MSNBC host pleads with Republicans to continue insulting Kamala Harris as 'DEI hire'
By: Sarah K. Burris (Raw Story - Celebrating Years of Independent Journalism)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Current House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and former speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) begged their party to stop attacking Vice President Kamala Harris's race and gender because it is hurting them.
But on Wednesday, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace sarcastically begged the GOP to continue promoting her as a "DEI hire," a pseudonym — which many have blasted as racist — insinuating she's an unqualified Black woman hired over other qualified candidates. Wallace spent years in Republican politics and served in George W. Bush's White House.
She played clips of Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN) attacking Harris as "unqualified." She also had clips of Fox hosts quoting the catchphrase "DEI hire," including former Donald Trump official Larry Kudlow struggling to recall what the acronym stood for.
"Maybe we should tell them it's working. Keep saying that stuff, guys," Wallace said, her voice dripping with sarcasm.
She explained that the comments reflect horrifically on the Republican Party.
"Leadership has reportedly begged Republican members behind closed doors to stop the racist attacks," Wallace reported. "It's more than petty, though, isn't it? You know it is."
Former Republican congressman Adam Kinzinger of Illinois called it "a disgusting dog whistle," then corrected himself and said, "It's an outright whistle."
"The GOP stoking racism in America is the defacto Democratic nominee focuses on the future and what is possible," Wallace said after playing a clip of Harris speaking in Indianapolis on Wednesday.
Former assistant U.S. Attorney Maya Wiley linked the "DEI attacks" to "Project 2025," the far-right instruction manual from the Heritage Foundation for Trump's second term.
Wiley explained that the plan seeks to go after all civil rights protection laws and walk back the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The attacks on Harris are "overt racism and sexism," Wiley continued. "It's sexist and racist to say that by virtue of the fact she's a woman and a woman of color, she's not qualified. That's all they are saying."
She said it's the same as the "blueprint" in "Project 2025" to kill the Department of Education. It will also "undermine the ability of the federal government to assert and force and protect us from employment discrimination."
Longtime writer and analyst John Heilemann harkened back to the 1980s, recalling the Willie Horton commercial that George H.W. Bush ran in his 1988 campaign. The ad featured the mugshot of a prisoner on furlough who then killed someone else. The photo played up the scary Black man trope that Americans should fear would come after them and their children.
"This isn't 1988 anymore," Heilemann said. "We are not in Willie Horton 1988 anymore. It's not 1998 anymore. It's 2024."
Attacking Harris as an unqualified DEI hire is not going to work, unless MAGA's goal is to send Trump golfing 12 hours a day for the rest of his life (subtract prison time).
A fine example of pure partisanship. Not even a pretense of objectivity; an attack right off the bat on two of the most common superficial characteristics of bigotry.
They cant stop. Without this crap they would have nothing to say.
That would be her only attribute that Joe used for her current permission.
Sorry,
Seems an anti-trump nerve was hit.
I'm grateful she was being sarcastic. Nicole Wallace is smart and the GOP should listen to her
She was hired to be VP because Biden promised that he would choose a woman of color. She not fit or qualified to be the leader of the free world.
Harris is far more qualified to be president than Trump, and before you say Trump has been president, he hadnt in 2016 the one and only time he was elected.
In 2016 Trump had no political or office holding experience and was a known liar cheat and fraud.
Harris has been a US Senator, the Atty General of the largest state in the union, and vice president. She is a hundred times more qualified than Trump was in 2016.
No, because she gave Biden his winning edge with women and minorities. Remember when Biden and Harris whooped Trump?
Biden did worse than Clinton among blacks and women. Good job Kamala!
Yet, Biden and Harris gave Trump a overwhelming whooping with the overwhelming support of women and minorities in 2020...
Do you understand what worse means? The Democratic ticket performed better with women and minorities with Tim Kaine as the VP nominee. Square that with the made up nonsense you posted: "She gave Biden his winning edge with women and minorities"
I understand Trump did far worse with women and minorities!
Biden himself, in May, said she was a DEI hire
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/05/29/remarks-by-president-biden-and-vice-president-harris-at-a-campaign-event-philadelphia-pa/#:~:text=Together%2C%20we%20make%20history%2C%20not,full%20talents%20of%20our%20country
Facts won't get in the way of being accused of being racist, partisan and misogynistic. It is all some folks have
The current (bigoted) GOP talking point strongly implies that Harris' only qualifications are her gender and her skin color.
Biden did not select her merely because she was one of several who fit his desired demographic. Pretending that she has no other qualifications other than gender and skin color is both bigotry and wrong.
And yet another Trump supporter making the bigoted claim that Harris' only qualifications are her gender and skin color.
it’s Biden who made her biological characteristics the defining factor in selecting her.
He didn’t say “I’m going to nominate a prosecutor, or a senator for VP” did he? He publicly chose a biological category to limit his choice to. And the left widely cheered him for engaging in blatant discrimination.
So many progressives are mad their own bigoted worldview is being exposed and they can’t handle it. Projection is the unsurprising response. They cheered for Biden’s act of textbook discrimination that would be illegal if a CEO did it and then get mad when it’s called out.
And there you go again ... making the bigoted claim that the 'defining characteristics' for his VP were merely gender and skin color.
What are Harris' credentials for being V.P.? They are easily found. But I predict that you will be unable to bring yourself to write them in a comment.
Please list all Harris qualifications to be VP,
Since he specifically limited the pool he would chose a VP from to biological characteristics then of course they constitute defining characteristics. A man, no matter how talented, could not be picked under Biden’s qualifications.
here’s a good clip of Biden vs Biden,
In choosing Harris, he followed the bigoted path he denounced in 1994.
Here is a profile. I am not going to try to list 'all' qualifications.
Harris is not merely a female with dark skin.
As predicted, you merely repeat the bigoted claim that Harris' only qualifications are gender and skin color.
Get that straw man!
If you want to appreciate how ridiculous your claim is, just imagine if trump or any private sector CRO said” I will only consider a white man to be VP. “ Just go ahead and try and tell us how supportive progressives would be of that process.
Old hat. Prior to Jan of 2021 , 100% of US Vice Presidents, spanning 230 years, were white men.
Harris' has a clear resume. You either are going to be honest and recognize that she had very good qualifications to be VP or you are going to continue with the bigoted claim that her only qualifications are gender and skin color.
This country has a known problem with systemic bias and prejudice against its minorities. BTW, nobody with a proper understanding would assume that our nation's white majority is 'suffering' under the oppression of minorities, plural.
It is a specious argument for the majority, and its tone-deaf to the practical and serious realities that when, where, you see a problem-issue: You fix it and don't waste 'salve' on parts that work quite nicely on their own.
That is, our nation has had 45 white presidents and only one person of color. It is 'top-heavy' with its majority and that perspective. . . but what of other perspectives that permanently exist in our shared country? When issues are found, exposed, and resolution sought to rectify them. . . the majority should happily, cooperatively, and proudly be onboard with leveling the field whether than spending its energies developing pretentious rhetoric and serving it up to cover for a "status quo" that did not work before and would continue not to work in the future.
Not one of those prepares her to be VP or president, she merely won popularity contests in a State where a pile of shit could win with a D after it's name. Hillary while unlikeable as a person had actual credentials that qualified her to hole higher office, and not just SOS but running a multinational NGO, plus she may have one of the best qualified advisors to help her. Harris was picked for her demographic, nothing more.
A predictable response. It does not matter to you what she has accomplished, you will simply dismiss it as irrelevant.
You have no argument, just partisan naysaying.
And who said they would only look at white men for the job?
Once someone states they will ignore the qualifications of certain groups the person they do pick will be open to scrutiny and have an * by their name. Joe would have been better off just picking her and saying she was the best qualified. Based on her performance as VP there are enough things to question her ability to be president.
