The Kamala Harris conundrum.

[Tom Paine 1949]

I think the OP was right to point out that the “conundrum” of Kamala Harris being chosen as vice-presidential candidate by Joe Biden is not so much a conundrum for Democrats as it is for Republicans and Trump supporters ... and outright racists. As he said:

“I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe ... it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.”

On cue, we have Trump supporters lying about what Biden said, as in this gem by Juicey Omelette : “I thought it was pretty racist and sexist of Biden to declare that his running mate HAD to be a PoC wahmens.”

Politicians have been trying for over a hundred years to “balance the ticket,” and we haven’t had a woman elected ever. But does anybody remember a highly experienced white male candidate for Vice President getting this kind of reaction because he was from the South, or West, or a man, or white? Biden chose, as he always said he would, somebody he is comfortable with, somebody with his own kind of politics, somebody he thought would help him win.

Biden never said his candidate had to be a woman, or a person of color, just that he preferred such a candidate and that he was sure there were good choices in the Democratic Party. And so he chose. Good for him and his party and our country. Whether Democrats are elected or not, whether Harris becomes VP — or even President — or not, there is nothing untoward about any of this.

Whether Biden, Harris or the Democrats will be able to govern effectively and unite the country through the terrible times we may be confronting in the near future, that of course is another question entirely.

What is terribly inappropriate, immature, and even racist or sexist is the reaction of those who scream “wacism,” or those who lie about Kamala Harris’s “qualifications.”

 

[Coyote]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

Coyote ugly says that Indian and Jamaican isn't a race. So it can't be racist.

Next.

Wow...talk a missing the point, not by inches but by miles.

I never said it was racist. You plopped that gem into the convo.

Let’s get you back on track. Your argument is she is half Jamaican and half Indian, therefor she can’t be black.

Care to enlighten us masses as to how that works, without shifting any goalposts?

 

[Coyote]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

a better question, is, is it possible for the modern left to defend anything without using the wace card.

let's look at your op. if we remove everything wace related, what are we left with?

..
does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate.
...

wow. if you remove all you wacism shit, nothing is left but admitting that discussing her resume is legitimate.
you literally have nothing to say in defense of her, other than crying "Wacism" like a retarded child.

He has a point you know.

Why is Kamala's blackness being attacked?

I hear the most ridiculous arguments like - uhhh "she's half Jamaican and half Indian, she's not black!".

Jamaican isn't a race...it's a nationality. If you were half Senagalese would you be black?

And MOST IRONIC - if she were born just a few years earlier, she would have been black enough for Jim Crowe.

Why did Biden make it an issue that he was going to select a female African American? Why say anything at all? Why interject race and sex at all? Maybe Biden believes he found the first mainstream African-American woman who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking gal, I mean, that's a storybook, woman.

Why not? There were a number of African American women being considered. Most candidates tend to talk about their pick and make picks for strategic reasons and decisions are made in group strategizing. Things like playing to the base, shoring up support among weaker demographics, bringing voters from other demographics, PersonaL Characteristics that might compliment weaknesses and strengths in the top of the ticket. For some odd reason you seem to think none of this applies to Biden.

Pence= white strongly religious, midwestern evangelical male, traits the party base strongly wanted. Hit a lot of groups with that particular bit, but especially to convince evangelicals because Trump was not reliably religious enough.

Palin = an appeal to women, family values combined with career as governor. She has experience as governor of Alaska. Plus she is a tough but personable attack dog and can keep McCain above the fray.

Kain = has a broad appeal, speaks Spanish fluently, has deep ties to the African American community through his work as a civil rights lawyer and his time as mayor of Richmond, is the son of a welder, working class family, and from a swing state.

Harris = She female and she is black (both aspects the party base strongly wanted) she has already been vetted on the national stage. She has government experience as CA AG and US senator. At 55 she is coming from the party’s younger generation of leadership, another big plus.

There are a lot of personal choices that go into it as well, not just cold political calculation. The pick has to be able to work well with the president. Trump is a notoriously “by the gut” man and Biden, a close family man, took in what is son Beau had said about Harris.

More in depth if interested:

How Pence’s Camp Persuaded Trump to Pick Their Guy as VP

Trump had already told Pence he was the pick, but at the last minute, the nominee was wavering. Two aides took matters into their own hands.

www.politico.com

Here's why Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris as his VP

Joe Biden thinks he is going to win the White House in 84 days' time. That's the unmistakeable message he sent when, via text, his campaign announced that he had picked Sen. Kamala Harris of California as his vice presidential nominee.

www.cnn.com

Three Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Chose Tim Kaine

The senator from Virginia isn't the most exciting pick as the Democratic running mate, but Clinton had good reasons to go with him.

www.newyorker.com

McCain picks Palin as vice president in U.S. election

U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has chosen Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, a senior McCain campaign official said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

 

[flacaltenn]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

a better question, is, is it possible for the modern left to defend anything without using the wace card.

let's look at your op. if we remove everything wace related, what are we left with?

..
does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate.



