• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Kamala Harris Election Campaign

rdwight said:
Or it's being used to undermine confidence in one's abilities. Legacy admission. Trust fund baby. Etc etc. This is not new. Plenty of complaints about unearned rise in life. The only way these are dispelled is through countering with success. Why is that not being done?
Click to expand...

A better example is how women in top positions have been met with the question "so who did you sleep with to get this job?". It's not a serious jab, like pointing out you know someone was admitted to a college because they knew the admissions officer, it's a bigoted and unfounded insult meant to imply that the person isn't qualified. Decode it and they're basically saying "The sheriff is a n-----!" How do you answer that, other than by pointing out it's racist and bigoted?
 
Donal said:
And has some...ideas...about women's careers.
Click to expand...

Not weird, not at all.

And Walz emphasizes that just by virtue of existing, given how much he pushed that line.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Trump campaign is saying that Walz wants to allow convicted felons to vote, which they believe is bad.

I guess they don't want Trump to vote either.
Click to expand...

Donal said:
Weird take since people in red states actually vote for restoring voting rights for felons
Click to expand...

I wonder if it would blow their minds that I, a convicted felon (twice over), have, can, and will continue to vote in my extremely red state of North Dakota because it's legal for me to do so. Ironically my state shares a very long border with...Minnesota! Our governor was on the short list of VPs as well.

Also, in Ohio, where his VP is from you can vote if:

You are not currently incarcerated for a felony conviction under the laws of this state, another state or the United States. Source
Click to expand...

If you're not currently in prison, you can vote in Ohio. The man never thinks about anything before he says it.
 
TragicMonkey said:
It's not uncommon. Biden, Gore, and Bush Senior were VPs. It's not a career dead end, but it's also not a guaranteed progression upwards. I think the successful VP-to-Pres examples happened because enough voters liked the corresponding president and were voting for "more of the same" rather than anything new and different they might bring.
Click to expand...

One downside I think is that if you have a 2-term Prez, it makes it that much harder for that VP to get the gig. Bush Sr. did it, but he's the only one that comes to mind.

Nixon - no
Ford - wasn't elected
Bush Sr. - yes
Gore - no, but yes I know the circumstances
Biden - didn't run until 4 years later
 
Donal said:
You know what would help? Not ignoring half of what I said.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand me then. The oppositions framing should not dictate your response. If they think it is a negative and you think it's a positive, there is no point in arguing it simply didn't happen as if that removes any need to defend the policy.

Donal said:
But we're not talking about hiring your kid. In fact, it is very much the opposite of what we're talking about.
Click to expand...

It's an illustration of a comparable scenario. If you don't understand how, I will be hard pressed to explain.


Donal said:
You mean like pointing to Harris' experience as DA in San Francisco and AG of California? The point of throwing out a phrase like "DEI hire" is not to discuss the qualifications or accomplishments of the person in question. It is to dismiss all of that outright. And any success that person claims will just be written off with "I bet a white guy could have done it better".
Click to expand...

You understand that the conversation pertains to her position as VP correct? That Biden did her no favors in this regard when he said "Whomever I pick, preferably it will be someone who was of color and/or a different gender, but I'm not making that commitment until I know that the person I'm dealing with I can completely and thoroughly trust as authentic and on the same page [as me]"

To dismiss this outright is intellectually dishonest. To call back to my nepotism point, its as if i prefaced my search for a replacement by saying "I am looking for a family member to replace me." And after an exhasutive search, i choose my kid. Few would fault an outside individual for making the leap in judgement, independent of any qualifications he has.

Whether DEI is effective policy if you believe that played a part in her appointment comes down to her performance as VP. Why shy away from it? I am literally asking. If people support the position, highlight it's advantages when the chance is given. Electorally, not much was gained by her joining the ticket.

I also hate how the diversity portion is constantly turned around to conclude some level of racism for anyone that points out that it is 100% about race and/or sex. There is far more diversity in thought among white Americans by simple volume of people. No one invokes diversity to mean a white guy from a different background/upbringing/religion/region/education and on down the line. I am going to move my conversation to the dei thread as I originally intended as my thoughts are diverting away from the thread purpose.
 