Of course a partisan will ignore her lack of doing anything as VP or her very far left ideology.
Bang up job on the border
Why do you persist in such a dishonest claim? To deflect from your support of such a racist policy?
Cool. Now can you respond to my actual point?
Imagine if trump or any private sector CEO said” I will only consider a white man to be VP. “ Just go ahead and try and tell us how supportive progressives would be of that process.
You labeling me a partisan is a ridiculous as Trump labeling someone a liar.
What qualifications does Harris have, in your opinion, for being VP?
What qualifications does Harris have, in your opinion, for being VP?
I think after 230 years of ONLY white men as VP, I see nothing wrong with saying 'we are going to try something different'.
Was "life fair" to the non whites and females for those 230 years?
I wish the non diversity crowd would just take a deep breath and consider something outside their own perspective.
Don't say bang when Harris is involved LOL
The non-diversity tribalists won't. That is why our country is continuing to not reach its optimum. We have an invisible, immeasurable weight of conservativism that we drag around from year to year. It will always be that way. . . it seems. The world-wide web has just given it a larger voice. And, look at how these discussions go. . . heavy. . . and. . . around in circles.
I say break the cycle: Give them facts and save the stress of greater interactions. Remember,. . .my friend. . . stress can literally kill.
'Play safe.'
You think Harris was unqualified to be VP.
On what basis? Because Biden said he wanted a black female VP?
You are too intelligent to believe that what Biden said effected her qualifications.
And besides, qualifications went out the window when Trump had success in politics.
So you think Harris was charged with fixing the border?
Biden assigned her to investigate the root causes for migration from South America to the USA and to identify a strategy to deal with it. It was a diplomatic and strategic assignment.
This is the strategic plan resulting from this role:
To be clear, Harris was not sent to fix the immediate, short-term border problem (although I wish Biden had indeed put her or someone in charge of that). Her role was to identify the root causes for people trying to leave their homelands and migrate to the USA. The implementation of a strategic root-cause solution is a long-term effort requiring both political and diplomatic cooperation. It is a big picture issue that does not simply get solved with an act.
And all male.
Oh, the ole write a big report that accomplishes nothing.
It is funny watching people try to spin Harris when she was crap during the 2020 primaries.
Hate for Trump causes people to do amusing things
Of course you ignore the point since you clearly have no rebuttal.
The point, of course, is that your understanding of Harris' role is wrong. She was not the border Czar, she was not tasked with fixing the short-term problems with the border.
Don't blame her for not fixing a problem she was not tasked to fix. Blame Biden for not treating the border problem as a high priority.
I wish the diversity at all cost crowd would help people considered minorities to be the best candidate rather that give them a position they are not the best candidate for.
I guess saying she sucked is not allowed either.
As predicted, Trump supporters will engage in misogynistic attacks on Harris. A cheap, childish attack in lieu of thoughtful arguments.
Standard response for someone desperate to spin something when in reality the dems soundly passed her by in the primaries but now want to portray her as the second coming of Christ.
Hate for Trump causes people to do amusing things
qualifications does Harris have, in your opinion, for being VP?
What qualified her as the best choice for VP is the actual question that matters, not does she clear some arbitrary standard or qualified/not qualified. We know Biden cleared the playing field and eliminated countless "qualified" candidates based solely on biological characteristics. Is being a female one term senator a better qualification than a male who served two?
Uh huh. Sure
If people don't drink the kool aid they are Trump supporters.
How many terms did Trump serve prior to 2016?
The idea that "the best" person must be chosen is at best far fetched. Who decides who "the best" is? There are I assume hundreds of people in the country who are qualified to be vice president and Harris was certainly among them. And when did Biden say she wasnt "the best" in his opinion?
The idea that the only reason Harris was deemed qualified for VP is because of "DEI" is incredibly stupid.
They know that. It is just raw politics of division and chaotic. . . that includes 'wild, wide, swings of lying' to the public that will ingest it.
So the Kandi approach that past discrimination justifies present and future racial discrimination view then. Punish the children for the sins of their grandfathers approach to justice. Or collective justice, as it actually is.
And so the children of the people who are discriminated against today, under this approach, have every right to discriminate against the children of today's discriminators in the name of their discriminated against ancestors. Progressives want to start the never ending cycle of race discrimination.
How could he know? He literally ruled out looking at anyone who didn't have the right biological characteristics.
Thank Biden for that. He's the one who made it clear that's what she was.
You still haven't said you'd be fine with Trump or any CEO announcing that they'd only select a white male for a VP position in their organization. Why is that?
I predict they will soon run out of gas on the misogynist, racist, partisan and DEi is a good thing argument and have to go back to but she ain't Trump reason to vote for her.
You think that she started her career as Montel Williams' girlfriend? That is your objective, well-reasoned conclusion?
Harris graduated from law school, passed the bar, and worked as a prosecuting attorney for the San Francisco DA.
That is how she started her career.
Yeah, she dated men too.
Her not being Trump is, and will remain, a major factor. Stopping Trump is a key priority in many minds.
Trump supporters likely do not understand this.
It is understood. Of course, it is. This talking pass you and repeatedly posting counternarratives is part of a process. . . .
No matter how talented, or educated a minority is or how hard we have worked to get to a position there are always the bigots that make the accusation that it was DI that got us to that point. After hundreds of years of the old white boys club that canceled out minorities and told us we didn't belong now suddenly they have a spell of fairness in that only DI got us the position with the help of the great white father. These are the sure actions of bigots.
Well at least she didn't fuck a couch.
Neither did JD Vance no matter how many times people claim it.
No, JD Vance Did Not Say He Had Sex with Couch Cushions
No, JD Vance Did Not Say He Had Sex with Couch Cushions | Snopes.com
The most confusing thing for Kamala right now it there is nobody to sleep with to get this job.
More unabashed misogyny.
Yeah, it is the objective, non-partisan critical thinkers who spend their time making cheap misogynistic quips about Harris.
Could have saved that work and bandwidth in your link by just saying "We are going to throw money at it like we always do"
And oh so how many times did I get bashed for calling Melania Trmp a whore?
I think they call that trying to have it both ways. There can be bigotry for a thousand years , but on day 1000+1 , a change is decreed and bigotry no longer exists. So they say.
I honestly wish some candidate would come out and say they are naming a Native American vice president and then watch the DEI tortured heads explode.
They need to grow the fuck up.
You are simply making ridiculous claims that fly in the face of facts.
Joe Biden literally said it was DEI in her case. Take it up with him.
Bigots, like Nazis, use governmental discrimination to favor their preferred racial groups over those of others. Sadly, many modern progressives have joined that movement. Those of us who believe minorities are capable of achieving things on their own without the help of the great white father, as you put it, oppose that. At the end of the days racists will, like they always have, come up with all sorts of justifications why the government should discriminate while those of us who believe in equality and aren't obsessed with race will oppose discrimination. As Justice Roberts said, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." It's not to pick new targets to discriminate against and perpetuate the cycle.
All you can do is offer nuh-uh?
Hey, George, implying that Harris slept her way to the top is cheap, slimy misogyny that flies in the face of facts.
Yet again you miss the point and instead make an overly simplistic criticism of a complex situation.
The point is that she was not put in charge of fixing the immediate border problem but rather to find a solution for the root cause.
While I would have prioritized fixing the immediate border problem, that was Biden's call so blame him.
Thank you for calling it out!
Thank you for calling it out!
Who did?
Maybe you should stop supporting racial discrimination.
You are simply making ridiculous claims that fly in the face of facts.
"Hillary while unlikeable as a person had actual credentials that qualified her to hold higher office, and not just SOS, but running a multinational NGO, plus she may have one of the best qualified advisors to help her."
Obviously not the comment of a misogynist, when you lack the ability to debate the facts just resort to name calling. or dismiss the comment outright, that is your go to here it would seem.
That being the case, she also failed it seems as we see daily.
