Biden’s VP Choice

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

That's advice men rarely get or seem to need. Along with how to respond to questions about how they balance work and family. I find it extremely sexist.

I'm not convinced about the facial expressions.

However, given that a large part of the voting population is sexist, is that not something that should be taken into consideration ?
There are plenty of other things H Clinton was morally right about ( other than pandering too sexists ) yet she still lost the election to the most sexist ( along with many many more despicable attributes ) President America has ever had.

[iNow]

6 minutes ago, MigL said:

yet she still lost the election to the most sexist ( along with many many more despicable attributes ) President America has ever had.

One might argue that she actually lost the election to the electoral college, but that's another thread

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, Airbrush said:

I voted for Hillary Clinton because I felt she was VERY qualified to be president.  She really scraped her way up as a lawyer.  She lost her election by a slim margin.  I don't want Biden/Harris to lose by a slim margin.  It will help them WIN if Kamala, a super-great choice to prosecute Trump every day until the election, will follow more the Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel school of subdued expressions, rather than the all out, cut-loose, big toothy grin and bulging eyes of Hillary Clinton. 

Numerous people from Trump's 16" campaign are felons today Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, Stone, Gates, Papadopoulos, etc. Trump was named by the guilt parties as a co-conspirator on some of those charges. National Intelligence, even the people Trump appointed, have confirmed Russia interfered to help Trump in 16' and is doing it again now. Courts have tossed election rules in place back in 16" in several states which were key to Trump. All of that went down in 2016. I am not even venturing into the more subjective stuff like Comey's last minute decision, Cambridge Analyticia's involvement, etc or standard campaign gaffes. All of that made the difference not Hillary Clinton's smile.

Currently Trump is publicly work to interfere with mail in voting, has openly floated moving the election, FL is still in court trying to keep a million people from voting, National Intelligence has conformed foreign interfere, COVID19 is killing a thousand people a day, etc, etc matter more than Kamala Harris's smile.

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

One might argue that she actually lost the election to the electoral college, but that's another thread

I would argue she didn't lose and the election was manipulated.

[Phi for All]

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm not convinced about the facial expressions.

However, given that a large part of the voting population is sexist, is that not something that should be taken into consideration ?

Only if you want to perpetuate the behavior. Once it's pointed out (the way we're doing in this thread), isn't it a thinking human's responsibility to change? We should always consider the smart option first, which almost always involves overcoming our more primitive thinking in favor of what's best or right or just. I'm not sure why you approve aren't convinced of this double standard.

[MigL]

Oh, I'm convinced, Phi.
And while we're considering the smart option, people like D Trump will abuse the system to take advantage of people's primitive thinking.
You have to win the Presidency to be able to change the system for the better.
Four more years of President Trump will ruin your country; and a lot of the rest of the World.
( IOW, nice guys finish last; unfortunate and unfair but often true )

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

Oh, I'm convinced, Phi.
And while we're considering the smart option, people like D Trump will abuse the system to take advantage of people's primitive thinking.
You have to win the Presidency to be able to change the system for the better.
Four more years of President Trump will ruin your country; and a lot of the rest of the World.
( IOW, nice guys finish last; unfortunate and unfair but often true )

So the ends justify the means? It's OK to be unfair to women in this instance because nice guys finish last? Wasn't it this behavior that kept women out of the White House to date?

You've chosen the "dance with who brung ya" strategy, or as I like to call it, the Sunk Cost Fallacy. It's time to stop hating women.

[MigL]

Quite often you choose to paint me with the dastardly evil brush, when there are other options available, Phi.

I'm not saying its ok to be unfair to women, but women should be aware that there are those who are ( unfair to women ).
And, sometimes, mitigating those instances, involves not giving those people the opportunity to be unfair.

It's not OK to steal either, but there are those who do, and I'm sure you don't leave your wallet in plain sight, in your parked vehicle.
If I asked you to put your wallet in your glove-box, or your back pocket, are you going to assume that I think it's OK to steal ?

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And while we're considering the smart option, people like D Trump will abuse the system to take advantage of people's primitive thinking.

Well, here is the thing, I think both campaigns have stopped trying to pivot to the middle and trying to grab the probably not so relevant middleground anymore. Trump in his previous campaign already did that and Biden's campaign if anything seems to pivot to the left at the moment, with the possible exception of choosing Harris.

Both campaigns seem to focus to make sure that their base is going to vote, and looking at who actually goes to the voting booth, it may actually be a good strategy. Within this situation fueling potential sexist resentments probably is not a good idea, as it is unlikely to get votes, but can alienate potential Biden voters. Especially with his reputation of being creepy around women.  