Planigale said:
For a non-US person why do people become VP? Apart from the slim chance of becoming president by virtue of an assassin, what is in it for an ambitious politician. Do VP usually get chosen to be the next presidential candidate? Clearly Biden got a stinking pension out of it, and IMHO should have retired and not stood for the presidency. But what do VPs do after VPing? The only one who I can think of who has made a mark for themselves is Quayle.
Click to expand...

Many VPs have become President or Presidential nominees (VPs in bold)

Warren G. Harding
Calvin Coolidge (death of Harding, re-elected)
Herbert Hoover
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Harry S Truman (death of Roosevelt, re-elected)
John F. Kennedy (defeated VP Richard Nixon)
Lyndon B. Johnson (death of Kennedy, re-elected)
Richard Nixon (defeated Johnson's VP Hubert Humphrey)
Gerald Ford (resignation of Nixon)
Jimmy Carter
Ronald Reagan
George H. W. Bush
Bill Clinton
George W. Bush (narrowly defeated VP Al Gore)
Barack Obama
Donald Trump
Joe Biden (4 year gap)

Nearly every VP of a two-term President has gone on to be a Presidential candidate).

When Coolidge announced he would not run for a second full term, VP Charles Dawes did likewise. They had grown apart and Coolidge hated Dawes. With no clear nominee, some tried to get Coolidge/Dawes back on the ticket, but Coolidge refused. It was thought Dawes would be Hoover's running mate, but that ended when Coolidge strongly objected. Dawes went on to become Ambassador to the UK.

Truman announced he would not run for a second full term. VP Alben Barkley was in the running for the nomination until labor leaders rejected him for being too old at age 74. Barkley won re-election to the Senate.

Dick Cheney was not eligible to run because he had already been President for two terms. Ha, ha. Just kidding. He chose not to run. He was a behind-the-scenes type of guy. He had a couple heart attacks. Bush ended his Presidency extremely unpopular, with many blaming Cheney for his failings. Cheney had an approval rating around 13%. He had no chance of getting a nomination. Cheney retired, although he remained somewhat vocal on politics.

Mike Pence had no chance getting the nomination against Trump. Maybe he will run again in the future.
 
Last edited:
Dread Pirate Roberts said:
One downside I think is that if you have a 2-term Prez, it makes it that much harder for that VP to get the gig. Bush Sr. did it, but he's the only one that comes to mind.

Nixon - no
Ford - wasn't elected
Bush Sr. - yes
Gore - no, but yes I know the circumstances
Biden - didn't run until 4 years later
Click to expand...

But Biden and Nixon eventually became President
and
Nixon and Gore lost extremely narrow elections.

Being VP certainly isn't a guarantee but there is no such thing. But being VP provides a national profile that is hard to develop as one of 50 Governors or 100 Senators or 435 Congress people.
 
acbytesla said:
But Biden and Nixon eventually became President
and
Nixon and Gore lost extremely narrow elections.

Being VP certainly isn't a guarantee but there is no such thing. But being VP provides a national profile that is hard to develop as one of 50 Governors or 100 Senators or 435 Congress people.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and Nixon after flaming out for Governor no less. I agree with what you're saying, but the list is a lot smaller than I originally thought - only 4 sitting Vice-Presidents have been elected! Then Nixon, Biden and the 9 others by death/resignation.
 
It's like in the UK where someone wanting to be an MP will be the candidate in a couple of 'no hope' constituencies before they get to stand in one where they are assured of a seat.

Well, that's how it used to work. I doesn't for the tories any longer.
 
Dread Pirate Roberts said:
Yeah, and Nixon after flaming out for Governor no less. I agree with what you're saying, but the list is a lot smaller than I originally thought - only 4 sitting Vice-Presidents have been elected! Then Nixon, Biden and the 9 others by death/resignation.
Click to expand...

That is 15 out of 45 Presidents. Or 15 out of 49 Vice Presidents. The odds of becoming President is much higher as VP than Governor or Senator of any state. It's also much easier to build nationwide support. The VP doesn't really have much of a job. That can work as an advantage because he can use his time and resources developing an organization which is harder to do when they have real responsibilities.
 