...

wow. if you remove all you wacism shit, nothing is left but admitting that discussing her resume is legitimate.


you literally have nothing to say in defense of her, other than crying "Wacism" like a retarded child.

He has a point you know.

Why is Kamala's blackness being attacked?

I hear the most ridiculous arguments like - uhhh "she's half Jamaican and half Indian, she's not black!".

Jamaican isn't a race...it's a nationality. If you were half Senagalese would you be black?

And MOST IRONIC - if she were born just a few years earlier, she would have been black enough for Jim Crowe.

Why does your party fawn over her sex/race? Aint that a bit condescending and a bit racist and sexist? EVERYONE SEES IT.. But that's not why she should get votes really is it?

Why does your party fawn over a white businessman?

Why all this energy insisting she isn't "black"?

Why does she keep insisting that she is? Fact. Biden was locked into putting a black woman in that slot. Someone named Kamala Harris. Is she authentically black enough to satisfy?

For any sane person yes.. End of thread.. There is the issue tho that ONLY Dems can ignore and that is her great great grandpappy owned a couple hundred slaves in Jamaica.. Or so I hear..

Kamala Harris's Ancestors Also Owned Slaves

Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) is the descendant of an Irishman who owned a slave plantation in Jamaica, according to her father's lengthy ancestral summary of his side of the family.

freebeacon.com

Amazing how that doesn't disqualify her as a Dem..

Or so you hear...ever try to verify it?

It's not so clear cut, not the least of which could be that it involves rape. Why do the Republicans dig up this ancient dirt? Kind of reminds me of Trump's father....ooooh....but that is verboten!

Both Politifact and Snopes VERIFY that her OWN FATHER wrote that in his bio... Yet these partisan "spinners" of the truth call it unproven because it's not in their PARTISAN INTERESTS to do the geneological research.. Which is EASY back to 2 or 3 generations on the side of ONE PARENT.. One trip to ancestry.com... Probably 130 people have trees for that segment of the family.

So there's a mighty data point. And the FAMILY KNOWS MORE ABOUT then your phony ass "fact checkers"... In fact, I've seen the historical records of slave registrations for this guy.. HAVE YOU??

You injure yourself greatly when you allow BIASED SOURCES to do your thinking...

 

[Coyote]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

a better question, is, is it possible for the modern left to defend anything without using the wace card.

let's look at your op. if we remove everything wace related, what are we left with?

..
does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate.



...

wow. if you remove all you wacism shit, nothing is left but admitting that discussing her resume is legitimate.


you literally have nothing to say in defense of her, other than crying "Wacism" like a retarded child.

He has a point you know.

Why is Kamala's blackness being attacked?

I hear the most ridiculous arguments like - uhhh "she's half Jamaican and half Indian, she's not black!".

Jamaican isn't a race...it's a nationality. If you were half Senagalese would you be black?

And MOST IRONIC - if she were born just a few years earlier, she would have been black enough for Jim Crowe.

Why does your party fawn over her sex/race? Aint that a bit condescending and a bit racist and sexist? EVERYONE SEES IT.. But that's not why she should get votes really is it?

Why does your party fawn over a white businessman?

Why all this energy insisting she isn't "black"?

Why does she keep insisting that she is? Fact. Biden was locked into putting a black woman in that slot. Someone named Kamala Harris. Is she authentically black enough to satisfy?

That brings up an interesting question.

Candidates previously were "locked in" to bringing in picks who could carry certain regions of the country with them. Why is a candidate who can bring in the black vote a BAD thing but a candidate who can bring in the Midwestern vote...or Evangelical vote....a GOOD thing?

If biden looked at what he needed from a vp candidate politically, and it turned out that what he needed was a black candidate to bring in the black vote, that would be a political choice and it would be a matter of debate what it means.


but, instead, before he even did that, he decided to discriminate against men and likely whites.

And no different than other candidates, talking about strategic choices ahead of the actual pick. You impose a unique standard on Biden in order to try and portray him as racist, at least that is what it seems like.

Race and gender are two of many demographics that go into choices. Each candidate starts of with a long list of political and demographic boxes to be checked. The Democratic base values diversity and want to see a woman or person of color selected. That is their base. Just like the Republican base prefers a person who is strongly religious and a white male. It is all about demographics and the party and getting votes. And there can be personal aspects as well. Biden has, despite his past, made efforts to support women’s issues and minority issues. Picking a black woman would tick both those boxes.

that is the difference. in the first hypothetical scenario, whites were considered based on what they could offer or not. they were immediately rejected on political grounds.

in the second, the real world example, they were never considered. they were rejected based on gender and race.

The “real world example”?

I would contest that. It would be political suicide for the Dems to run an all white all male ticket. This isn’t about “feewings”, it is political calculation. The same as ANY political party.

Among the choices:
Elizabeth Warren, white female, rejected for political reasons (too far to the left).
Amy Klobuchar, White, female.

the political discrimination, is a very specific and unique situation, one that is not a matter of greater concern for society at large.

the way that the left celebrates anti-male and anti-white discrimination? that does have much large implications for the rest of society.


that is the point.

It is no different than the political discrimination that goes into every other ticket, such as choosing a white male evangelical.

 

[Coyote]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

a better question, is, is it possible for the modern left to defend anything without using the wace card.

let's look at your op. if we remove everything wace related, what are we left with?

..
does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate.



...

wow. if you remove all you wacism shit, nothing is left but admitting that discussing her resume is legitimate.


you literally have nothing to say in defense of her, other than crying "Wacism" like a retarded child.

He has a point you know.

Why is Kamala's blackness being attacked?

I hear the most ridiculous arguments like - uhhh "she's half Jamaican and half Indian, she's not black!".

Jamaican isn't a race...it's a nationality. If you were half Senagalese would you be black?

And MOST IRONIC - if she were born just a few years earlier, she would have been black enough for Jim Crowe.

Why does your party fawn over her sex/race? Aint that a bit condescending and a bit racist and sexist? EVERYONE SEES IT.. But that's not why she should get votes really is it?

Why does your party fawn over a white businessman?

Why all this energy insisting she isn't "black"?

Why does she keep insisting that she is? Fact. Biden was locked into putting a black woman in that slot. Someone named Kamala Harris. Is she authentically black enough to satisfy?

For any sane person yes.. End of thread.. There is the issue tho that ONLY Dems can ignore and that is her great great grandpappy owned a couple hundred slaves in Jamaica.. Or so I hear..

Kamala Harris's Ancestors Also Owned Slaves

Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) is the descendant of an Irishman who owned a slave plantation in Jamaica, according to her father's lengthy ancestral summary of his side of the family.

freebeacon.com

Amazing how that doesn't disqualify her as a Dem..

Or so you hear...ever try to verify it?

It's not so clear cut, not the least of which could be that it involves rape. Why do the Republicans dig up this ancient dirt? Kind of reminds me of Trump's father....ooooh....but that is verboten!

Both Politifact and Snopes VERIFY that her OWN FATHER wrote that in his bio... Yet these partisan "spinners" of the truth call it unproven because it's not in their PARTISAN INTERESTS to do the geneological research.. Which is EASY back to 2 or 3 generations on the side of ONE PARENT.. One trip to ancestry.com... Probably 130 people have trees for that segment of the family.

So there's a mighty data point. And the FAMILY KNOWS MORE ABOUT then your phony ass "fact checkers"... In fact, I've seen the historical records of slave registrations for this guy.. HAVE YOU??

You injure yourself greatly when you allow BIASED SOURCES to do your thinking...

Coming from someone who himself has used suspect sources, you will pardon me if I take your claim of “biased sources” with a grain of salt. You have your own BIAS against fact-checkers. You have told me, on multiple occasions, not to attack the sources, yet look at yourself here. Hypocrisy much?

That said, biographies are not necessarily TRUTH. They are what one person thinks or wishes is the truth. Autobiographies are likely more factually accurate. You should know this. Hell....I tried to do an oral history with my grandmother years ago ....a three hour conversation of which only a fraction of which I was allowed to use. Most of it, she did not want “on record”.

And ancestry tracing can be full of minefields, especially on the side of those descended from Africa. I think “unproven” is a fair assessment.

In fact, why is it even such an important topic that multiple threads get started on it, right before an election, but a discussion of Trump’s father Fred...is deemed trolling? Fact is, we aren’t responsible for our parents sins or the behavior of grown children. I don’t see the relevance of a multi-great ancestry of dubious authenticity, to people standing for a
election today.

 

[there4eyeM]

Biden isn't racist. He isn't very much of anything. He did, however, vote for illegal invasion and pre-emptive war. Just a mistake one might say. He was deceived, one might say. OK, we forgive his mistake, but that doesn't mean it qualifies him to be President.
Trouble is, the current President isn't satisfactory, either.
What a situation the duopoly has put us in (again!).

 

[Coyote]

Biden isn't racist. He isn't very much of anything. He did, however, vote for illegal invasion and pre-emptive war. Just a mistake one might say. He was deceived, one might say. OK, we forgive his mistake, but that doesn't mean it qualifies him to be President.
Trouble is, the current President isn't satisfactory, either.
What a situation the duopoly has put us in (again!).

I view the choices among candidates as pro and con list of check boxes. Biden strikes more pro then con in terms of my values and the issues I feel strongly about (environment, politicization and attacks on science, Economic wealth gap and economic fairness, moving away from fossil fuels, the value of multilateral alliances and international cooperation, treating people with respect, respecting the dignity of the office one is running for, rebuilding broken alliances, and for god’s sakes NOT praising authoritarian dictators).

 

[flacaltenn]

Coming from someone who himself has used suspect sources, you will pardon me if I take your claim of “biased sources” with a grain of salt. You have your own BIAS against fact-checkers. You have told me, on multiple occasions, not to attack the sources, yet look at yourself here. Hypocrisy much?