She was the border czar until it became a political liability to be the border czar so history is being rewritten.
Well it didn't take long for the left to throw the senile old man under the bus to cover for their DEI candidate.
And when all else fails 'the Club' starts talking about "watering the tree of liberty" . . . when losing to the truth. . .'the Club' insists on perpetuating lies as their reality!
We had 230 years of ONLY white men VP's. Then ONE TIME a non white, non male was chosen and the heads explode.
Were you asking during those 230 years why someone else wasnt being given a chance?
You think diversity equity and inclusion are dirty words. Others dont think they way, they think it is progress from the previous two centuries. There is no objective way to conclude that you are right and the others are wrong, yet the bitching about this from the right is reaching new heights right now.
Partisan labels are not facts.
First of all, I am not 'the left'. More absurd hyperbole.
Second, I have been blaming Biden for the border for years now. Pay attention.
Explain the criteria that you have used to determine that this long-term strategic plan is a failure.
A strategic plan typically has a 3-5 year horizon. Since we are dealing with deep-seated societal problems across several nations, it could easily take a decade to see results. If you are measuring a strategic plan to address the root causes for migration by looking at what is taking place at our border then that is like selling all your Microsoft stock in the 1980s because of the months of volatility following its IPO. Or like trying to predict a presidential election by looking at polls. The big picture over time is usually remarkably different than a present condition snapshot.
There are long term problems and solutions that are more encompassing and take longer to deal with than immediate, more scoped problems. Getting the border under control is an immediate, scoped problem. Addressing the root causes of migration and fixing same is not.
I would have not spent time working on root causes if I were Biden. I would have, instead, focused on the immediate problem. Stop the bleeding first and then study the more complex underlying issues.
Regardless, blaming Harris for the border is wrong-headed.
Of course not, she:
She was a safe pick.
If that is true (no link posted) why would you believe him since the right was said he is incompidant and suffering from dementia? You believe a incompetent a true non thinkers position.
i think you should reread my comment your rant is way off base. Try again using gray matter instead of unrelated talking point's.
When Biden was president the lack of progress was blamed on Kamala (and the republicans of course). Now that she is running the lack of progress is Bidens fault (and the republicans of course).
when you lack the ability to debate the facts just resort to name calling. or dismiss the comment outright, that is your go to here it would seem.
Anyone that would choose anyone with a pulse over Trump gave up any credibility of being a critical, non partisan thinker.
There are numerous factors concerning migrants desire to enter America.
1. Their home countries are shitty economically.
2. Their home countries are shitty politically.
3. The US had a hand in both situations in some if not many cases.
4. Climate change is effecting farming in the countries closer to the equator.
Unless life gets better in their home countries this will literally never end.
My point exactly:
Defend her at all costs.
Accuse people of all sorts of things if they don't like her in hopes of shaming them into voting for her anyway
Talk up her qualifications, ignore any negatives.
When all else fails fall back with she isn't Trump
Identifying absurd hyperbole is not 'name-calling'.
You have no argument, George, just misogynistic quips and misguided complaints.
Better to direct that comment to Jim. I know the difference between big picture root causes and mitigating illegal immigration at the border.
Defend her against slimy, wrong, partisan attacks.
State exactly what some are doing.
You think that is the motivation? Good grief man, wake up. As always, I am countering partisan crap.
Where specifically do I ignore her negatives? Bullshit is not an argument.
That is not a fall-back position, that is one of the primary factors!
This is all you can offer?
Lol. You aren't even trying to justify her selection as anything other than DEI.
Biden says she was a DEI selection. You justify her selection because white men were VP's in the past. Why are you even bothering to argue?
It's amazing to me that progressives are so ashamed of the reality of DEI that they refuse to ever acknowledge it in action, but simultaneously pretend like it's the greatest thing ever.
You think diversity equity and inclusion are dirty words
Words used to justify racist discrimination are "dirty words."
There is no objective way to conclude that you are right and the others are wrong
Except Joe Biden objectively proves I am.
Ah, yes all those right wing publications like MSNBC were labeling her for partisan purposes. Sure.
And the conditions in those countries, contrary to the beliefs of some, is not our damned problem and they need to get their shit together. How much aid money to you think we spend in those countries? And if you are going to give me the "corrupt government takes it all" then perhaps we should stop giving them money until they do. All told, over $2.5Billion between Central and South America and the Caribbean.
She was in charge of both.
Her job description on the day it was announced:
Who has stated they would choose anyone with a pulse over Trump?
Trump is not an option.
Harris is a decent candidate. She is substantially better than someone with a pulse. Biden was substantially better than someone merely with a pulse.
Even when they are not slimy, wrong, partisan attacks.
You are kidding, right?
Which makes credibility for everything else suspect
Malaria trump literally fucked her way into the USA.
Better than trump, the GED candidate.
Okay, then she failed on the border part.
The United States has a horrible history of exploiting Central American countries.
You offer nothing but shallow quips. Go find an actual argument.
Totally predictable when all one can offer is DNC talking points
Sir, you are totally losing this argument. Completely. No one has to defend Harris as "the best" choice in 2020. It is not even ultimately relevant. Is JD Vance the "best" choice by Trump this year?
All Harris had to be was well qualified , and she was. Your insane argument is that Because Biden said something about a black woman vice president that proves Harris was not qualified.
It is an utterly, totally, ridiculous argument.
when you lack the ability to debate the facts just resort to name calling. or dismiss the comment outright,
Well i won' vote for her than, Or the person that literally fucked her way into every position she has ever held.
Pure projection by you. Get an argument, George. Your misogynistic quips are counter productive for you.
Who do you think is persuaded by such blatant misogyny?
You have no evidence, just an absurdly hyperbolic claim.
How, exactly, does one "fuck their way" into being elected DA, Attorney General (twice) and then US Senator?
Are the elections all rigged?
You offer nothing but shallow quips.
Being really really good at it? Of course being a LWNJ in California doesn't hurt.
Given his current reputation-- perhaps he should!
(It might make him seem more like a person ordinary folks could relate to.)
Are you sure? Did he tell you that?
Assuming you believe what he meant is mere speculation
When Biden specifically states he would pick a woman of color for his VP, he is saying that is the only qualifications he is looking for. Spinning it to meet an agenda merely makes people look highly biased.
Which of the presidents specifically proclaimed publicly they would choose a white male for their VP pick
So in your ill-conceived bizarre alternate reality, Biden did not care anything about the candidate other than being female with dark skin.
In reality, bugsy, Biden sought to have a female VP and preferably a minority. He also sought diversity in his cabinet. Not how I would roll, but that was his option ... he gets to choose the qualities he sought in his staff.
For V.P., there were plenty of qualified candidates within his criteria and he chose the one he thought was best.
Are you entirely unaware of how VP campaign politics works? Most of the time, the VP is chosen primarily based on demographics ... in particular geographical draws. To wit, based on criteria. It is not as if every presumptive nominee ignores campaign politics and literally seeks to find the very best person for the job in terms of experience, intelligence, etc. In reality, other factors do indeed matter.
So the truly brain-dead stupid GOP talking point that Harris was chosen simply because of her gender and skin-color is not only logically stupid and ignorant of how campaign politics works, but it is clear bigotry.
Hopefully the GOP and its useful people will continue to telegraph this bigotry. Nothing like alienating 50% of the population.
Here is an easy one. Stop the flow of people coming to this country from your country illegally, or else the flow of American dollars and products will come to a screeching halt.
Why did Trump choose Vance?
Is it the case that Trump had no preconceived criteria? Was Vance the best qualified person for the job based solely on intelligence and experience?
The border problem is real and needs to be solved.
Your ridiculous 'solution' is exquisitely naive. Do you actually believe a PotUS even has the ability even to cease all trade with South America much less do so without great harm to our economy? And that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Biden has never said she was the best pick for the job. He has specifically stated she is on the top of his DEI cabinet. That means he admitted, once again, she was picked because of her gender and color, nothing more.