Thanks for your responses everyone. I found it easy to understand why a presidential candidate would choose a VP to balance their political appeal. But i found it less easy to understand why someone would want to be VP. But in a way Harris demonstrates it; she went from being unimportant on a federal scale to being significant and then to being a presidential candidate. If I had a vote I'd vote for her, but I recognise her executive experience is minimal, whilst Trump has been the CEO of a major multinational ego, and a successful (NOT) POTUS. Her VP pick at 60 clearly feels he has another 20+ years to become president.
 
I don't agree that CEO of any corporation is a good qualification to be POTUS. In fact, I think it should be counted against any candidate, as CEO is not a position leading over any democratic organization.
 
I Am The Scum said:
It's like you're not understanding what I'm saying. I'll spell it out super clearly for you... [snip]
Click to expand...

No, what you are saying is not confusing. It also is completely irrelevant. Why that has to be repeated again and again is beyond me. Is DEI good policy? Yes? Ok. Why is anyone that can conceivably be considered the recipient of that policy immediately repelled at the prospect of that? Why, again, is its use not celebrated as positive change from the championed policy?

The answer can't be "because racists think its bad." You don't. Racists don't like a lot of policies. I don't see anyone backing off supporting Loving or Brown because racists dislike it. If you disagree with how they frame it, own your version and showcase its use.
 
Planigale said:
Thanks for your responses everyone. I found it easy to understand why a presidential candidate would choose a VP to balance their political appeal. But i found it less easy to understand why someone would want to be VP. But in a way Harris demonstrates it; she went from being unimportant on a federal scale to being significant and then to being a presidential candidate. If I had a vote I'd vote for her, but I recognise her executive experience is minimal, whilst Trump has been the CEO of a major multinational ego, and a successful (NOT) POTUS. Her VP pick at 60 clearly feels he has another 20+ years to become president.
Click to expand...

thaiboxerken said:
I don't agree that CEO of any corporation is a good qualification to be POTUS. In fact, I think it should be counted against any candidate, as CEO is not a position leading over any democratic organization.
Click to expand...

I think it's wrong to necessarily conclude that Walz is aiming to be POTUS. I think he thinks he is up for the job. But this is a humble guy from a small rural town. I think he thinks he can make a difference. And that's fun.

I also agree with boxerken. I don't think being CEO of a multinational is a good qualification to being President. Being CEO isn't about coalition building. Being the leader of a nation is. You can't just demand that something is to be done your way. This dictatorial way of thinking is dangerous. The nation also isn't a business. It's not just about profit and loss. It's about people. There is very little that is similar.

I wouldn't refer to the Trump Organization as a major multinational. It does own a few real estate properties outside the US but the majority of properties with the Trump name aren't owned by the Trump Organization. They license his name. It's a family business built mostly by Fred Trump, Donald's father.

I also wouldn't describe Trump as all that successful as a business leader.
Here are just some of Trump business failures.
1. Trump Steaks
2. GoTrump
3. Trump Airlines
4. Trump Vodka
5. Trump Mortgage
6. Trump: The Game
7. Trump Magazine
8. Trump University
9. Trump Ice
10. The New Jersey Generals
11. Tour de Trump
12. Trump Network
13. Trumped!
Here is a list of Trump businesses where Trump declared bankruptcy and his creditors paid for his failures.
1. Trump Taj Mahal
2. Trump’s Castle
3. Trump Plaza Casinos
4. Trump Plaza Hotel
5. Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts
6. Trump Entertainment Resorts

Finally, Trump never ran any of his businesses in a fair or honorable manner. There's a reason Trump was convicted of 30+ plus counts of business fraud. He didn't pay his bills unless they were unavoidable and forced to. If he could take advantage of someone, he did. He was proud of this and even bragged about. He thought it was a good business practice. Hundreds of New York/New Jersey contractors/vendors found themselves defrauded by his business tactics.
 
rdwight said:
I know this is an obvious question, by why does no one that supports DEI as an initiative want people associated with the use of it? "This is obviously good policy." "How dare you call them a DEI hire!" I can't really think of another comparable scenario in policy that mirrors it.
Click to expand...

We just don't want people associated with the right's misrepresentation of it. That's why we steer away fro the likes of Donny al-Assad, Eric or Ivanka.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom