| |
| ▲ | mindslight 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Milquetoast uninspiring leader should still beat someone who outright hates everything about our country, divides rather than leads, and plans to sell our institutions for scrap value while putting the proceeds in his own pocket. Although I think the people blaming it on racism are hopeful. The real answer is that it struck a chord with people who do not want women in leadership positions. I remember reading an article when Harris was nominated, about how it was set up to be a "historic moment". Indeed, it was. | | |
| ▲ | fakedang 2 days ago | parent [-] | | It was historic in the sense that there were no primaries, and that she was chosen by an embittered Biden to precisely result in this outcome. | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I hadn't heard that motive specifically, care to send any links that substantiate it? (to be clear, the article was of course using "historic" in the sense of the DEI groupthink - since there's no way Trump could win then won't it be super historic to have a Black woman president) (and disclaimer: criticism of DEI virtue signalling is in no way an endorsement of Maggot vice signalling) | | | |
| ▲ | red-iron-pine 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | chosen by an embittered Biden? what kind of crazy hot take is this? she was the VP of the US and 2nd in line for the presidency and had been hand picked for her role previously. she was a incredibly obvious choice and would have had a very strong likelihood of getting the nod had there been actual primaries. | | |
| ▲ | fakedang 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > she was the VP of the US and 2nd in line for the presidency and had been hand picked for her role previously. https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/joe-biden-legacy... Selection as VP doesn't mean by default that the running candidate/party endorses the candidate. Most often, VPs are chosen because they are harmless enough to become opposition to them, as a concession to a former opponent, or in most cases to bridge the demographic gap and reach out to a particularly marginalized segment of voters who are not adequately represented in governance. > she was a incredibly obvious choice and would have had a very strong likelihood of getting the nod had there been actual primaries. Lol, hell no. She already lost the primaries multiple times. She was extremely unpopular. In the 2020 elections, running with Biden helped boost her profile slightly, but back then Biden was a much more stronger candidate and his choice of running mate wouldn't have mattered - Trump was extremely unpopular then. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bdangubic 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | you should familirize yourself with Kamala Harris before saying she is not a leader - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris While Democratic Party could have picked another candidate, to appease comments like this (I heard this too many times by a lot of very, very smart people so I am not demeaning your comment/opinion in any way) that other candidate would have been a white male | | |
| ▲ | gedy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | My point is that she was a poor candidate both times, and OP blaming this all on racism gives the DNC a pass when they really need to fix themselves. Obama would have beat Trump handily (a hypothetical), and not lost due to racism. | | |
| ▲ | pfannkuchen 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Is it strange that Obama and Harris are each only part black, but people refer to them as being black? If we are like “black people can do everything” (which is true, of course), why are the political figureheads of that progressive dimension only half black? And, beyond that, the black half of each is not even African American! Harris is African Jamaican, and Obama is African African. If anything, in retrospect the birther thing back then seems like it may have been some absurdist well poisoning on totally valid criticism of Obama’s real heritage vs the media optics of same. I thought civil rights was for African Americans? Why have all the political figureheads African Americans have, or have been, rallied behind, not themselves been African American at all? Quite strange. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Is it strange that Obama and Harris are each only part black, but people refer to them as being black? Yeah - the "One Drop" PoV was beyond strange: The one-drop rule was a legal principle of racial classification that was prominent in the 20th-century United States. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of Black African ancestry ("one drop" of "black blood") is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms). It is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status, regardless of proportion of ancestry in different groups.
