2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Isn’t that the whole purpose (usually) for vp ?
Seem many talks about that for whom Harris should pick ?
Maximizing votes gain .
Trump didn’t pick Vance for this and it’s going to cost him dearly it seem .
Ya I'd argue it is.
I guess we'll chalk it up to Biden realizing in March that he had to pick a woman for vote maximizing. Savvy old guy.
After conducting what he joked was a “very scientific poll” of the Fayetteville crowd as to whether supporters wanted a man or a woman, he declared the choice would be “a very talented, very brave woman”.
“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” Trump said. “I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.”
He added that he did not yet know whom he would choose.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020...
poor DEI amy
Ya I'd argue it is.
I guess we'll chalk it up to Biden realizing in March that he had to pick a woman for vote maximizing. Savvy old guy.
I just think it’s normal politic .
Look why Obama choose Biden right ?
Old white male, conservative for a democrats, long experience …
Seem it fit right in imo .
The only DEI candidate is the mentally disabled imbecile who got raked over the coals by people who weren’t fawning over his bullshit today
Shoutout GOP for getting woke
Narrator: he didn’t
Yeah and trump knows it !
That is he used the word « we » crushed it .
When his attack or fail , he always use the « we » but when he succeed or it’s something great for the party , he always used the word «I ».
Almost kinda like privatize the gains and socialize the loss lol.
Sorry for not remembering the full quote off the top of my head.
But I'm glad we're having this discussion, because it resulted in me researching the VP selection process from 4 years ago to find out Biden was only looking at a woman VP.
Confirms both the 'chopped up' version and the full quote.
He would only hire a woman for the job in order to include a historically unrepresented sex for that role.
Your post is the embodiment of confirmation bias - you even used the first word of the expression in your demonstration of it.
And nobody here believes garbage like "I couldn't remember it".
Can someone explain exactly how the point is changed (non native english speaker here ) ?
Is it cornerstone =/= to core strenght ?
I'm really unsure on this one.
Conservatives are claiming Harris selection as Biden's VP was as an exercise of intentional DEI action. Biden's full quote was:
"To me, the values of diversity, equality, inclusion are literally — and this is not kidding — the core strengths of America. That’s why I’m proud to have the most diverse administration in history that taps into the full talents of our country. And it starts at the top with the Vice President."
Saying you agree with the values of diversity, equality, and inclusion is not the same thing as saying someone was hired specifically to achieve that. That's like saying America values a president who hasn't sexually assaulted a woman and then concluding a President was elected specifically because he didn't sexually assault a woman. History tells us those two points aren't the same.
LOL. DEI, or at least the right wing derposphere's interpretation/twisting of it, is melting people's brains.
Complaining about DEI when talking about political candidates deserves an extra hearty LOL. How do you think politics works, that it's some kind of merit-based competition where the most highly-qualified candidate emerges at the end?
I'm sure a person could find some real examples of DEI gone too far, where someone was hired to a job for which they were obviously underqualified. But a presidential candidate? Politics is and always has been based on many things other than "qualifications". Has this forum not been full of speculation about VP candidates, much of which is based on criteria as simple as what state they're from? News flash - you'd be hard-pressed to find a VP that was chosen primarily for their qualifications. You'd also have a hard time finding a list of qualifications people could agree on.
There are millions of jobs out there for which diversity is an extremely legitimate criteria. It's sad how many people have lapped up the pathetic talking points about DEI. Company screws up? It's the woke DEI hires! DEI is racism!! DEI is Marxism!!!
L.
O.
****ing.
L.
Man Trump has had a bad 2 weeks, with any luck every week forward until he dies will be progressively worse.
LOL. DEI, or at least the right wing derposphere's interpretation/twisting of it, is melting people's brains.
Complaining about DEI when talking about political candidates deserves an extra hearty LOL. How do you think politics works, that it's some kind of merit-based competition where the most highly-qualified candidate emerges at the end?
L.
Has there been a more undemocratic nominee put up for president by either party before than Kamala?
Has there been a more undemocratic nominee put up for president by either party before than Kamala?
Surely if she's not the candidate that the people want, they won't vote for her and Trump will have an easy ride to victory. What's your concern here? That the candidate the opposing party put on the ballot is unpopular with their base?
Surely if she's not the candidate that the people want, they won't vote for her and Trump will have an easy ride to victory. What's your concern here? That the candidate the opposing party put on the ballot is unpopular with their base?
As Bill Maher would say it is a binary choice so if you get through the primaries you have a pretty good chance of becoming president as the polls in the lead up just before the election tend to always be close to tied or within the margin of error. She has avoided all that from something that if we judge her 2019 performance from she would be no chance of winning a fresh primary which is probably why we have seen it play out the way it did with the early debate.
As Bill Maher would say it is a binary choice so if you get through the primaries you have a pretty good chance of becoming president as the polls in the lead up just before the election tend to always be close to tied or within the margin of error. She has avoided all that from something that if we judge her 2019 performance from she would be no chance of winning a fresh primary which is probably why we have seen it play out the way it did
You didn't answer the question. As a Trump supporter, what, specifically, is your concern with the process, if it gives your guy a better chance of winning?
George Conway's new Psycho PAC
You didn't answer the question. As a Trump supporter, what, specifically, is your concern with the process, if it gives your guy a better chance of winning?
Well I haven't decided that it has. There is definitely a bump from it just being a new candidate but if she sustains it that Trump would be in a worse position than if he were against Biden but the concern is what has changed from when Biden won the primary until when he stepped down.
And if the Democrat or republican party can do these sham primaries with having the influence of a sitting president to put off quality candidates from running and parachuting candidates in to replace them months out from an election if they prove to be unpopular than you are just going to get captain's picks from the party's HQ than having a candidate chosen by the people and therefore run against this notion that America is this great democracy.
Well I haven't decided that it has. There is definitely a bump from it just being a new candidate but if she sustains it that Trump would be in a worse position than if he were against Biden but the concern is what has changed from when Biden won the primary until when he stepped down.
And if the Democrat or republican party can do these sham primaries with having the influence of a sitting president to put off quality candidates from runni
Oh, OK, so the process they used might have given them a better candidate than the old process? Sounds like a pretty good case for the new process, then.
I think I see the problem here. You think that parties are bound by some sort of democratic principles to select which candidate they want to put forward. They are not. You could start a party tomorrow and put yourself forward as the candidate, with no democratic process involved at all. The "democracy" is when the public receives a list of candidates, however each party chose them, and then votes for which one of the candidates they would like to hold office. This is taking place in November.
Oh, OK, so the process they used might have given them a better candidate than the old process? Sounds like a pretty good case for the new process, then.
I think I see the problem here. You think that parties are bound by some sort of democratic principles to select which candidate they want to put forward. They are not. You could start a party tomorrow and put yourself forward as the candidate, with no democratic process involved at all. Th
People tend to forget that political parties (in democracies, mind you) are private organizations, not public organizations.
Still, some competition would of course have to take the public into account. However, it is not like people were barred from running a challenge under some official party rule, there simply was no challenger with clout who threw their hat in the ring. Likely partially because they realize it would lead to a lost election anyway, partially because they had no apparatus in place to run a campaign and partially because they would like for there to be genuine elections in 2028 instead of some weird hybrid state.
It is not an ideal situation, but there is a snowball's chance it hell it was a strategy. Not running with the incumbent is a hail mary, not a scheme.
Then there is another angle to look at this argument with. Consider the "fake electors scheme" where Trump world participated rather gleefully. This was an attempt to steal an actual election by using falsified records, dubious legal strategies and conspirators in congress. Conservatives and the GOP really need to serious house-cleaning and do some introspection before delivering speeches on "the people's choice".
Then there is another angle to look at this argument with. Consider the "fake electors scheme" where Trump world participated rather gleefully. This was an attempt to steal an actual election by using falsified records, dubious legal strategies and conspirators in congress. Conservatives and the GOP really need to serious house-cleaning and do some introspection before delivering speeches on "the people's choice".
The idea that conservatives and the GOP give even a fleeting **** about things like principles and integrity after what we've seen in the last 8 years is a fanciful one to say the least.