Now you are getting it.
Next step is acceptance that is the only reasons why he picked her.
Some where up there. . . 'brother' Thomas, like you have done several times in this discussion, points out that when Joe Biden selected as his V.P. choice Kamala Harris, Democrat - CALIFORNIA . . . he did so fully knowing that California was and is a long-term presidential blue-state! That is, the state was voting blue anyway. . . leaving Biden to choose a woman from another equally 'valuable'—if not more so state.
The critics of DEI know this also. They are just jealous, vicious-spirited, and noisy all the time with their frustratingly tired petty talking points!
my hunch or gut feeling ? vance goes away before oct , way things are going though i doubt anything will be left for the usual October surprise .
I don't know but he did not telegraph to the world that he would be picking a white male.........
Like Biden stated he was going to pick a black female.
Tig, I think it is time to accept reality that Harris was picked because of her demographics and nothing else.
Of course, blatant dishonesty. You chopped off part of my sentence to change the meaning:
And of course you ignore the balance of my post since you have no rebuttal.
And Harris, the DEI pick, failed at her first assigned job in the Biden admin.
As unusual as that would be, you might be correct.
Trump is great at firing people, probably because he sucks at hiring them.
My rebuttal is spot on.
My reality is also spot on.
Time to admit Harris was selected because of her gender and color...
nothing more.
Keep on spreading the irrational GOP bigotry with the DEI talking point.
If the truth is a DEI talking point, then so be it
Again, what I stated is factual and documented.
Maybe it is time for you to accept that.
Trump to Vance: "Your Fired!"
That is just too funny to suppress my inner Buddha.
Okay now— That 'pee'd!'
You forgot to say, "Please."
Okay-Hey! You guys 'read' this evening!
You can say that she was selected for her gender and color and that would be fine but then you add the, "...nothing more" which is patently untrue.
LOL now i have to ask , with my record in our discussions since jan , would you bet against me?
What are you claiming as your record?
High opinion of oneself, huh? Liquid confidence?
He, like most of us right leaning members, have never lost an argument with you leftists, and there are far fewer of us here.
That is what he is getting at. Nothing to do with thinking highly of oneself. The record proves it.
Biden did NOT specifically state he would pick a woman of color for his VP.
In fact, Biden specifically stated he would NOT guarantee he would pick a black woman as his VP.
Do the research.
There is a story from then where he stated that there were 4 black women under consideration for the VP job, then further down the story, it stated that four people total had been vetted.
Sounds like he chose her because of her color and gender.
Perhaps you can back that up with a link to that non guarantee statement?
well one would be how the court would rule on the 14th , another would be how they would likely rule on presidential immunity though they went further than i thought they would, and would like myself , then more recently how simply moving ones head slightly could save a persons life in a head shot situation, then there was my supposition that the weapon used in the attempt was prepositioned .
Then there is my 2016 prediction on election eve that we would have a few single term presidents, but thats outside the timeframe .
Bugsy , i lean right on some issues , left on others and i consider myself neither , and yes I HAVE lost arguments and been wrong in discussions , I do try , to not be an asshole , but if someone is looking for a slap fight which happens often on this site , i wont usually back down and at least ill give as good or better than i get . it is what it is .
not really but when i have been right , i was , not like the false bravado i see some members use to try and bolster their positions with facts that dont matter .
in any event , the question i had for TiG was would he bet against my hunch Vance could likely be gone and off the ticket by Oct?
i dont think he would since he already said as unlikely as it would be , that i might be right .
I cannot tell from the above what you predicted and the context of the prediction. You are telling me that you were right in the above areas but what does that mean? Did you make comments like, 'the court is not going to allow Trump to be excluded from the ballot'. If so, that was obvious. What was not obvious is the manner in which they would accomplish that. As for immunity, it was obvious that the court would recognize some immunity for PotUS since that has been precedent. What was shocking to everyone was that they created a new level of immunity from whole cloth and that they would engage in judicial activism. Your comment above suggests that you did not predict that. So what did you actually predict? As for moving one's head, that seems obvious to me. Is that a prediction? I cannot tell what you predicted on prepositioning from what you just wrote.
Finally, all I can do is take your word that you predicted a string of single term presidents. If so, you were correct given Biden's withdrawal.
Bottom line, when someone suggests that they have been right in a number of predictions and that they ipso facto should be deemed right on current predictions, that is not going to be well received unless they show the specifics. Few people will accept a "I am usually right" claim.
Here is an example of a prediction that an older career military acquaintance told me at a party. He said that Trump would destroy Biden in the debate and that the DNC would subsequently remove Biden. He suggested that Biden would be removed at the convention. He was not 100%, but the specifics qualify this as a legitimate prediction in my eyes. He was right, Biden lost the debate (Trump did not destroy him, Biden imploded ... close enough) and the DNC put major pressure on Biden in response. Thus Biden finally realized he might be the guy who let Trump in and stepped aside. The guy did not get the specifics 100% but I give him credit for a prediction.
By the way, this gentleman also offered his explanation for why military personnel like Trump (a claim he made). He said that those in (or retired from) the military respect strength and that Trump was strong compared to Biden. I thought that was an interesting (albeit disappointing) opinion.
I am not going to search through your comment history to see what you actually wrote. If you want to post your predictions for us to evaluate with your specific words in context then I for one would review them and give you credit when it is due.
I agree, based on evidence, that it is a real possibility that Trump could fire Vance before the election. And if he is going to do it, he damn well better do it by October.
I would not bet against it because it could indeed happen given how Trump operates coupled with the fact that Vance is not really helping the ticket given a Harris opponent.
no need i think , most of my question was actually tongue in cheek from me remembering our initial discussion on the 14th and possible alternate replacement candidates that resulted back then . the others i dont think you were present for the discussions right after the attempt . so no worries .
I will clarify my 2016 prediction , even if trump is re elected to a second term , he would still qualify as a single term president , because of the break in between , if re elected he is done and can serve no more . thank the fates and the Constitution for the 22nd .
Who do you predict will win the presidency?
my gut hunch ? its a coin toss. as of today there are a lot of things in motion .
I do think the kitchen table politics will play a larger role than some would like or think it will , like the actual cost of living . Some other things that will likely come into play are border and immigration issues , how safe do the voters actually feel , not that crime is rising , but their perception of how safe they think they are .
as i expected , there is a push to build up the dem candidate and at the same time , bash and rehash the GOP candidate , which in my view didnt and wont work no matter who the dem candidate is, otherwise trump wouldnt be the GOP candidate .
I think the voters will again answer the question asked years ago , are you better off now , than you were 4 years ago"
in that question from what i see and read , trump has a razor thin slight advantage if he can just keep his mouth shut .
So without some earth shaking "Oct Surprise " and because of the general dissatisfaction i see , i would have to say its likely going to be trump.
I doubt even being sentenced to jail would change that , it might even backfire and gain him more votes .
i have a reason to privately call him "Teflon Don " for a reason .
If I had not witnessed this bizarre, cult-like support for Trump, I would have said that nobody with Trump's demeanor, character, history, age, etc. would have a chance at the presidency.
Obviously we are living in strange times. No matter how many negatives exist regarding Trump, he could actually win the presidency.
Here:
Biden told MSNBC's Joy Reid on the premiere of her prime-time show, " The ReidOut ," however, that he would not guarantee that a Black woman will be his running mate.
keep in mind also , im not voting for either . so technically , im an outside observer .
Except for all the times you did.
And, unlike the incorrect quote in your comment 1.2.111, specifically said he would not guarantee to pick a black woman as his VP.
From your link..............
White guy/woman just wasn't in the cards the way it looks to me but you are correct. No guarantee
Thank you very much for setting the record straight despite what that individual stated in his comment. We have ALL lost arguments and been wrong in discussions from time to time. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise, is a... well, you know what as well as I do.