[iNow]

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Numerous people from Trump's 16" campaign are felons today Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, Stone, Gates, Papadopoulos, etc. Trump was named by the guilt parties as a co-conspirator on some of those charges. National Intelligence, even the people Trump appointed, have confirmed Russia interfered to help Trump in 16' and is doing it again now. Courts have tossed election rules in place back in 16" in several states which were key to Trump. All of that went down in 2016. I am not even venturing into the more subjective stuff like Comey's last minute decision, Cambridge Analyticia's involvement, etc or standard campaign gaffes. All of that made the difference not Hillary Clinton's smile.

Currently Trump is publicly work to interfere with mail in voting, has openly floated moving the election, FL is still in court trying to keep a million people from voting, National Intelligence has conformed foreign interfere, COVID19 is killing a thousand people a day, etc, etc matter more than Kamala Harris's smile.

QFT. Emphasis mine. 

[MigL]

This last post brings up a very important subject.
What are the parties proposing about the problem of mental illness ?

More and more Americans are angry at the world.
This misplaced anger keeps them from functioning as productive ( and civil ) members of society.
A lot of them seem to think that anarchy is the solution, when actually it is the rule of law that is protecting their sorry asses.
In an anarchist, "might makes right" society they would have no protection by the law, and would be ruthlessly taken advantage of by the stronger and more powerful.

[Ten oz]

10 hours ago, MigL said:

It's not OK to steal either, but there are those who do, and I'm sure you don't leave your wallet in plain sight, in your parked vehicle.
If I asked you to put your wallet in your glove-box, or your back pocket, are you going to assume that I think it's OK to steal ?

Difference being that there are clear, well established, and regularly enforced laws against stealing. It is even biblical "thou shall not steal" for those so inclined. Everyone is able to identify it and very few ever attempt to make light of it. Stealing is unambiguous in most modern cultures. If Biden, Harris, Pence, or nearly any politician were caught stealing Phi's wallet it would end their political career. The overwhelming majority of even their own most partisan supporters would reject that behavior.

[MigL]

Gender discrimination ( or sexism ) is also a crime.
Yet a lot of people still do it.

And while I agree that smiling is a non-issue, the inherent 'sexism' of the general population should be taken into consideration by the candidates.
I stll recall when S Palin wore that red jacket at one of her campaign speeches; it made the news for the next month.
People were more concerned with her clothing than the drivel she was talking.
I don't thing you'd see H Clinton wearing a bright red leather jacket ( or K Harris ); probably because they want people to concentrate on what they say.

[Phi for All]

11 hours ago, MigL said:

If I asked you to put your wallet in your glove-box, or your back pocket, are you going to assume that I think it's OK to steal ?

No, but I'm going to question why you think it's OK that a woman is going to have to do much more than that to meet the same standards. I'm willing to bet she'd have to behave differently as well before you'd consider her wallet safe.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I don't thing you'd see H Clinton wearing a bright red leather jacket ( or K Harris ); probably because they want people to concentrate on what they say.

Clinton wore an entirely Red Suit to a debate. You're attempting to establish a cultural norm which doesn't exist. It is similar to when Obama was attacked for wearing a Tan suit. The insistence was that it was un-presidential to wear anything other than a dark colored suit. Of course Reagan, Ford, JFK, and others had also worn Tan suits. It wasn't really a first and no such norm existed.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Gender discrimination ( or sexism ) is also a crime.
Yet a lot of people still do it.

Only the most egregious cases are prosecuted. Even in the U.S., where we have more prison inmates than any other nation, there isn't a single person in prison for gender discrimination. 'He said she said' exists in our popular lexicon for a reason. There is no equivalent saying for stealing. Those who steal are called thieves and prisons has plenty of them.  Meanwhile people online debated endlessly on Brett Kavanaugh's behalf citing 'he said she said' as a form of plausible deniability.

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Incoherent hijack split off to Trash

 

[swansont]

14 hours ago, MigL said:

 I'm not saying its ok to be unfair to women, but women should be aware that there are those who are ( unfair to women ).

I'm pretty sure they are aware, especially ones who have gotten to the level of being elected to congress.

 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Gender discrimination ( or sexism ) is also a crime.
Yet a lot of people still do it.

Gender discrimination is a subset of sexism. The former is against the law in some settings, but the latter, while many rightfully frown upon it, is not.  

[MigL]

I'm not assuming a cultural norm.
I am merely stating that the reality of the American population is that a fairly sizeable percentage think that IS the cultural norm.

