substantive reasons.
I see people complaining about the female VP criteria and I dunno what to say. People have long acknowledged that VP picks can be tactical in terms of picking someone from a battleground state or of a particular ideology within the party. I think it's rather obvious that the woman VP thing is also a tactical gambit. I don't understand why tactical gambits like this become unpalatable when it's a woman versus being from a particular battleground state. The latter criteria is far narrower.
However, since you like Sanders, in terms of substantive reasons to vote for Biden, well the Supreme Court is obvious. The most Medicare-for-all component of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), the Medicaid expansion, barely survived a Supreme Court challenge. So if you want to doom M4A to be considered unconstitutional for a generation if not longer, go ahead and sit out the election. Because that's what you'll be risking.
Lastly, you seem to be under a perception that Sanders ran a campaign free from identity politics. That's not my view. Sanders hired at least two prominent black women, who were imo, unqualified for the senior positions they had. A state senator as co-chair, and another person who had never worked in politics as his national press secretary. The idea that Sanders tapping a female VP would have been more "natural" than Biden doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all. Moreover, Sanders administration would be far more interested in identity box-checking than Biden -- his campaign staffing already proved as much.
My problem is the way of thinking of the Democratic Party, not about the thinking of Biden. I don't really care about Biden at all. I don't hate him like I do Hillary and I don't like him like I do Bernie.
I have serious problems with ideas such as reparations and quotas, which I believe turn into hand-outs instead of actually improving the lives of the people they're supposed to help. I've seen the results of lowering standards for minorities. The results I've seen are people who end up way out of their league and management bending over backwards to disguise that fact. It's not reality, it's trying to fix a problem that is very complex by throwing money at it and making rich people feel better about themselves.
Hmm... Biden has never backed any policy of "reparations" so I dunno what you're talking about here, nor is the mainstream of the party backing such a policy. And outside of things like college admissions -- which isn't a federal government issue -- quotas based on identity aren't really a huge push by his campaign or the mainstream of the legislature right now. So, honestly, it seems to me like you're inventing phantom reasons to not back the candidate here, not substantive reasons.
I see people complaining about the female VP criteria and I dunno what to say. People have long acknowledged that VP picks can be tactical in terms of picking someone from a battleground state or of a particular ideology within the party. I think it's rather obvious that the woman VP thing is also a tactical gambit. I don't understand why tactical gambits like this become unpalatable when it's a woman versus being from a particular battleground state. The latter criteria is far narrower.
However, since you like Sanders, in terms of substantive reasons to vote for Biden, well the Supreme Court is obvious. The most Medicare-for-all component of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), the Medicaid expansion, barely survived a Supreme Court challenge. So if you want to doom M4A to be considered unconstitutional for a generation if not longer, go ahead and sit out the election. Because that's what you'll be risking.
Lastly, you seem to be under a perception that Sanders ran a campaign free from identity politics. That's not my view. Sanders hired at least two prominent black women, who were imo, unqualified for the senior positions they had. A state senator as co-chair, and another person who had never worked in politics as his national press secretary. The idea that Sanders tapping a female VP would have been more "natural" than Biden doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all. Moreover, Sanders administration would be far more interested in identity box-checking than Biden -- his campaign staffing already proved as much.
If sanders came out and claimed he was going to have a female VP prior to securing the nomination, I’d be criticizing him just as heavily for that choice.
When I say ‘natural,’ I mean it in a way that the general population wouldn’t think differently about the candidate due to their gender. For example, if Kamila Harris got tapped for VP, the fact that she is a black woman would be more of a footnote compared to her credentials.
And yes, VP candidates are tactically chosen. It shouldn’t be a surprise that a candidate with extramarital affairs and X amount of X wives chose a fundamental Christian as his running mate. But I also think half the population would be insulted if they thought that the VP pick was to only tactically get them to support your candidate. See Palin.
But if a person like Sanders picked Harris there would have been more of a tactical fit that goes beyond gender and race(more Centralist, West Coast, better established in the Democratic Party, law background opposed to purely political one).
But Biden coming out and saying “yep, I am going to a female VP,” he is pretty much saying that the gender is the most important aspect of the candidate. That highly discredits the actual merits of who ever is chosen.