Fact checkers are NOT sources.. Not primary, not secondary.. They are tools for people who can't do the work themselves and the JUDGEMENT of these fact checkers is loaded with bias.. In THIS CASE, either one could have Harris's dad's statement and ran the genealogy back 2 or 3 generations.. My wife could do that in 6 minutes on Ancestry.. NEITHER OF THEM had the interest to verify.. Why IS THAT coyote?? The fact that Hamilton Brown (or whoever) WAS a plantation farmer with slaves and unlike the SPIN on Snopes, the slave censuses I saw from the Jamaican govt were for RETAINED slaves that were grandfathered in for a transistion period when Britain had halted the slave trade. So that BullSHIT in Snopes about him ditching slaves was just bullshit..

That said, biographies are not necessarily TRUTH. They are what one person thinks or wishes is the truth. Autobiographies are likely more factually accurate. You should know this.

I sure KNOW the diff.. Apparently you don't.. When I say her father WROTE the bio -- that would be AUTObiographical wouldn't it?

Fact is, we aren’t responsible for our parents sins or the behavior of grown children. I don’t see the relevance of a multi-great ancestry of dubious authenticity, to people standing for a
election today.

Tell that to Kamala Harris and her Reparations plan... Or the people picking on Southerners and the Confederacy.. Dont be a hypocrite..

As for Fred Trump -- it's relevant when its relevant to the title\OPost.. Otherwise it's not.. Same with Bush 43's grandpappy...



AND EXTREMELY likely that her dad KNOWS a bit about his OWN FREAKIN great grandpa.... You think he's bluffing? It aint like going back SIX generations to find Elizabeth Warrens 1/512th Indian heritage..

 

[flacaltenn]

It's not so clear cut, not the least of which could be that it involves rape. Why do the Republicans dig up this ancient dirt? Kind of reminds me of Trump's father....ooooh....but that is verboten!

The ancestry search would STILL work.. If trees are there relying on DNA research.. Trust me. THe wife is a pro... Now realize I'm not FIXATED on this.. Just calling out hypocrisies about people who are FIXATED on race.. I'm not.. Just wondering how the Dems could ignore or BURY this connection for their pick based on race/gender.. Obviously Snopes/Politfart had no intention of investigating..

OR DID THEY?? And the results didn't fit the narrative... NEITHER made a conclusive statement that could have been determined by an ancestry expert in less than an hour...


So I'm not dinging Harris or her ancestry here. But when race/sex becomes MORE IMPORTANT that qualifications and experience -- it's just natural to be curious..

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Coming from someone who himself has used suspect sources, you will pardon me if I take your claim of “biased sources” with a grain of salt. You have your own BIAS against fact-checkers. You have told me, on multiple occasions, not to attack the sources, yet look at yourself here. Hypocrisy much?

Fact checkers are NOT sources.. Not primary, not secondary.. They are tools for people who can't do the work themselves and the JUDGEMENT of these fact checkers is loaded with bias.. In THIS CASE, either one could have Harris's dad's statement and ran the genealogy back 2 or 3 generations.. My wife could do that in 6 minutes on Ancestry.. NEITHER OF THEM had the interest to verify.. Why IS THAT coyote?? The fact that Hamilton Brown (or whoever) WAS a plantation farmer with slaves and unlike the SPIN on Snopes, the slave censuses I saw from the Jamaican govt were for RETAINED slaves that were grandfathered in for a transistion period when Britain had halted the slave trade. So that BullSHIT in Snopes about him ditching slaves was just bullshit..

That said, biographies are not necessarily TRUTH. They are what one person thinks or wishes is the truth. Autobiographies are likely more factually accurate. You should know this.

I sure KNOW the diff.. Apparently you don't.. When I say her father WROTE the bio -- that would be AUTObiographical wouldn't it?

Fact is, we aren’t responsible for our parents sins or the behavior of grown children. I don’t see the relevance of a multi-great ancestry of dubious authenticity, to people standing for a
election today.

Tell that to Kamala Harris and her Reparations plan... Or the people picking on Southerners and the Confederacy.. Dont be a hypocrite..

As for Fred Trump -- it's relevant when its relevant to the title\OPost.. Otherwise it's not.. Same with Bush 43's grandpappy...

AND EXTREMELY likely that her dad KNOWS a bit about his OWN FREAKIN great grandpa.... You think he's bluffing? It aint like going back SIX generations to find Elizabeth Warrens 1/512th Indian heritage..

Man, what is the problem here? Who gives a shit if on her father’s side there was once a certain Irish slaveholder or not? If she and her father have political differences?

Obama was half white and had an African father. He was still inevitably celebrated and/or denounced for being ... black. In our racially sensitive society he still had to, as it were, choose to identify as white or black, and few would let him just be a man. He managed this “conundrum” with about as much class and style as anyone ever did, in public life as in private. Whites who obsess over this stuff will continue to do so, and blacks will have no choice but to react as long as their skin cover and our society forces them to.

Guess what? Obama’s “white” mother, it turns out, also had a famous black ancestor! Maybe you do. Maybe I do. Maybe that asshole who goes around talking about how liberals are all “wacist” does. Maybe the white cop on the beat does. You know the ones who vote for Trump. Who really cares? How many “blacks” in America have “white blood” from “white slaveowners” in them? Most, I would guess. How many people smoked dope once in their life? How many like Bob Marley? How many “didn’t inhale”?

