Kansas Crimson

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:36 pm With Harris being the choice, I definitely won't be voting Biden.

The notion that you would vote for Biden with any VP is hilarious.

NiceDC wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:42 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:39 pm God, Pence might walk off the stage crying.

And - Harris will now be the attack dog. How fortunate for Trump that he's got such a patient and rational way of handling criticism from strong women, particularly strong women of color.

I seriously would pay money to see that debate. It has to get the highest VP debate ratings since 1984.

That will be the night Leawood gets his wish and an extra button is undone.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:41 pm

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:40 pm The irony is, the democrats were the most racist and sexist by requiring a black vagina.

The word you're looking for is "preferred".

The word "requiring" was what bothered you about his post?

Chickin was the one who brought up "vagina". I was just pointing out that he is right -- they required a black vagina. No males were considered for the VP role. How sad that we choose leaders for the most important job based on their skin and gender.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:44 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:41 pm

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:40 pm The irony is, the democrats were the most racist and sexist by requiring a black vagina.

The word you're looking for is "preferred".

The word "requiring" was what bothered you about his post?

I have no desire to revisit arguments with him about his constantly derogatory language towards women. We all know he is a chauvinist pig. It has been attempted numerous times in the past and he isn't going to behave any differently.

I chose not to start another pointless debate over it.

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:47 pm Chickin was the one who brought up "vagina". I was just pointing out that he is right -- they required a black vagina. No males were considered for the VP role. How sad that we choose leaders for the most important job based on their skin and gender.

Some people chose Trump just because he has the letter (R) listed behind his name on the ballot so let's not carry on about how people chose their leaders.

NiceDC wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:42 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:39 pm God, Pence might walk off the stage crying.

And - Harris will now be the attack dog. How fortunate for Trump that he's got such a patient and rational way of handling criticism from strong women, particularly strong women of color.

I seriously would pay money to see that debate. It has to get the highest VP debate ratings since 1984.

October 7. Put it on PPV, proceeds toward the American Red Cross or something.

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:38 pm She's as fake and phony as they come. Another Hillary Clinton.

In other words, she's your worst fucking nightmare?
You must be thinking - HOLY Shit! If Biden is elected, a "fake and phony" African American/Indian American Democratic woman may be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
That's gotta scare the shit out of you.
Hey, maybe you can take some solace in knowing Trump scares the shit out me - each and every day that he's our President.

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:50 pm

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:47 pm Chickin was the one who brought up "vagina". I was just pointing out that he is right -- they required a black vagina. No males were considered for the VP role. How sad that we choose leaders for the most important job based on their skin and gender.

Some people chose Trump just because he has the letter (R) listed behind his name on the ballot so let's not carry on about how people chose their leaders.

Right. Electing the president is and always has been a popularity contest. Popular election (or electoral college) is not the way to choose the "best, most qualified" candidate. There's a reason for example we haven't had a president under 5'10" since Truman, typically elect presidents who don't regularly wear glasses, Not to mention they've all been male and save for Obama, all white. We've never been electing candidates strictly about who was best, that's not the method by which we elect a president. And if we did Trump wouldn't even be a thought for the presidency - in fact our presidential lineage would look a lot different.

Also, a VP is supposed to complement the main candidate to round out the ticket. Weak on foreign policy, get someone who has that as a strength, bad at public speaking, get a running mate with charisma. This election has a large component that has to do with both race and gender. So yeah, it is dumb to eliminate a huge pool of candidates based on race and gender, but Biden needs someone who can appeal to both women and blacks. (I'm strongly opposed to the idea that a white person can't appeal to a black voter and vice versa or that a woman can't appeal to a male voter, and vice versa - but it's naive to think that gender and race don't matter at all).

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:47 pm Chickin was the one who brought up "vagina". I was just pointing out that he is right -- they required a black vagina. No males were considered for the VP role. How sad that we choose leaders for the most important job based on their skin and gender.

I think the fact that her gender represents 50% of the voters in America is an okay thing. You have a preference for old white males?

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 3:47 pm Chickin was the one who brought up "vagina". I was just pointing out that he is right -- they required a black vagina. No males were considered for the VP role. How sad that we choose leaders for the most important job based on their skin and gender.

"They" did NOT "require" a black vagina.
Why do you feel a male had to be considered for the VP role?
You seem to have an issue with Kamala Harris being a Black woman and/or Biden choosing a Black woman.
Let me ask you this, how is she any LESS "qualified" for the position than Mike Pence was in 2016?

Blech. She had one "good" primary debate, and that was when she was attacking Biden, accusing him of being a racist. For one, that's going to be replayed a lot over the next 80 days. B, she took that momentum and completely squandered it.

I understand the pick in terms of the current zeitgiest, but I don't like it.