Very interesting number coming out of a new WSJ poll. Among voters who say they dislike BOTH candidates, Biden has a 50 point lead, 60%-10%. That seems to me to be the exact opposite dynamic of 2016, in which Trump won this category overwhelmingly.
Let's dissect this short clip: A truck with "Jesus is the vaccine" written on the side. The Betsy Ross flag of the thirteen original colonies alongside a flag depicting Trump as Rambo, and Gadsden flags in the background. Make no mistake, this is Trump rallies spilling out into public during a pandemic. And his winks and nods to them are what is causing it. What do you imagine these people are going to do if he loses in November??:
For the 100th time, this is why the blatant distorting of reality that started his first day in office about the inauguration-size mattered. It was the starting gun in a race to obliterate reality, and as we can plainly see, reality has BEEN obliterated for these people. They might as well be living in Faerun. No other country is dealing with this fucking nonsense. And it's 100% the fault of Trump and the ghouls in right-wing media:
Frankly, I no longer give a flying fuck what happens to any of these people. They have been told time after time after time after time after time after time what will happen and they have chosen to bask in their own ignorance instead. The problem is they could kill people you are I care about who are vulnerable.
Screw it, let's keep digging here, more from Pittsburgh. Anyone have a reasonable explanation as to why automatic rifles are necessary to do this?? Or is it performance art for people who are compensating for something else??:
If we don't have a serious conversation about why a segment of our population has turned into certifiable lunatics, and what caused them to become this way, we're NEVER getting past this. These people won't let us get past it. They will have their way just like a child who is screaming for an ice cream cone in a mall. And they're willing to kill you to get it. Again, I don't think it a coincidence AT ALL that this all started less than a week after we learned minority populations are more likely to die (statistically, thus far) from the virus. Also, winning take of the day here as far as I'm concerned:
Comments
Bishop Gerald Glenn of New Deliverance Evangelistic Church died from the virus. Now his wife, two daughters and son-in-law are sick.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/4-family-members-virginia-bishop-who-died-coronavirus-now-battling-n1187076
Trump wants to "liberate" Virginia and this is what will happen. Florida shot itself in the face and people will be dropping dead in a week or two from the asinine Republican death cult running the state.
Here's Florida Man governor Ron Desantis (R) who made the call and is encouraging people to go out to their death. Here he is failing to put on a mask correctly.
I've read at least half a dozen stories about people who didn't take it seriously who passed away. Whose kids told them to not listen to FOX News and stay home and they didn't. And that's sad. But you know who I feel 100x worse for?? The people who are trying to do everything right who were infected and are now in an ICU or the ground because these people made the CHOICE to believe their ignorance is a virtue.
My problem is the way of thinking of the Democratic Party, not about the thinking of Biden. I don't really care about Biden at all. I don't hate him like I do Hillary and I don't like him like I do Bernie.
I have serious problems with ideas such as reparations and quotas, which I believe turn into hand-outs instead of actually improving the lives of the people they're supposed to help. I've seen the results of lowering standards for minorities. The results I've seen are people who end up way out of their league and management bending over backwards to disguise that fact. It's not reality, it's trying to fix a problem that is very complex by throwing money at it and making rich people feel better about themselves.
I don't have a problem with Biden choosing a female VP. I think it's a great strategic move frankly. However, announcing it early was the type of ploy I'm talking about. Instead of announcing he's going to pick 'a woman' just for being a woman, he had a chance to say he picked 'this' woman because she was the best person for the job. That is exactly the identity politics I'm talking about. Perception instead of reality...
I agree.
Having a female VP is well and good. Limiting yourself to only female VPs, especially when your not going to announce who you have in mind until like a year later, is a bad look.
just pick the best candidate. If that's a woman fine. If it's not it's not. Saying "I will only pick a woman" is a problem. Consider the optics if he said "I will only pick a man as my VP candidate".
It's just dumb.
Maybe we should spend more time reflecting on the fact that a 250 year old nation has never put a woman in a top position in it's Government ONCE. The only person who you can argue has is Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. And that is because her caucus choose her, not the voters of the country. One woman in 2 1/2 centuries. That why comparing it to "I'll only pick a male" is a ridiculous equivalency. You don't have to say that because it's been the default and ONLY choice since the late 1700s. Geraldine Ferraro, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are the only ones who have even been on a damn ticket.