That was my whole point. Some people have been incorrectly stating that Biden "guaranteed" he would pick a black woman as his VP, when the truth is exactly the opposite. Just trying to keep 'em honest.
Thing is, it does not even matter if Biden wanted a female of color for his VP. So what? VPs are always picked considering factors other than intelligence, experience, accomplishments, etc. Most of the time the dominant criterion is the ability to bring a swing state.
Thus the GOP talking point about DEI is both stupid in terms of history and is flat out bigotry.
Lol. The Progressive playbook never gets updated:
Progressive says something false
When falsity is pointed out they respond with the same, tired checklist of personal attacks (racist,sexist etc)
When evidence of falsity is proven beyond any doubt, it's "who cares if it's true or not. Let's move on"
Conservatives really have a lot of grievances these days.
Those who claim Harris was picked merely because of her gender and skin color are making misogynistic and racist comments.
Hopefully the GOP will continue to encourage its useful helpers to spew this bigotry. Trump losing is indeed priority one.
Of course, she was picked for her ability to garner votes which was evident by how well she did in the primary. Her gender and race were irrelevant, LOL
LOL, and her coming from California which is a reliable Blue state, her ability to garner votes was never in question. Couldn't be anything but that, could it. Gender and skin color had absolutely nothing to do with the pick. /S
Another dishonest misrepresentation.
But keep promoting GOP bigotry with the other useful minions. Those who argue that Harris' only qualifications are her gender and skin color are inviting a fine backlash based on their blatant misogyny and racism.
Just amazing that this is not obvious to GOP loyalists.
Where do you see that being argued? Biden clearly wanted a cabinet that was diverse and he favored having a female VP and likely one who is also a minority. But what you and others are arguing is that Harris' only qualifications are her gender and skin color.
Apparently you do not mind joining in on the GOP talking points and engaging in blatant misogyny and racism.
Because something disagrees with your opinion it isn't dishonest.
Just amazing that this is not obvious to leftist loyalists.
Just because someone agrees with your opinion doesn't mean that it isn't misogynistic and racist.
Your repeated dishonest misrepresentation of what I wrote is the problem, George. If you were to honestly disagree and make a thoughtful argument that would be quite an improvement.
OK, maybe there was one or two, but I can't remember with whom, but it certainly wasn't you.
i wouldnt really complain about that , but when it comes to DEI , if it walks like a duck , swims like a duck and quacks like a duck ....
the other thing about DEI is i will pass and settle for the most qualified individual for the job , regardless of race or sex .
if your not going to hire the best for a job why fucking hire anyone at all ?
.
What is "best for the Job"?
The snazziest looking resume`?
The best performing in testing?
The most charisma?
The most contacts?
Where they got their degree from?
Weather they come highly recommended from your Uncle Bob?
could be a combination of all of the above , or none of the above , some consider past job performance a criteria as well , sometimes reputation to finish assigned tasks is also considered , its a crap shoot and the criteria is left to the one doing the hiring . .
Exactly.
I am likely missing it , but what point do you think is made in conjunction with my statement above ?
Personally?
I'd go for Uncle Bob-- he's a smart guy-- and an excellent judge of character!
The person doing the hiring is looking for someone who meets a broad range of ideal specifications. The person whom one hires is some admixture of these qualities, but very seldom does one get every qualification perfectly fit into one candidate for any job. So one has to decide which qualities and specifications are most important.
Kamala Harris has a law degree and held several elected positions including DA of San Francisco, Attorney General of the State of California, and Senator from California before she was chosen by Biden as a running mate in the 2020 Presidential election. California has a very diverse population. To the Biden Campaign this meant that she was very electable.
This article is about calling Kamala Harris a "DEI hire". Somewheres on here, there is a meme with a mother telling her child that DEI means "Didn't Earn It." This is exactly what is meant when anyone makes the claim that someone is a "DEI hire". One does not get elected because one "Didn't Earn It." One does not earn a Law Degree because one did not earn it.
Other places on this article we see the conflation of "DEI hire" with Bidens use of the words "diversity" "equity" and "Inclusion" in a statement to pivot to making the claim that she was a "DEI hire" with the full pejorative meaning out front and center with no shame at all by the conflator.
I hope that my response is a little clearer to you now after all of my rambling.
oh it does make it clearer as to what you mean .
i will start off with what DEI is to me.
all it is really is affirmative action , and EEOC that was instituted when i was a child and i have lived with my entire life and the only real difference i can see is it went on steroids to include a wider class of people with a bigger net so to speak .
so to me all it is is a repackaging of an old policy to appeal to a newer and younger set of generations , allowing them to think they have come up with something new and untried , that is timely for their generation .
As for the rest of it , both of us and millions of voters are looking to hire/ elect a new president , or and members of the elected government for that matter ,
As such and as individuals we will all have different criteria we think must be met some will be the same some will be different .
the nice and good thing about all this , i am not required to use your criteria , and you are not required to use mine .
That is just something people even if they don't like it , will just have to accept .
But they don't just accept it. The over the top and bleeding example of this is Donald Trump.
in your view and opinion , which you are welcome to .
In my view neither of the candidates presented meet the criteria i use , so neither for now will be getting my vote . of that i am 99.9/10ths sure of , that .01 th is my wiggle room in case something unseen or unfathomable should happen to make me re evaluate my positions . but that is highly unlikely to be needed .
I should add , my decisions about the candidates is not affected by what either of them have to say about the other .
Equity just means play fair with the people in the national community. Inclusion simply put means "Welcome, come on in!" (Diversity is touched on at 12 ↓).
When you look at it from a positive place. . . only a weak, sorry, fool would wish to leave people ready for advancement up and down professionally out! Major corporations recognize the value of bringing in all people of skill into their organizations (see 12 and 14). Bigots can see it too. Their ("Archie Bunkerism") prejudices overrule their senses all the same.
It is not my opinion that Donald Trump did not and has not accepted the results of the 2020 election. It is fact. Just ask him.
so your saying i should ask and believe HIM?
I know he lost and i know as he would say he lost "biggly" you will be hard pressed to find anything that i said contrary to that .
i will cut this to the chaff, your not going to change my mind , no matter what methods you use and i say that politely .
I wasn't suggesting you do either. My comment was directed more towards the last election.
I am not trying to change your mind. Just trying to have a civil discussion.
He is feeling a little under-the-weather right now
Considering a good portion of the candidates were never considered we will never know.
I try to avoid that description.
I am always careful to introduce her as the former border Czar.
WTF?
She not Russian-- she part Black part Indian (Desi).
(I'm surprised you didn't know that!)
Not sure what pronouns she prefers-- but biologically she's female, so if she was Russian (which she is not) the proper form would be "Czarina".
(Although to be perfectly honest I have no idea what her children, if any, would be called.??? Perhaps..."Czardines"?)
Imagine-- a whole gaggle (or "flock"?) of "border Czardines"--- that'll stop those evil terrorists....!!!!
She’s part White as well to people that disregard the science and bin people into arbitrary racial categories.
Tsesarevich was the title for the Czar's (Tsar's) eldest son and heir apparent.
Czarevitch (Tsarevitch) was the title for any son of the Czar.
At one time the daughter of the Czar was known as the Czarevna, but use of that title was discontinued.
The daughters of the last Czar all had the title "Grand Duchess".
I hope that helps.
Accusations of DEI will affect some people positively and some negatively The question for those running campaigns is-- in each instance, who will it affect more-- their candidate or the opposition.
Biden explicitly selected her for DEI reasons. . Why are democrats so ashamed of that?
“The values of diversity, equality, inclusion are literally—and this is not kidding —the core strengths of America ... And it starts at the top with the Vice President."
Joe Biden
Biden didnt use the term as a pejorative.