I'll just share a secret of life. Actually, it's not such a big secret. Let's take japhy for example -- he works for an architecture firm, right? When someone applies for a job there, are they looking at the race and if the the person has a vagina? No. They are interested if they actually know their stuff, as it's a huge responsibility of keeping people safe when people design buildings. Or another example, the NBA. They don't require black skin or a vagina -- they only select the best of the best, most of which happen to be black.

In this case, the VP was chosen by eliminating far better options simply because of the race narrative the so many people unfortunately fall for.

Mjl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:32 pm . She had one "good" primary debate, and that was when she was attacking Biden, accusing him of being a racist. For one, that's going to be replayed a lot over the next 80 days.

I don't think it hurts Biden too much. Harris will say she can still speak her mind and stand up for what's right, and Biden can say he's learning a lot from having a black woman run with him.

I believe no-one was going to be the perfect choice let alone the "right" choice.
Everyone has something they can be and should be justifiably criticized for.
I don't love Harris but I honestly can't name someone who I feel would DEFINITELY have been a better VP choice. Can anyone else?

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:35 pm I'll just share a secret of life. Actually, it's not such a big secret. Let's take japhy for example -- he works for an architecture firm, right? When someone applies for a job there, are they looking at the race and if the the person has a vagina? No. They are interested if they actually know their stuff, as it's a huge responsibility of keeping people safe when people design buildings. Or another example, the NBA. They don't require black skin or a vagina -- they only select the best of the best, most of which happen to be black.

In this case, the VP was chosen by eliminating far better options simply because of the race narrative the so many people unfortunately fall for.

That operates under the assumption that the best candidate couldn't be a woman of color. I don't think that's the case. Yes it's dumb to eliminate your pool of candidates, but I don't thing you can make an argument that she isn't a qualified candidate.

And you're making a false assumption that A) the selection for VP is for the best person overall....it's not, it's the best person for the presidential candidate, the person who best fills out the ticket. And obviously Biden thinks she's the best for the job. and B) that we elect the best person for the job for president. We don't, we do it by having a modified popularity contest.

And in regards to your architecture firm question. At a lot of jobs you want to hire the best fit. So like at my job, I work in the biology department. You don't just hire the best biologist, if you need a someone to teach/do research on parasites and ecology you find the best person who has those specific skills to round out your department. There might be a better medical microbiologist, but that's not the specific skillset you need.

I also like you're ideology that you want to always hire the best person. I'm not sure that exists objectively in most real world scenarios. I've been on search committees to hire professors. You get hundreds of applicants, it gets wittled down to say, a hundred, all of whom are more than qualified. The search committee ranks them individually. Not everyone's list is the same but you narrow it down to say 20 candidates, then you argue over who's the best. Ultimately you get 3-5 candidates who you bring in to interview. But the point is, you don't all objectively agree on who the best candidate is. Inevitably it come down to subjective things or individual preferences. Now, I'd like those things to not be race, or gender, but let's not pretend that when there's a job opening that there's one objectively best person. That just isn't true. I'm sure it's the same for VP.

AND...there's plenty of evidence that even when you give someone made up resumes, that most people overrate the ones with male names and more common Europeaon sounding names even when the resumes are made to be equivalent....so I don't think even when you're just looking at resumes, that it's necessarily fair and unbiased out there on the regular job market...so the fact that this VP search wasn't without biases is nothing out of the ordinary for job searches in general.

shocker...the moron that would’ve preferred yang or gabbard doesn’t like the choice

what i don’t understand, is why any of you reasonable people keep engaging him. just post a youtube vid.

Walrus wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:35 pm I'll just share a secret of life. Actually, it's not such a big secret. Let's take japhy for example -- he works for an architecture firm, right? When someone applies for a job there, are they looking at the race and if the the person has a vagina? No. They are interested if they actually know their stuff, as it's a huge responsibility of keeping people safe when people design buildings. Or another example, the NBA. They don't require black skin or a vagina -- they only select the best of the best, most of which happen to be black.

In this case, the VP was chosen by eliminating far better options simply because of the race narrative the so many people unfortunately fall for.

I have to laugh. Why? Because diversity and inclusion are absolutely important factors when hiring COMPETENT and QUALIFIED people. If you knew where I worked, who I work for, and who I work with, you would understand that it's actually commendable and important to have diversity in the work place.
Don't get me wrong, I NEVER feel someone should be hired (or not hired) based simply on the color of their skin and/or their gender but I would have zero problem if a Black woman was hired instead of a White man for a job that she is/was qualified for. Why would I?

So tell us, what white man do you feel was the better VP option?

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:56 pm shocker...the moron that would’ve preferred yang or gabbard doesn’t like the choice

what i don’t understand, is why any of you reasonable people keep engaging him. just post a youtube vid.