And if you're going to ask me for  proof or a citation, I will tell you that if that wasn't true, D Trump would not be your President.

Anyway we've had this discussion once before, those are simply my opinions; it is off-topic in this thread, and I don't wish to re-visit it.

[Janus]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Stealing is unambiguous in most modern cultures.

Is it?  Here's an example:   Some co-workers were listening to some radio show, where they asked the question, " If you find someone's wallet, is it okay to take any money out of it before returning it?"   I was a bit dismayed that the radio hosts and my coworkers had no problem with taking the money as a "finders fee".   To my mind, that would be stealing,  but to theirs, it wasn't.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm not assuming a cultural norm.
I am merely stating that the reality of the American population is that a fairly sizeable percentage think that IS the cultural norm.

And if you're going to ask me for  proof or a citation, I will tell you that if that wasn't true, D Trump would not be your President.

Anyway we've had this discussion once before, those are simply my opinions; it is off-topic in this thread, and I don't wish to re-visit it.

At what point does the cultural norm break from the topic of this thread?

 

[Airbrush]

When I heard that Kamala Harris was selected for VP my feeling was profound satisfaction.  I think she is a good choice.  I voted for her as AG for California and also for Senator.  When I watched Biden and Harris last night giving their speeches I was very happy with the performance of both.  Harris had a good mix of smiles (not the extreme gaping smiles of H Clinton) and also the sober, severity of a prosecutor, which is exactly what Dems need to back up Biden.

Interesting Trump called Harris "nasty" 4 times yesterday, even called her "extremely nasty."  According to my dictionary nasty means "unpleasant or disgusting; spiteful , violent, or bad-tempered; dangerous or serious."  He also called H Clinton nasty.  Did he ever call a man nasty?

From Merriam-Webster  NASTY:  "disgustingly filthy, physically repugnant; indecent, obscene..."  I don't really see ANY of that in Kamala Harris.  That looks like blatant projection by Trump.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

32 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

At what point does the cultural norm break from the topic of this thread?

 

Provided it relates to Kamala Harris, Biden's VP selection process, or the roles associated with VP it isn't off topic. I think what thery're signaling is an inability to continue the discussion without venturing into territory that might be labelled as sexist.Vague analogies about societal expectations among some unidentified portions of the population provides a safe distance to launch problematic observations from.

It will be interesting to see if conversation about Harris evolves beyond her gender. If the keys to election victory are eventually said to be policy related rather than just pageantry.

 

[Airbrush]

If Biden/Harris get elected, since Biden will probably not run again in 2024, Harris would have a clear path to the presidency in 2024.  All Joe and Kamala need to do is play their cards right, use a poker face, and WIN.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Airbrush

[CharonY]

 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

And if you're going to ask me for  proof or a citation, I will tell you that if that wasn't true, D Trump would not be your President.

Somewhat related to the topic of the thread, the choice of VP as well as the general direction the Dems are going are to (slightly) break what has been perceived as traditional values (including implicit and explicit sexism). Especially since the Rep have such a strong grip as noted in the quote, it would be probably a losing proposition for the Dems to do the same. There used to be certain aspects where both, Dems and Reps tried to score points on, including being tough on crime or illegal immigration. But that seems to be more polarized now than it was before.

[MigL]

I think she is a very intelligent woman, and she should easily best M Pence in any debate.
( although his base won't believe anything she says anyway )

I don't think many people ( especially not J Biden ) think she burned any bridges by her attack on him during the primary debates, and most understand it was just 'electioneering'.

What might hurt her a little is her record as a prosecutor in these days of heightened awareness regarding BLM and minority oppression by police/prosecution/judiciary.

Besides, the way polling is going, J Biden could have chosen uncle Bob as running mate, and still won in November.
But who knows, if D Trump and his son-in-law manage to kill a couple of million Democrat supporters with Covid-19 ( by withholding medical supplies from Democrat states ) by November, he just might be re-elected.

[Airbrush]

I have a correction to my post.  Trump did NOT call Harris "extremely nasty" as I thought.  He actually called her "extraordinarily nasty." 

How often does Trump use a SEVEN syllable word to modify "nasty"?  This could be a first from a man with the smallest vocabulary in the history of US politics, who is reluctant to use words outside his comfort zone, with more than one syllable and sentences of more than 3 words, (which are repeated over and over), to make sure his uneducated voters can follow him.

Trump said Harrris was extraordinarily "disgustingly filthy, physically repugnant; indecent, obscene..." 😲