God all this shit is exhausting! Isn’t it? A few more generations of bad white presidents and bad black presidents, a few more generations of smoking dope or drinking ourselves silly with people outside our little bubbles, or going to church with them if that is your thing, and maybe we’ll all get beyond this crap. A little putting ourselves in the other person’s shoes ... can’t hurt.

Meanwhile I’ll expect some here will keep calling me a communist, a satanic Demoncrat, a “wacist.”

Fuck ‘em.

 

[flacaltenn]

moving away from fossil fuels

TO WHAT?? Wind and solar aren't gonna power the country EVER...

politicization and attacks on science

Both sides have done this.. The science is NEVER settled.. No matter how you scream it or hold your breath.. In FACT to make this topical... As Cali AG -- she JOINED several other state AGs and pushed the White House to CRIMINALIZE climate denial.. Thus establishing a superior GOVT VERDICT on the science and chilling science itself.. Aint a SINGLE scientist who wants the govt to over-ride the scientific method with POLITICAL edicts.. What SHE did WAS "an attack on science"...

Touting Kamala Harris as a moderate is a liberal dose of deception: Devine

The New York Times was quick out of the blocks with the Democratic pitch that Kamala Harris is a “pragmatic moderate.” It’s pulling your leg. Joe Biden’s running mate had the most liberal voting re…

nypost.com

As Attorney General of California, Kamala Harris misused her authority to attack the First Amendment rights of climate skeptics and other “deplorables.”

In the waning days of the Obama Administration, radicals devised plans to launch a climate inquisition against nonprofit organizations, such as CFACT, that use facts to correct the the exaggerations and distortions routinely employed by the global warming campaign.

They planned to use the investigative and prosecutorial powers of attorneys general and district attorneys to make it clear that reporting facts inconvenient to the climate narrative, or funding those with the temerity to do so, would result in legal jeopardy and terrible publicity. In other words, when it comes to climate policy and science, one must BE COMPLIANT, BE SILENT or BE PUNISHED.

Free speech be damned.

Kamala Harris enthusiastically climbed aboard and pledged to throw the awesome power of the Golden State state behind the inquisition.

In September, 2015, Jagadish Shukla and Edward Maibach, both climate radical professors at George Mason University, spearheaded a letter to U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and President Obama asking them to explore RICO charges against climate “deniers” and their funders. they proposed a terrible misuse of a statute created to take down the mafia to suppress speech about the climate. It morphed into the “#ExxonKnew” campaign.

<<Snip>>:
A group of attorneys general opposed to what AGs United was up to responded writing, “using law enforcement authority to resolve a public policy debate undermines the trust invested in our offices and threatens free speech.”

“I’m suing them,” Harris told an activist. “Investigating first, then suing.” Vowing to file suit before an investigation reached conclusion raised a serious issue of legal ethics. Harris, however, never filed her lawsuit, but did lie and say she did at a CNN climate town hall.

Moderator Erin Burnett asked, “so, Senator Harris, what would you do? Would you sue them? Sue Exxon Mobil?” “I have sued Exxon Mobil,” Harris replied.

 

[flacaltenn]

Man, what is the problem here? Who gives a shit if on her fathers side there was once a certain Irish slaveholder or not? If she and her father have political differences?

Just answered that about 40 minutes ago... From post #110..

Now realize I'm not FIXATED on this.. Just calling out hypocrisies about people who are FIXATED on race.. I'm not.. Just wondering how the Dems could ignore or BURY this connection for their pick based on race/gender.. Obviously Snopes/Politfart had no intention of investigating..

OR DID THEY?? And the results didn't fit the narrative... NEITHER made a conclusive statement that could have been determined by an ancestry expert in less than an hour...


So I'm not dinging Harris or her ancestry here. But when race/sex becomes MORE IMPORTANT that qualifications and experience -- it's just natural to be curious..

The zealous Democrat fixation on dividing by race/sex/religion/other groups used to be amusing to me and NOW all that political correctness is pretty seen as hypocrisy on Main Street...

But it's not even amusing anymore.. Even as they eat their own and toss more bodies under buses. I feel they should be embarrassed when they ARE blatant hypocrites...

 

[Correll]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

a better question, is, is it possible for the modern left to defend anything without using the wace card.

let's look at your op. if we remove everything wace related, what are we left with?

..
does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate.



...

wow. if you remove all you wacism shit, nothing is left but admitting that discussing her resume is legitimate.


you literally have nothing to say in defense of her, other than crying "Wacism" like a retarded child.

He has a point you know.

Why is Kamala's blackness being attacked?

I hear the most ridiculous arguments like - uhhh "she's half Jamaican and half Indian, she's not black!".

Jamaican isn't a race...it's a nationality. If you were half Senagalese would you be black?

And MOST IRONIC - if she were born just a few years earlier, she would have been black enough for Jim Crowe.