It's an objective term. Biden chose to value biology over other any other factor. I get why that's incredibly embarrassing and would be illegal if a business owner did it, but that's reality.
What a profound use of doublespeak.
I dont know what you are talking about, but Biden used DEI in a positive way and the haters of Harris use it in a negative way. The two are not comparable.
It's very important to understand that DEI is right, moral and good. Anyone who disagrees with DEI is wrong, immoral and bad.
Also, DEI isn't happening. Anyone who says it is happening is wrong, immoral and bad. Because DEI is good. And also not happening.
Facts. Kamala was a DEI selection. That so many progressives get hysterical when that is pointed out demonstrates that they even they, deep down, know how poisonous their ideology is. They've adopted a neo-confederate worldview.
The GOP talking points dominate GOP discourse. No original debate points, just partisan crap.
Funny. I didn't say any of that.
Oh, I think your use of doublespeak was much better than his. Much more rhythmic and far less stilted.
Facts are debate points. And you'll notice is progressives who keep seeding articles about it.
No, you were misusing words. I'm trying to help you.
It is pure bigotry. This DEI hire crap is a GOP talking point. It is demeaning Harris (and by extension any other person who meets a minority demographic) by insinuating that her only qualifications are her gender and her ethnicity.
DEI is bigotry. It's a transparent justification for discrimination based on race/gender/sexul idenitity. Glad you figured that out.
y insinuating that her only qualifications are her gender and her ethnicity.
Take that up with Joe Biden. He's the one who made biological characteristics the defining factor in the pool he selected her from.
No. I understand completely what both you and I have said. One of us wants to paint any use of the words "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" with a tar soaked broad brush and light it on fire: It is in this instance a d"dog whistle".
I want to just use the words with their intended common definitions, like Biden did in the statement we are discussing. But by all means, keep hammering and yammering to the people who do not like diversity, equity, and inclusion. I am sure that there are even some here who believe you.
So are you saying is that Biden should have picked all old, white dudes because any other choice would have been bowing to the DEI gods... Or that he could have picked any one, just don't say that he wanted his administration to look more like our country? And Why is that again?
You are pushing the GOP talking point that Harris was only selected because she is female and of a minority ethnicity.
That is a bigoted talking point that will almost certainly be a loser for everyone using it.
Why was she selected?
Because Harris is experienced, qualified and next in line as the current Vice President of the United States of America...
And here again, you are arguing that the only reason she was selected is because of her race and gender.
Prove that you are not making that argument by stating her qualifications to be VP.
And this is why your argument is a loser. You insist that the only reason Harris was selected was because of her gender and ethnicity. You are intentionally ignoring all other factors ... pure bigotry.
So you can't answer the question?... hmmm
You deflect. (I have answered that question numerous times on this site.)
I deflect?.. OK
Sorry, I don't read all your posts. Do you have a link to one that would express your answer?
Beyond my various comments, I wrote an article where I described her professional qualifications.
You commented on the article. Apparently you did not read it.
And you continue to deflect.
No, I read it...
Speaking of deflection.... 2.1.15
Then I suggest you reread it and this time pay attention to where I describe Harris' credentials and experience.
In the meantime, if you believe Harris has more to offer than simply being female and a minority, state these qualifications. If not, then you clearly are trying to make the bigoted argument that this is all she has to offer.
Well hell, if Joe is so hell bent on turning things over to the next generation, why don't they just swap jobs........or he could just step down and let her see what it is like for the next few months.
My daughter is the token white woman where she works.
Some would even call it "word salad"
They say they are going to do it, they do it, then they have fake outrage when someone says they did it.
Perhaps the outrage is real?
Dems just spent years lying to everyone that biden was mentally fit to be president. That lie crashed and burned so it’s on to their next lie, that harris wasn’t chosen as biden’s vp because of the boxes she checks.
Why are democrats so ashamed of that?
Why are Republicans so outraged by it? Oh, I get it - the Biden is old attack has been neutered so the Harris is a DEI hire attack has been revived from the dead. With this logic you can denigrate any hard working minority out of hand. Your tent just continues to get smaller.
White people are leaving the Republican Party and minorities are increasingly voting for Trump. Look at any poll. Why do only white people matter in your "tent?"
hal , feel free not to answer this , but do you really think the only issue was biden was old ?
I can say for myself , it wasnt the only reason , but i will wait and see if you deem it ok to answer a simple question .
If you do , then i will expand . if not , no skin off the noses .
Republicans have all kinds of reasons that they hate Biden, but most of them are extremely unpopular with the majority of the electorate so they concentrated their efforts and dollars into the narrative that he is too old since that issue was a bipartisan concern. Did you see ads promoting a national abortion ban, mass deportations, ending NATO, letting Ukrainians get slaughtered, kicking gays out of the military, protect corruption in the Supreme Court, etc,? No, the attacks were about age and inflation. Now they are hobbled and left with the only senile old man in the race and he will have argue all these unpopular issues with a decades younger sharp former prosecutor. You should be scared.
i will start with reminding i am neither democrat or republican and will add i never hated Biden , disagreed with him yes , to the point i would not vote for him as a candidate .
You posted a lot to wade through there , much of which , i think has nothing to do with my original question , but i will try and touch on as much as i can .
Now my particular reasons for not voting a Dem party ticket include but are not limited to , party platform or parts of , actual policy followed having to do with much of what you mention. and my issue usually comes not in what the party , either parties platforms but when digging into the details of how to implement them , that i think is where a lot of support at first look gets lost . and for me , when it comes to those platforms and policies , there ends up being more i disagree with than agree with , so of course im not going to fall in and vote for something i disagree with more than i agree.
i will now touch on some of your bullet points .
NATO, legislation was passed in the last 3 years and signed into law that says the president , any president , can NOT remove the US from the agreement , without the consent of congress. How that will actually work out we will have to wait and see if that ever happens .
kicking gays out of the military , i havent heard of that being the case since the aughts didnt feel it was right then and still dont think its right now .
SC corruption, there is a remedy for that , it just isnt being used , and i think the reason its not , is it is too big of a political baseball bat available to both parties seeking power to use against the other . to me it a status quo issue , once one party opens a door to use an action , it remains open for the other party to use against them in the future .
foreign policy , specifically Ukraine , the US entered into a verbal and written agreement with them to ensure their security when they gave up nukes , We should live up to that agreement even if only on principle .
abortion , it should come as no surprise this is an issue that is low on my list , I am a 62 year old male with cut nuts so not really a big issue for me individually . I will say i dont think any government at any level has the authority to dictate what to me is an issue best left between the individual and their medical professional of their choice .
so there it is as it applies to me .
Add: i dont have anything to be scared of , dont know why you think i should be .
No and you won't ever. Those things are anathema to the American people except for a very small minority. Huge gains have been made in the Civil Rights arena and I don't think the majority of Americans want to go back
Good point!
Every American is one minority or another! Most are descended from immigrants (and some illegal-- who manage to escape the hordes of "Czardines" patrolling our Southern borders!)
The only "true" Americans are the Indians ("native Americans") and very few few are in elective office...(although that is gradually changing).
I know this is off topic, and I know it would NEVER happen, but with Kamela Harris being the Democrat candidate I wonder which side would win if Trump backed out and supported Nikki Haley to be the Republican candidate.
Nikki by a landslide.
Not anymore now that she showed how easily she would cast aside her integrity by endorsing Trump.
Why not? Do you think Harris has more integrity?....
It doesn't seem to me that "integrity" means much to American voters, probably because it doesn't seem to be that important to a lot of American politicians, and in that regard I think you know who I would have preferred to see as America's PotUS.
Hard to compare since Nikki endorsed Trump after calling him "unhinged", "chaotic", "not qualified to serve as PotUS", "old man with a vendetta", etc.
She could have simply not endorsed him. Endorsing him is where she lost her integrity.