Then she should have been picked without the 'qualifier' of being a woman. I don't give a shit about sex, skin color, or religion. Nobody else should either. I see human beings who are unique and have certain traits due to their unique stories. This bullshit about everybody of sex 'x' or race 'y' has to think the same or they're not 'really' sex 'x' or race 'y' is a crock. Everybody is different and that's not a bad thing at all...
Blame the fucking Boomers and their ancient beliefs for that fact. Also blame the young voters that can't be bothered to go to the polls. Once the younger electorate grows up and gives a shit that's going to change fast.
I'm 100% in favor of rejecting that norm. If the best way to do that is to say precisely that you are going to pick a woman as VP, then so be it.
I tend to believe the best way to combat that norm is to have nominated a woman for President, but the electorate was subject to a normative backlash of Clinton losing the election, making all women appear less "electable" simple because they are women. If Obama had lost in 08, there would be no chances a black man would be the nominee in 2012.
This all reminds me of something you see in gaming or art a lot. You see a LOT of people who say things like "I dont want politics in my games!", or "Shut up and dribble". These people think they're advocating for a removal of politics from a game/sport, but in reality, they're arguing for the removal of politics they dont like from a game. Wanting no politics in art/games is tacitly a request that only the status quo of your politics be allowed to be present in a game.
I see the same issue with politics. Arguing against identity politics is a tacit acceptance that you think the way everything has worked for the last 200+ years is correct - including the fact that politicians are and have been overwhelmingly white and male. Seeking to balance that trend out shouldnt be seen as some nefarious plot to put a less capable person in power. In fact, Women and PoC tend to be held to a muuuuuch higher standard because of the implicit bias in society.
As a parting thought: our identity is absolutely fundamental to our own understanding of the world. If I was born a black woman in South Africa, my understanding would be different than it is today. If I had been born a black woman in Selma, my understanding would be different. Not better. Different. Those different points of view and understanding of the world are useful. Having a woman as VP implicitly offers a different perspective than if a man was VP. Not a better one, but a different one. That's not a bad thing. Valuing that is not a bad thing.
Edit - just to back this all up with a few more facts.
There are 105 women are currently seated in the House of Representatives (this include delegates and other positions, so not only voting members). 90 are Democrats, and 15 are Republican. The current split in the house is 232(D) vs 196 (R).
Math: 38% of the Democrats in the House are women. Republicans: 7%.
If the Republican (and Conservative) line of argumentation is that Identity politics are bad, and that only the best candidate should win each election, can we seriously believe that the GOP juuuuuuust so happened to find, in a country that is 50/50 Men to women, that women were only the best candidate 7% of the time?
Is it possible? Technically. A far more likely scenario is that when Conservatives say Identity politics are bad, and that only the best candidates should win, they are fundamentally engaging in a variant of Identity politics, allowing men to be dramatically over represented.
I could do the same thing with African Americans, by the way - and the same result will occur. Despite making up something like 17% of the country, they make up far less of the GOP's portion of congress. This is just more evidence that the argument that Republicans dont engage in identity politics is untrue. They over represent white men, and those are exactly the type of people most likely to be replaced by Democrats arguing for a more balanced representation.
Since you mention gaming, it's really interesting, because I've NEVER heard anyone say they wanted politics removed from Bioshock. The first game is obviously hyper-focused on objectivism and the philosophy of Ayn Rand. While it ostensibly is a critique, it really isn't much of one. This became even more evident in Infinite, which is a game with great set-pieces that seems to BELIEVE it has alot to say about race, but in the end takes the coward's way out and tells you "the oppressed are just as bad as the oppressors when it really comes down to it". So, I have some huge problems with Bioshock from this standpoint. It doesn't mean it isn't overall a GREAT series of games. Even the one I kind of detest from a story perspective (Infinite) has some of the most stunning visual moments in gaming ever, that rival or beat 90% of movies I've ever seen. Point being, I would never call for politics to be removed from the Bioshock series, even though I think on balance they probably projected more wrong ideas than right ones.