Why does your party fawn over her sex/race? Aint that a bit condescending and a bit racist and sexist? EVERYONE SEES IT.. But that's not why she should get votes really is it?

Why does your party fawn over a white businessman?

Why all this energy insisting she isn't "black"?

Why does she keep insisting that she is? Fact. Biden was locked into putting a black woman in that slot. Someone named Kamala Harris. Is she authentically black enough to satisfy?

That brings up an interesting question.

Candidates previously were "locked in" to bringing in picks who could carry certain regions of the country with them. Why is a candidate who can bring in the black vote a BAD thing but a candidate who can bring in the Midwestern vote...or Evangelical vote....a GOOD thing?

If biden looked at what he needed from a vp candidate politically, and it turned out that what he needed was a black candidate to bring in the black vote, that would be a political choice and it would be a matter of debate what it means.


but, instead, before he even did that, he decided to discriminate against men and likely whites.

And no different than other candidates, talking about strategic choices ahead of the actual pick. You impose a unique standard on Biden in order to try and portray him as racist, at least that is what it seems like.

Race and gender are two of many demographics that go into choices. Each candidate starts of with a long list of political and demographic boxes to be checked. The Democratic base values diversity and want to see a woman or person of color selected. That is their base. Just like the Republican base prefers a person who is strongly religious and a white male. It is all about demographics and the party and getting votes. And there can be personal aspects as well. Biden has, despite his past, made efforts to support women’s issues and minority issues. Picking a black woman would tick both those boxes.

that is the difference. in the first hypothetical scenario, whites were considered based on what they could offer or not. they were immediately rejected on political grounds.

in the second, the real world example, they were never considered. they were rejected based on gender and race.

The “real world example”?

I would contest that. It would be political suicide for the Dems to run an all white all male ticket. This isn’t about “feewings”, it is political calculation. The same as ANY political party.

Among the choices:
Elizabeth Warren, white female, rejected for political reasons (too far to the left).
Amy Klobuchar, White, female.

the political discrimination, is a very specific and unique situation, one that is not a matter of greater concern for society at large.

the way that the left celebrates anti-male and anti-white discrimination? that does have much large implications for the rest of society.


that is the point.

It is no different than the political discrimination that goes into every other ticket, such as choosing a white male evangelical.

1. the republican base does not prefer a candidate that is "strongly religious and a white male".

2. the dems had no problem electing clinton/biden just a few years ago. so, that's not true.

3. saying "Diversity" does not make sexist and racist discrimination, not discrimination.

 

[there4eyeM]

Biden isn't racist. He isn't very much of anything. He did, however, vote for illegal invasion and pre-emptive war. Just a mistake one might say. He was deceived, one might say. OK, we forgive his mistake, but that doesn't mean it qualifies him to be President.
Trouble is, the current President isn't satisfactory, either.
What a situation the duopoly has put us in (again!).

I view the choices among candidates as pro and con list of check boxes. Biden strikes more pro then con in terms of my values and the issues I feel strongly about (environment, politicization and attacks on science, Economic wealth gap and economic fairness, moving away from fossil fuels, the value of multilateral alliances and international cooperation, treating people with respect, respecting the dignity of the office one is running for, rebuilding broken alliances, and for god’s sakes NOT praising authoritarian dictators).

That may hold up as reasoning if only the number of boxes is counted. The problem is, some boxes are more equal than others. It just isn't that easy.
Frankly, knowing the Democratic vote this time is for whoever is VP on the ticket, the only avenue possible to vote Democratic is if the VP is correct. Gabbard would have gotten that vote for certain. Assuredly, droves of Independents would have liked the opportunity to "make their vote count" as all their friends accuse them of not doing.
Now, when voting Republican means what it does, it leaves only "third" parties if participation in voting means anything to the citizen.
The situation is so bad that, under the circumstances (and much as I totally opposed the guy in his campaign), if Romney replaced Trump, my vote could well go there.
Yeah, that bad.

 

[there4eyeM]

Coming from someone who himself has used suspect sources, you will pardon me if I take your claim of “biased sources” with a grain of salt. You have your own BIAS against fact-checkers. You have told me, on multiple occasions, not to attack the sources, yet look at yourself here. Hypocrisy much?

Fact checkers are NOT sources.. Not primary, not secondary.. They are tools for people who can't do the work themselves and the JUDGEMENT of these fact checkers is loaded with bias.. In THIS CASE, either one could have Harris's dad's statement and ran the genealogy back 2 or 3 generations.. My wife could do that in 6 minutes on Ancestry.. NEITHER OF THEM had the interest to verify.. Why IS THAT coyote?? The fact that Hamilton Brown (or whoever) WAS a plantation farmer with slaves and unlike the SPIN on Snopes, the slave censuses I saw from the Jamaican govt were for RETAINED slaves that were grandfathered in for a transistion period when Britain had halted the slave trade. So that BullSHIT in Snopes about him ditching slaves was just bullshit..

That said, biographies are not necessarily TRUTH. They are what one person thinks or wishes is the truth. Autobiographies are likely more factually accurate. You should know this.