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule> I thought civil rights was for African Americans? It was for the benefit of anyone sent to the back of the bus, forced to drink from other fountains, lynched, etc. That included minorities other than "classic Black" and all the people treated as Black despite not appearing black. | | |
| ▲ | pfannkuchen 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I’m confused. From tone you seem to be comparing what I’m saying to the one drop rule as if this doesn’t support what I’m saying, but it does support what I’m saying. Why are progressives using the one drop rule? | | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > Why are progressives using the one drop rule? I suspect you meant to ask "Why are people using the One Drop Rule" ? - in no way is its use exclusive to ( USofA? ) "progressives". | | |
| ▲ | pfannkuchen 2 days ago | parent [-] | | No, I mean it is in line with the general character of conservatives to use the one drop rule, so I’m not surprised if they are using it. Why are progressives using the one drop rule? | | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 days ago | parent [-] | | They're not using it directly .. they're part of a wider society that has been using it less and less explicitily for hundreds of years - children speak as their paerents do. What has faded is the habit of exactly breaking down the bloodlines of anyone of mixed blood - mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, hexadecaroon and such terms are no longer in common use in this epoch. | | |
| ▲ | pfannkuchen 2 days ago | parent [-] | | So your theory is that the people who seem to center their worldview on racial equality (along with equality of the sexes) are subconsciously using racist language? I mean, that’s possible, but I think a more plausible explanation is that the bulk of them are just getting riled up by media and aren’t really paying close attention to what’s going on. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > So your theory is ... No. That's clearly your framing - don't draw me into your strawman. > but I think a more plausible explanation is that Or, that a majority people in the USofA that are described as black in the USofA have embraced that term, own it, and have used Black Twitter etc. while those adjacent to them ( the "progressives" ? ) use that term as for the most part the "black people" are comfortable with and haven't told them to bugger off and stop using it. As happened with "ginger" and "nagger". |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | gedy 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Late to reply, but assuming you are not American, Black folks in America are quite a spectrum of mixed race from their history. It's not unreasonable to call/identify themselves as black in this situation. I would not extrapolate to the extremes like some repliers are talking about "one drop", etc. That's not practically what the situation is. |
| |
| ▲ | bdangubic 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 0% chance Obama would have beat DJT in 2024, 0! | |
| ▲ | rendall 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > gives the DNC a pass when they really need to fix themselves I've been saying this since 2016, when HRC ran on a campaign of calling her opponents sexists and then blaming Russia for her loss. Sadly, they just shuffled aparatchniks around instead of cleaning house. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was put on the House Appropriations committee after stepping down from DNC chair. Donna Brazile was rewarded with the DNC chairmanship after slipping CNN town hall questions in advance to HRC. I suspect that the self-reflection to fix themselves is just not in the DNC DNA, sadly. America runs better when both parties are effective. Currently, neither are. | | |
| ▲ | locknitpicker 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > I've been saying this since 2016, when HRC ran on a campaign of calling her opponents sexists and then blaming Russia for her loss. Trump's admin is overtly sexist, and Russian interference in the 2024 elections is extensive and well documented. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... You need to take a hard look at yourself and iron out all that cognitive dissonance. | | |
| ▲ | rendall 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I talked about DNC governance and accountability after the 2016 primary, not denying that Russia conducts influence operations or that sexism exists in politics. Pointing to Russian interference in 2024 does not answer whether the DNC cleaned house after 2016, and it does not change the fact that Wasserman Schultz landed on Appropriations and Brazile became interim DNC chair. Weird that you would divert main factual points into non-sequiturs and then accuse me of cognitive dissonance. If you are free of cognitive dissonance, you can now address the points I made, not ones I did not. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | locknitpicker 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > There are plenty of excellent black women leaders - Kamala Harris was not one of those. Do not excuse the Democratic Party (...) As a non-USian this blend of opinion just reeks of blame-shifting. You guys have a two-party system. One proposed a candidate that continued Biden's administration. The other was this hot mess. You guys picked this hot mess over Biden's regime. If you looked at Trump and somehow decided a second Trump administration was better than a continuation of Biden's administration, the blame lays square on you. Not on Kamala. Not on the democratic party. Not on DEI. Nothing. Own your mistakes. Do better. | | |
| ▲ | JohnnyLarue 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [dead] | |
| ▲ | nozzlegear 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > non-USian We prefer to be called Americans, which is also the correct demonym; it derives from United States of America, and isn't used by any other country in English. If you can call someone from South Africa a "South African" instead of an "SAian," then the same logic applies to make someone from the United States an "American." | | |
| ▲ | ndsipa_pomu 2 days ago | parent [-] | | However, Canada and Mexico are also in the North American continent, so "North American" also refers to Canadians and Mexicans, and that's specifying which part of the Americas we're talking about. The term "American" can equally apply to someone living in Brazil or Peru (or at least "South American"). To my mind, it always strikes me as hubris for the USA to pretend to be the whole American continent. | | |
|
|
|