So maybe stop electing politicians that do this.
What Biden should have done was acknowledge it's a problem. He could announce that much now in the phase where he's not actually announcing his VP pick. When he's ready to announce his pick then go ahead and announce his woman VP candidate, then explain why she's the best choice on qualifications. Move on.
Yes a certain percentage of conservatives would whine and cry - they always do - but there's less ammunition there to work with.
The problem here is announcing "I'll only pick a woman". Why not just actually the best candidate? Say I'm picking the best candidate, pick your woman and be done with it.
Excluding based on sex is exactly the identity politics that the right hates. And I think they have a point with the optics here. Now, whoever he picks there will be people that point out well he was ONLY picking from women he said do himself and not the best candidate.
There's been a lot of rumors Trump could replace Pence with Nikki Haley. If Trump were to announce Pence would not be his VP candidate going forward it would be fine for him to say and I'm replacing him with Nikki Haley. If he said "and I'll only replace him with a woman!" that would be on brand as the reality TV host he is but would also be identity politics.
Maybe we took different things from Bioshock 1. I thought it was a pretty clear and effective rebuke of Ayn Rand's political ethos. That said, Bioshock 2 does the exact same thing, this time focusing on collectivization - which isnt tit-for-tat the opposite of Egoism, but is ideologically one of the furthest points you can get from Rand's political message.
I cannot speak for Infinite. I really liked the game, but I never finished it.
Edit to respond to this:
I'm fine with agreeing the optics arent perfect. I dont think they're as bad as you think they are (Just a difference of opinion) - but I can see the argument that he could have roughly accomplished the same thing without the contextual point of forcing it to be a woman, and the outcome wouldnt havent been vastly different.
Not to change topics of whataboutism this, as it just reminds of me of this event: It's a lot like when Sanders defended his praise of Castro during the primary. He wasnt wrong technically - but the optics of his point gave ammunition to those who didnt like him, and hurt his chances. He could have said it differently or moved the conversation in a different direction, but didnt.
In an ideal world, I'd prefer if Biden didnt offer missteps like that. That said, if conservatives decide they arent going to vote for Biden simply because of this exact one thing, then I suspect they were never going to vote for him, and this is just an excuse. It's relatively small potatoes.
Couple things: First, that Nikki Haley rumor has been circulating for 3 years and it's never been more than some rumor someone came up with somewhere. Pence's dead-eyed religious zealotry and his ability to crawl so far up Trump's ass he'll never get out is not getting removed from the ticket.
Second, those people on the right who hate identity politics are 1.) never going to vote for a Democrat and 2.) are also engaged in their own form of identity politics, unless someone can explain to me why Confederate flags are so prominent at these shutdown "protests".
And last, Biden should have never ran at all, but he did, and he won, and it is what it is. There is a lunatic in the White House who is getting people killed and encouraging people to engage in behavior that will get more people killed. I said awhile back the one guy I wouldn't vote for would be Bloomberg. Now I'd vote for Bloomberg. At this point, I'd be willing to take any only half-crazed Republican who hasn't completely sold his soul to Trump's cult of personality. Which basically boils down to about 3 people, but I digress.
I'm just saying I don't agree with how Biden handled this announcement.
One quibble, however it doesn't change much from your argument.
Instead of looking at all of American history, one should look for when women started gaining equality when it comes to both representation and voting rights. America today, and it's values, and culture wasn't the same America in 1700's and even the 1950's and 60's, people of the united states had a very different set of values and culture. Change needs to happen before equality can be established.
The first woman elected to congress happened in 1916, four years prior to the women obtaining the vote. In 1932, the US had its first elected woman senator. The next year, in 1933, Frances Perkins was named US Secretary of Labour becoming the first woman to serve in Cabinet.
Since then, and including Rebecca Felton who served the senate for a single day, there have been a total of 57 women senators, however, many of the earlier ones served brief one year or less terms until the late 70's early 80's , and not until a decade later in the late 80s and early 90s did prominent, long serving woman senators such as Feinstein, Mikulskiand and Boxer emerge.