I sure KNOW the diff.. Apparently you don't.. When I say her father WROTE the bio -- that would be AUTObiographical wouldn't it?

Fact is, we aren’t responsible for our parents sins or the behavior of grown children. I don’t see the relevance of a multi-great ancestry of dubious authenticity, to people standing for a
election today.

Tell that to Kamala Harris and her Reparations plan... Or the people picking on Southerners and the Confederacy.. Dont be a hypocrite..

As for Fred Trump -- it's relevant when its relevant to the title\OPost.. Otherwise it's not.. Same with Bush 43's grandpappy...

AND EXTREMELY likely that her dad KNOWS a bit about his OWN FREAKIN great grandpa.... You think he's bluffing? It aint like going back SIX generations to find Elizabeth Warrens 1/512th Indian heritage..

Man, what is the problem here? Who gives a shit if on her father’s side there was once a certain Irish slaveholder or not? If she and her father have political differences?

Obama was half white and had an African father. He was still inevitably celebrated and/or denounced for being ... black. In our racially sensitive society he still had to, as it were, choose to identify as white or black, and few would let him just be a man. He managed this “conundrum” with about as much class and style as anyone ever did, in public life as in private. Whites who obsess over this stuff will continue to do so, and blacks will have no choice but to react as long as their skin cover and our society forces them to.

Guess what? Obama’s “white” mother, it turns out, also had a famous black ancestor! Maybe you do. Maybe I do. Maybe that asshole who goes around talking about how liberals are all “wacist” does. Maybe the white cop on the beat does. You know the ones who vote for Trump. Who really cares? How many “blacks” in America have “white blood” from “white slaveowners” in them? Most, I would guess. How many people smoked dope once in their life? How many like Bob Marley? How many “didn’t inhale”?

God all this shit is exhausting! Isn’t it? A few more generations of bad white presidents and bad black presidents, a few more generations of smoking dope or drinking ourselves silly with people outside our little bubbles, or going to church with them if that is your thing, and maybe we’ll all get beyond this crap. A little putting ourselves in the other person’s shoes ... can’t hurt.

Meanwhile I’ll expect some here will keep calling me a communist, a satanic Demoncrat, a “wacist.”

Fuck ‘em.

No available emoji fits responding.
The vast majority and general tone are shared.

 

[MizMolly]

Kamela is just as just another white ass kissing, shoe shining, white marrying, grinning, hating black people, do nothing for black people, uncle tom, half indian, half black, sell out, worthless bastard who biden is putting up because he knows that she has as much hate for black society as he does.

You are pissed because she is married to a white man? Not judgmental or racist, are you?

 

[Coyote]

Biden isn't racist. He isn't very much of anything. He did, however, vote for illegal invasion and pre-emptive war. Just a mistake one might say. He was deceived, one might say. OK, we forgive his mistake, but that doesn't mean it qualifies him to be President.
Trouble is, the current President isn't satisfactory, either.
What a situation the duopoly has put us in (again!).

I view the choices among candidates as pro and con list of check boxes. Biden strikes more pro then con in terms of my values and the issues I feel strongly about (environment, politicization and attacks on science, Economic wealth gap and economic fairness, moving away from fossil fuels, the value of multilateral alliances and international cooperation, treating people with respect, respecting the dignity of the office one is running for, rebuilding broken alliances, and for god’s sakes NOT praising authoritarian dictators).

That may hold up as reasoning if only the number of boxes is counted. The problem is, some boxes are more equal than others. It just isn't that easy.
Frankly, knowing the Democratic vote this time is for whoever is VP on the ticket, the only avenue possible to vote Democratic is if the VP is correct. Gabbard would have gotten that vote for certain. Assuredly, droves of Independents would have liked the opportunity to "make their vote count" as all their friends accuse them of not doing.

Now, when voting Republican means what it does, it leaves only "third" parties if participation in voting means anything to the citizen.

The situation is so bad that, under the circumstances (and much as I totally opposed the guy in his campaign), if Romney replaced Trump, my vote could well go there.
Yeah, that bad.

Romney isn’t a bad choice imo. Nor would Huntsman or Kasich be as Republican alternatives.

Tulsi Gabbard is interesting...https://www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/tulsi-gabbard/
I could strongly get behind her. But she isn’t too much different than Harris in positions: Where Kamala Harris stands on the biggest 2020 issues

The one thing about primaries though is candidates tend to track further to the extremes then in a general election.

I do agree that some boxes are weighted more heavily than others, that is a personal decision.

 

[Coyote]

It's not so clear cut, not the least of which could be that it involves rape. Why do the Republicans dig up this ancient dirt? Kind of reminds me of Trump's father....ooooh....but that is verboten!

The ancestry search would STILL work.. If trees are there relying on DNA research.. Trust me. THe wife is a pro... Now realize I'm not FIXATED on this.. Just calling out hypocrisies about people who are FIXATED on race.. I'm not.. Just wondering how the Dems could ignore or BURY this connection for their pick based on race/gender.. Obviously Snopes/Politfart had no intention of investigating..