So serving as vice president to a man you think is racist is okay?
Maybe she learned that he wasn't a cardboard cutout and has visibly evolved in attitude over the years to accommodate new and different experiences.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump is still the same lying sack of shit that he has always been.
Do you see the difference?
Maybe she followed the yellow brick road, thinking the whole time there's no way this demented old racist fool will last.
Do you see the difference?....
After Biden picks Kamala to be his running mate, you conclude that she believes he is racist.
By the way ... since your slimy tactic is obvious:
Not at all, why would she at that point? I believe the post had something to do with integrity. Either don't respond or stop with the personal shit please.
No. This isn't a fairy tale or a movie.
Right, the narrative can only be what you think it is.
What personal shit?
Yeah, Greg, you put forth the scenario that she accepted the VP slot when she believed Biden was racist. That makes no sense and you have just acknowledged that.
Further, you have no evidence that she ever thought Biden was racist.
Your argument is without any merit.
I think that I am closer to being right than you are, by a long shot.
I'm sure you do.
The historical evidence is clear, Biden is a racist.
As for Kamala, as more and more of her awful record as VP, and especially Senator is revealed, the less appeal she will have. Like Hillary, too many people simply don't like her or what she represents.
It’s Kamala not Kamela.
LOL. Thanks for the spelling correction.
Yes-- but other than that-- it is an interesting post!
(Actually, given the sheer stupidity of some of the posts in political discussions-- "off topic" is generally a plus
. . .!!!)
P.S: Interesting question-- off hand, in that match-up I don't know who would win.
IMO both already have strikes against them. Haley kowtowed to Trump and Harris snubbed Netanyahu. Liz Cheney would never match either of them because so many American voters don't consider integrity to be important.
Oh, but we were so close to Trump and 1984
Yes. By all means keep up the DEI line. Every body loves it. Well, here they do anyway.
CNN-
Yuk-- DEI is soooo 1923!
You do realize, of course , that when you see words such as "Blasted" and the like you are most likely looking at propaganda.
Now for a more balanced look:
You have people who are responding to questions and then you have someone who is free to express whatever he wishes and chooses "Gettysburg, Wow", "The late great Hannibal Lector", etc.
Your argument is weak and as Harris gives more speeches the weakness of your argument will be repeatedly illustrated.
Bottom line, between Harris and Trump it will be a (well deserved) failure of Trump supporters to compare Harris and Trump in terms of ability to communicate.
We shall see...
Some will see, others will filter out all positives and dwell on any hint of negatives.
List all of Kamal's positives and accomplishments.
Actually a lot of the current politics is really getting boring.
But a debate between Harris and Trump would be amazing-- I'd love to see it!
Given you will dismiss everything positive, I am not going to do research for you.
If you are genuinely interested, I suggest you start here:
"Word salad"?
Some people are mistakenly in the wrong place.
YO! This is not THE COOKING CHANNEL!
(Hint: Use the "back" arrow on your browser ASAP!!!)
Here's how obsessed Democrats are with race. This is the mayor the third largest city in the country:
"This transformation means having Kamala Harris in the White House to ensure that a woman is in charge to take control of this jacked up situation in America that only a black woman knows how to solve." They are as racially obsessed as their segregationist Democratic forebears.
Keep going with this.
It reeks of desperation.
Do you agree with your Mayor? Does her race impart abilities to Kamala Harris that other races don't have? Can you provide a breakdown of the special skills each race has that other races don't?
Race has replaced religion on our left.
And the cult of Trump has replaced sanity on the right.
You are excellent at taking the words of one person and applying them to whole swaths of of the unsuspecting
Whole swaths of the unsuspecting?
"Gettysburg ... Wow", "The late great Hannibal Lector" and more came after the video was made.
Candidates mentioning Hannibal Lector doesn't impress me in the least. Heck-- anyone can cross the Alps.
And anyway, after that trip its obvious Hannibal was injured, and effected mentally. His mental powers declined rapidly. (There's no doubt in my mind that crossing The Alps in not a wise move for any politician!)
Well, applied to this article, the meme you have presented us with is a perfect example of how a bigot thinks.
bigots think?
Unfortunately, they do.
My friend wrote a song with the tongue-in-cheek title of "I Hate Those Bigots"
Transcript from CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip 7/24/2024
(The first time DEI occurs in this table discussion is relevant but too long to add here.)
[22:46:20]
PHILLIP : We're back and we have a special guest joining the conversation at the table. With us now, Congressman Jim Clyburn of South Carolina. He is one of the senior most Democrats in the House of Representatives, and he famously helped tilt the 2020 primary toward Joe Biden. And that is, in some ways, putting it lightly. Congressman, thank you for being here.
REP. JIM CLYBURN (D-SC) : Well, thank you very much for having me.
PHILLIP : I wonder, listening to President Biden tonight, you've known him for a very long time. You said you were going to watch it by yourself. This is a moment for you, I'm sure, too, because of your role in helping put him in the White House. What was your reaction to the Joe Biden that you saw tonight?
CLYBURN : I thought it was a great speech. I thought what came through, more than anything else, is a Joe that I know. You may recall when I made that endorsement that people talk about a lot back in 2020, it was a little refrain. I know Joe. We know Joe. But most importantly, Joe knows us. And that came through tonight.
He knows this country. He loves this country. He knows its people. He has great love for the democracy that has made us what we are today, and he will do anything to prevent this country from getting off track.
From the very beginning, it was a recognition that we're not perfect. We all got to know the history of this country, far from being perfect. But then we decided, the founding fathers did, to start on a track toward a more perfect union. And we are still on that track. And Joe Biden has done his part to keep us on that.
But the other side seemed to want to take us backward. We've done that before. After the 1876 presidential election, which they were trying to replicate on January 6, 2021, we took a backward thrust that led us to Jim Crow.
Jim Crow caused things to happen in this country that none of us ought to ever want to revisit. But if you look at Trump's Project 2025 and see what's in it, you will see that this project, if it were ever implemented, would take this country back to where we were doing Jim Crow.
PHILLIP : Let me ask you, Congressman, about the road ahead for Vice President Harris. We have a new CNN poll out now showing that she's made some gains in consolidating support within the party, but there's still a lot of work to do.
And you're also hearing Republicans, including former President Trump, describing her as the most liberal candidate, likening her to Bernie Sanders, your colleague in the Senate. Does she need to convince voters that she is not some fire-breathing liberal? And if so, how does she do that?
CLYBURN : Well, you know, I tell people a whole lot. My father was a fundamentalist minister, and he used to teach us that if you make a dollar, you ought to be able to save a nickel. When you walk out of the room, you turn your lights out.
[22:50:01]
You ought to conserve. He was a conservative, but he never asked his church on Sunday morning to give a conservative offering. He asked for a liberal offering. I grew up learning that we must balance liberalism and conservatism. This whole stuff of either you're conservative or you're liberal, that's poppycock. We have to look and see what the issues are, see what the conditions are, see what the needs are.
I have three daughters. I don't treat them the same way because their needs are not the same. We treat people according to their needs, and we ought to get out of this stuff, this blaming liberal or that radical conservative. We have to deal with issues based upon what people's needs are.
I heard you talking earlier about black farmers and the pay for black farmers. The former lieutenant governor ought to be ashamed of herself. We know. I used to run the South Carolina Commission for Farm Workers, and those three-member white-only committees turned down every loan every black farmer tried to get.
The black soldiers that came back from World War II, when white soldiers were getting the GI Bill of Rights, they did not give those GI Bill of Rights to black soldiers. They didn't get the home loans that the white soldiers got.
They didn't get the educational opportunities that white soldiers got. How do you correct that? Should we correct that? Or are we going to blame the process that we put in place to correct the fact that people lost their farms because they were discriminated against?