Congress is a similar story. Many of the earlier congresswoman served brief terms and it wasn't until the late 70s when one would see longer appointments (there are some exclusion to this, if you're interested just click the link to see).
The history of women in US politics, IMO, should only be viewed from 1920 onward (last 100 years). It took them roughly 50 years to get equal footing in the other two branches of government compared to their male counterparts, and one can say it took another 40 years to have a serious woman candidate on the ticket, even if she didn't win.
That said, is 100 years too large of a gap? There were only 16 elected presidents since 1920 if one removed Ford who became president because Nixon resigned. Or maybe one should actually look at when Women started running for president in the actual primaries. Excluding Woodhull, it wasn't until 1964 that Margaret Chase Smith from the Republicans won any delegates and the only serious two prior were from Suffrage movement in the '20s. That brings us down to 9 US presidents in that time frame - 8 before one actually was on the ticket.
More women candidates are coming. America has been trending in the right direction when it comes to this type of equality and I don't think anyone would have blinked if Warren, Harris or even Klobuchar won the ticket but there doesn't have to be a female candidate every election. It needs to happen naturally, where one doesn't even discuss the equality imbalance. Take baseball - I am not a fan, but I can say Jackie Robinson was the first black player. Can I (or even the most die hard fan) name the percentage of black baseball players in... well not today's COVID suspended games... but lets just say last year? Should the league actually be worried that the number has been decreasing? Not really because other ethnicity groups are playing the sport as much as blacks as the sport grows naturally around the world. The best players are no longer being excluded because of their skintone. The same is happening in politics.
So there is no reason to force a woman on as the VP ticket. IMO, it should have happened naturally, and I bet if Sanders won, it would have happened naturally. Biden really needs to come out and say "this is the one person I had in mind when I said I wanted a female VP, I just didn't discuss it with her yet nor did I want to get ahead of myself and claim the nomination before the people picked me as their candidate, but this person is the best candidate to be VP because...…" or else it's going to backfire.
Then we can take music. Elvis, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin are probably the most celebrated acts in history. They are absolutely nothing with basically copying Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, and scores of other black artists note for note in their formative years. The members of those bands themselves would readily acknowledge this fact, but the populace at large certainly doesn't.
When Frances Perkins was appointed to be the secretary of labor, there were plenty of people and politicians suggesting she wasnt the best fit for the job, and that she shouldnt have been selected. Her position ended up trailblazing a path for women to have greater agency in government.
If in 50 years, we look back at Stacy Abrahms as the first President in US history after being Biden's VP, are we going to be fixed on how he vowed to make a woman his VP? Or will we celebrate that ticket for being an instrumental step in the first female president in US history?
If he loses, we wont be celebrating that fact, but then - if he loses, it wont be simply because of this one action. It'll be because of hundreds of moving parts.
I mean, if Biden said he wanted to check tons of boxes at once, and said he would only name a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer woman as his VP pick, just to hit every letter in "LGBTQ," then maybe he'd be constricting his options. I know more than one person who hits all those boxes besides me and my girlfriend, but none of us has years of experience as legislators.
But women in general? Yes, I don't think he'll have trouble finding a female politician. I don't think hiring a woman means hiring an inferior candidate.
My only complaint is that picking a woman rules out Sanders as a VP pick, unless Sanders comes out as a trans woman. That would actually be kind of awesome.
I agree, because the candidates available are phenomenal, but there is always going to be that echo of "this person was only picked because he said he was going to have a female VP," diminishing any merits they may actually have.
That also doesn't mean it hasn't happened in the past. I'd be shocked if anyone actually believed Sarah Palin was the best candidate to be VP for McCain and I believe they picked her to diversify the republican ticket against a black candidate. They were hoping to win over the women voters who may have felt jilted that Clinton lost the primary. It didn't work mainly because Palin was more of distraction than anything else.
Sarah Palin was the proto-Trump and she revealed herself in interview after interview to be completely unqualified for the position she was about to take because she clearly didn't know the first thing about any subject she was asked about that didn't specifically deal with Alaska. Ask any McCain staffer how they view that pick in retrospect. They said she was even more of a horror-show behind the scenes. A few days before the pandemic, she ended up on "The Masked Singer." She had all the advantages of being a rock star of the conservative movement before Trump was doing more than calling into Fox and Friends once a week. But her only ambition after the 2008 loss was to be a celebrity. She didn't even finish her term as Governor. She quit. But her in your face brand of anti-intellectual populism was the third to last step in making Trump possible. The last two steps were a black man becoming President, and then the Dems have the nerve to nominate a woman right afterwards.