OR DID THEY?? And the results didn't fit the narrative... NEITHER made a conclusive statement that could have been determined by an ancestry expert in less than an hour...


So I'm not dinging Harris or her ancestry here. But when race/sex becomes MORE IMPORTANT that qualifications and experience -- it's just natural to be curious..

Flat out...I am going challenge this. First, if you are going to call out fixation on race, try to to be more evenhanded here. You realize right, that your side is attempting to give birth to a brand new birther conspiracy theory right? I think it is going to be DOA but still, it is a disturbing trend. And second, this side is showing it’s OWN fixation on race, so why the free pass?

A fixation on race, as you put, is also an acknowledgement of real political demographics, whether you like them or not, whether they are gender, race, ethnic, or religious. You have the women’s vote, white evangelicals, blacks, hispanics (subdivided as Cuban Americans often vote quite differently from immigrants from South America), you have white males, blue collar, the rural demographic, tbe urban demographic, LGBTQ, Catholics. And everyone of those a reached out to by different political parties with an avid fixation. So....why is it “bad” if it is a black woman but “acceptable” if it is a rust belt white male?

 

[Papageorgio]

How much of the orchestrated anti Kamala rhetoric is fuelled by racism ? Or does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate. But I see posts like "how black is Kamala?" and I am not really sure how that is relevant.

I also note that many of the more virulent attacks come from the Boards paid up racist fringe. I know that it all comes from trump and they are only copying his bovine lead. But it doesnt seem possible for the right to attack this girl without reference to her gender or ethnicity.

And that is the state of modern conservatism.

a better question, is, is it possible for the modern left to defend anything without using the wace card.

let's look at your op. if we remove everything wace related, what are we left with?

..
does partisanship play just as big a part. I see a lot of posts regarding her record as a lawyer and that is legitimate.
...

wow. if you remove all you wacism shit, nothing is left but admitting that discussing her resume is legitimate.
you literally have nothing to say in defense of her, other than crying "Wacism" like a retarded child.

He has a point you know.

Why is Kamala's blackness being attacked?

I hear the most ridiculous arguments like - uhhh "she's half Jamaican and half Indian, she's not black!".

Jamaican isn't a race...it's a nationality. If you were half Senagalese would you be black?

And MOST IRONIC - if she were born just a few years earlier, she would have been black enough for Jim Crowe.

Why did Biden make it an issue that he was going to select a female African American? Why say anything at all? Why interject race and sex at all? Maybe Biden believes he found the first mainstream African-American woman who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking gal, I mean, that's a storybook, woman.

Why not? There were a number of African American women being considered. Most candidates tend to talk about their pick and make picks for strategic reasons and decisions are made in group strategizing. Things like playing to the base, shoring up support among weaker demographics, bringing voters from other demographics, PersonaL Characteristics that might compliment weaknesses and strengths in the top of the ticket. For some odd reason you seem to think none of this applies to Biden.

Pence= white strongly religious, midwestern evangelical male, traits the party base strongly wanted. Hit a lot of groups with that particular bit, but especially to convince evangelicals because Trump was not reliably religious enough.

Palin = an appeal to women, family values combined with career as governor. She has experience as governor of Alaska. Plus she is a tough but personable attack dog and can keep McCain above the fray.

Kain = has a broad appeal, speaks Spanish fluently, has deep ties to the African American community through his work as a civil rights lawyer and his time as mayor of Richmond, is the son of a welder, working class family, and from a swing state.

Harris = She female and she is black (both aspects the party base strongly wanted) she has already been vetted on the national stage. She has government experience as CA AG and US senator. At 55 she is coming from the party’s younger generation of leadership, another big plus.

There are a lot of personal choices that go into it as well, not just cold political calculation. The pick has to be able to work well with the president. Trump is a notoriously “by the gut” man and Biden, a close family man, took in what is son Beau had said about Harris.

More in depth if interested:

How Pence’s Camp Persuaded Trump to Pick Their Guy as VP

Trump had already told Pence he was the pick, but at the last minute, the nominee was wavering. Two aides took matters into their own hands.

www.politico.com

Here's why Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris as his VP

Joe Biden thinks he is going to win the White House in 84 days' time. That's the unmistakeable message he sent when, via text, his campaign announced that he had picked Sen. Kamala Harris of California as his vice presidential nominee.

www.cnn.com

Three Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Chose Tim Kaine

The senator from Virginia isn't the most exciting pick as the Democratic running mate, but Clinton had good reasons to go with him.

www.newyorker.com

McCain picks Palin as vice president in U.S. election

U.S. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has chosen Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, a senior McCain campaign official said on Friday.

www.reuters.com

He could have made his pick like everyone else, yet he claimed early on he was looking for a black woman. He, no one else mentioned the race of his pick and the sex. McCain never said he was picking a woman.

So, had Biden made his pick without letting us all know he was picking a black woman, then you would have something. He interjected race before the pick. Harris is fine for a pick, if you want a lefty, not sure why he needed to make a big deal about her sex and race, same as when he praised Obama for being an articulate African American, it was like he needed to show us he is behind a token black. That is message I have gotten from Biden.