PHILLIP : It's such an important piece. Just one second, Lieutenant Governor. It's such an important piece of history that you're putting there on the table, Congressman. I just want to introduce the panel that's here right now. Lieutenant Governor, I'll give you a quick second to respond to that but I want to move on to something else.
MCCAUGHEY : I would like to respond because the farmers in upstate New York, the dairy farmers, needed debt relief, too, and they were going to be denied debt relief because of the color of their skin.
PHILLIP : How do you respond to what the Congressman is saying --
MCCAUGHEY : I am responding.
PHILLIP : - which is that for decades black farmers were denied --
MCCAUGHEY : Sins of the past --
PHILLIP : -- equal access --
MCCAUGHEY : That's true and --
PHILLIP : -- to the same services and aid that white farmers were getting?
MCCAUGHEY : You should not make the people of the present suffer for the sins of our ancestors. That is not fair. And you can't tell the white farmers in upstate New York who are suffering, trying to hold on to their dairy farms that they can't have the same kind of debt relief because their skin isn't the right color.
ALLISON : This isn't the sins of our past. This is the present that we're talking about.
PHILLIP : I want to -- I know Reihan has a question for the Congressman. You can go ahead and ask him.
SALAM : Just -- you've given a really thoughtful tribute to the idea that you want pragmatic moderation. When you are looking to the selection of a running mate for Vice President Kamala Harris, I wonder if you think that she should be looking to consolidate and make enthusiastic progressive base voters.
Or if you think she should choose someone who's going to appeal to independents and swing voters. What would your recommendation to her be? Because I know she listens very closely to what you have to say.
CLYBURN : Well, I've made it very clear. I noticed the three front runners for this, one of whom is the governor of North Carolina, another the governor of Pennsylvania, and then the senator from Arizona. All three of them are great people. They bring different kinds of backgrounds to this whole ticket. Either one of them, in my opinion, would be great.
The fact of the matter is there's nothing unusual about putting together a ticket with that one. Everybody loves John F. Kennedy. He would never have been President of the United States if he had not put Lyndon Baines Johnson on the ticket with him, and he did it because Johnson was from Texas, and he needed Johnson in order to help moderate the ticket. So, I would ask her to look at this program, look at all these people, and see who can best moderate the ticket and get that person.
PHILLIP : Ana?
NAVARRO : Congressman, nice to see you. And listen, I know one of your three daughters, and I know you treat them all very well. So, say hello to Mignon for me.
CLYBURN : Thank you.
NAVARRO : Look, you have worked with so many presidents, very closely with so many presidents in your tenure. You know what it takes to be a good president. And there's so many that are questioning Vice President Kamala Harris' qualifications.
There's so many out there saying, some of your colleagues, Republican colleagues in Congress, saying that she is a DEI hire that only became vice president because of the color of her skin.
[22:55:02]
So, since you know her and you know what it takes, what do you think are her qualifications to be president?
CLYBURN : She's an incredibly smart woman. I met her a long time ago before she ever ran for attorney general. She was a prosecutor there in California. In fact, I went out to California and spent a little time with her when she was running for that position.
Was she DUI, I mean, DEI when she became the governor, I mean, the attorney general? Was she DEI when she became a United States senator? So, why is she DEI when she is running for president? She was an incredibly good attorney general, tremendous success, a good senator, and a great vice president. All of those seem to be training grounds for being president.
So, if you just look at her background and her experiences, you will see in that the kind of foundation, if any white guy had that foundation, they would be saying she is well prepared to be President of the United States. So, why do we ascribe that to her?
PHILLIP : Congressman James Clyburn, we really appreciate you joining the conversation with us. Thank you very much and thank you to everyone here. We'll be back in a moment.
CLYBURN : Thank you.
I watched a video of her questioning Brett Kavanaugh at his senate confirmation hearing. She had Kavanaugh tap dancing as fast as he could.
Given the utter wealth of material she will have against Trump it is extremely likely she will slice and dice him into little pieces in a debate.
Unless you think Trump is smarter than a Supreme Court justice.
A confrontation with an Ex District Attorney vs a convicted felon?
(Guess who wins?)
yeah and he still got confirmed .
is trump smarter than kavanaugh? depends on who you ask , according to some , kavanaugh isnt all that bright either .
BTW, this discussion (in some quarters) has taken on a straw-man argument that DEI is rightfully a wrongheaded approach to business and societal norms. That is a lie.
Here is one example of why:
Diversity matters even more: The case for holistic impact
There have been far-reaching changes in the business environment over the past few years, yet, companies with diverse leadership teams continue to be associated with higher financial returns. Our expanded dataset shows this is true across industries and regions, despite differing challenges, stakeholder expectations, and ambitions.
The business case for gender diversity on executive teams 1 has more than doubled over the past decade. Each of our reports—2015, 2018, 2020, and now 2023—has found a steady upward trend, tracking ever greater representation of women on executive teams. At each time point we have assessed the data, the likelihood of financial outperformance gap has grown: Our 2015 report found top-quartile companies had a 15 percent greater likelihood of financial outperformance versus their bottom-quartile peers; this year, that figure hits 39 percent (Exhibit 1).
The penalties 3 for low diversity on executive teams are also intensifying. Companies with representation of women exceeding 30 percent (and thus in the top quartile) are significantly more likely to financially outperform those with 30 percent or fewer. Similarly, companies in our top quartile for ethnic diversity show an average 27 percent financial advantage over others (Exhibit 2).
Why diversity matters even more | McKinsey
You beat me to it!
I was going to post that picture.
(When J.D. Vance attacked "childless cat ladies" ... well that's one childless cat lady he hadn't thought about in advance).
Taylor Swift's cats:
"Childless Cat Lady" Taylor Swift's cats:
Taylor Swift is a proud cat mom.
The Lover singer's pet family includes three felines — Meredith Grey, Olivia Benson and Benjamin Button — whom she openly adores.
"The fact is, DEI isn’t a short-term project, and a company making big moves before it’s ready will most likely fail to meet its objectives, leaving minority employees and community members continually marginalized. Moreover, doing so can give the organization a reputation for hollow, performative promises. Many companies that rushed to meet the moment in 2020, for example, pledged thousands of dollars to build racial equity but did not have a structure in place to support the implementation of new initiatives. As a result, they still haven’t made any progress in improving their employees’ and communities’ lived experiences.
There is good news, however. More than 40 years of academic research and my experience helping hundreds of companies on their DEI journeys have shown me that companies tend to follow predictable stages on the DEI journey in sequence. When they understand which stage they’re in, they can focus their energies on the right activities, making their DEI efforts more successful and making it more likely that they’ll keep progressing.
In this article I describe the five stages: aware, compliant, tactical, integrated, and sustainable. For each one, I include questions for leadership teams to ask themselves to focus their efforts and keep moving forward. Although there’s no one-size-fits-all DEI solution, a typical journey through these stages includes connecting top-down strategy and bottom-up initiatives around DEI, developing an organization-wide culture of inclusion, and, ultimately, creating equity in both policy and practice. "
The Five Stages of DEI Maturity (hbr.org)
There is not a damn thing wrong with DEI. Now, then see 12 and 14 for their respective analysis (view very informative links there too).
Something which needs to be dropped into the spirit of this discussion (and into the spirit of the commenters themselves who need it) about DEI as a negative in the mouths and talking points of conservative is this:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
Lee Atwater (Deceased.)
What continues to happen is some conservatives are playing the "abstract" (hide the racism in plain sight) game of not understanding, no consideration, not respect for past wrongs, by using so-called "neutral language" - conservatives perpetuate the status quo—at the expense of minorities.
It is all baked into the 'programming,' schemes, and strategies of some conservatives and some Trumpists.
When corporations and businesses address DEI properly . . .
. . . and not as a 'dirty' political talking point to keep swaths of the citizenry 'down,' in EXCLUSION, and in substandard economy non-compete circumstances.