Hmm... Biden has never backed any policy of "reparations" so I dunno what you're talking about here, nor is the mainstream of the party backing such a policy. And outside of things like college admissions -- which isn't a federal government issue -- quotas based on identity aren't really a huge push by his campaign or the mainstream of the legislature right now. So, honestly, it seems to me like you're inventing phantom reasons to not back the candidate here, not substantive reasons.
I see people complaining about the female VP criteria and I dunno what to say. People have long acknowledged that VP picks can be tactical in terms of picking someone from a battleground state or of a particular ideology within the party. I think it's rather obvious that the woman VP thing is also a tactical gambit. I don't understand why tactical gambits like this become unpalatable when it's a woman versus being from a particular battleground state. The latter criteria is far narrower.
However, since you like Sanders, in terms of substantive reasons to vote for Biden, well the Supreme Court is obvious. The most Medicare-for-all component of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare), the Medicaid expansion, barely survived a Supreme Court challenge. So if you want to doom M4A to be considered unconstitutional for a generation if not longer, go ahead and sit out the election. Because that's what you'll be risking.
Lastly, you seem to be under a perception that Sanders ran a campaign free from identity politics. That's not my view. Sanders hired at least two prominent black women, who were imo, unqualified for the senior positions they had. A state senator as co-chair, and another person who had never worked in politics as his national press secretary. The idea that Sanders tapping a female VP would have been more "natural" than Biden doesn't hold up to scrutiny at all. Moreover, Sanders administration would be far more interested in identity box-checking than Biden -- his campaign staffing already proved as much.
If sanders came out and claimed he was going to have a female VP prior to securing the nomination, I’d be criticizing him just as heavily for that choice.
When I say ‘natural,’ I mean it in a way that the general population wouldn’t think differently about the candidate due to their gender. For example, if Kamila Harris got tapped for VP, the fact that she is a black woman would be more of a footnote compared to her credentials.
And yes, VP candidates are tactically chosen. It shouldn’t be a surprise that a candidate with extramarital affairs and X amount of X wives chose a fundamental Christian as his running mate. But I also think half the population would be insulted if they thought that the VP pick was to only tactically get them to support your candidate. See Palin.
But if a person like Sanders picked Harris there would have been more of a tactical fit that goes beyond gender and race(more Centralist, West Coast, better established in the Democratic Party, law background opposed to purely political one).
But Biden coming out and saying “yep, I am going to a female VP,” he is pretty much saying that the gender is the most important aspect of the candidate. That highly discredits the actual merits of who ever is chosen.
Sure there is...
For the 100th time, this is why the blatant distorting of reality that started his first day in office about the inauguration-size mattered. It was the starting gun in a race to obliterate reality, and as we can plainly see, reality has BEEN obliterated for these people. They might as well be living in Faerun. No other country is dealing with this fucking nonsense. And it's 100% the fault of Trump and the ghouls in right-wing media:
Frankly, I no longer give a flying fuck what happens to any of these people. They have been told time after time after time after time after time after time what will happen and they have chosen to bask in their own ignorance instead. The problem is they could kill people you are I care about who are vulnerable.
Screw it, let's keep digging here, more from Pittsburgh. Anyone have a reasonable explanation as to why automatic rifles are necessary to do this?? Or is it performance art for people who are compensating for something else??:
If we don't have a serious conversation about why a segment of our population has turned into certifiable lunatics, and what caused them to become this way, we're NEVER getting past this. These people won't let us get past it. They will have their way just like a child who is screaming for an ice cream cone in a mall. And they're willing to kill you to get it. Again, I don't think it a coincidence AT ALL that this all started less than a week after we learned minority populations are more likely to die (statistically, thus far) from the virus. Also, winning take of the day here as far as I'm concerned:
That will never happen here in the US during my generation. People will complain and question it no matter what credentials the person has.