Kamala Harris says picking a gay man for VP was too big of a risk

[Tropical Wilds]

Oh, gay people can't be conservative? Really?

I'm sure they can be, sure. However, it seems really, desperately, next-tier impossible to look at a gay democrat who ran for president as a democrat and was in contention to be the democrat VP of a democrat presidential candidate and conclude that they're conservative and supporting the conservative principles that would draw you to vote for them.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Oh, gay people can't be conservative? Really?

How many prominent gay conservative politicians have we had? There was George Santos but the GOP Congress ousted him.

 

[BPPLEE]

More than you deserve since you're being more than a little dishonest. I don't waste my time with people who aren't honest.

Okay, I guess you need an excuse

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm sure they can be, sure. However, it seems really, desperately, next-tier impossible to look at a gay democrat who ran for president as a democrat and was in contention to be the democrat VP of a democrat presidential candidate and conclude that they're conservative and supporting the conservative principles that would draw you to vote for them.

I wasn't making any such conclusion

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Wait, are you saying that Pete and Kamala would have been a DEI ticket?

What on earth are you talking about?

You're the ones saying that he should have been chosen despite the fact that they determined somebody else was a better fit.

LoL, y'all just want to be mad, you don't even know what you're mad about. You just know the company line is "Kamala bad, democrats bad" and you'll go on any old goose chase that will land you there, even if it makes zero sense.

 

[BPPLEE]

What on earth are you talking about?

You're the ones saying that he should have been chosen despite the fact that they determined somebody else was a better fit.

LoL, y'all just want to be mad, you don't even know what you're mad about. You just know the company line is "Kamala bad, democrats bad" and you'll go on any old goose chase that will land you there, even if it makes zero sense.

No, go back and look. You accused me of advocating for DEI.
Maybe it was a Freudian slip

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Okay, I guess you need an excuse

I wasn't so much using it as an excuse as I was explaining why this has become boring. A discussion when one of the participants isn't being intellectually honest a pointless use of my time.

I wasn't making any such conclusion

Yawn. You're just arguing to argue at this point. You can't even keep track of what you're saying or advocating for or what your viewpoints are.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

No, go back and look. You accused me of advocating for DEI.
Maybe it was a Freudian slip

I certainly did say that you are advocating for DEI. You are upset the person they determined was less suitable wasn't given the position anyway over somebody they determined was more suited.

I'm not particularly upset or not upset he didn't get the VP slot as I anticipated he wouldn't be. If he had gotten the slot, I would have known the Democrats wouldn't win, but I wouldn't have assumed he got there because they felt they had to put him there. I'd have assumed he was qualified. You, however, are looking at the white, heterosexual male who was given the job based on the determining he was the right fit, and complaining they didn't choose the guy they had said was less suited for the job instead.

Not that it matters, mind you, because it's not like you'd have voted for her if they did pick Pete, you're just outrage shopping because you want to be mad at Kamala. The article could have been "actually, I thought Tim Waltz was the better candidate but we went with Pete because we thought he'd do better on the ballot" and there would still be a thread here where you're yelling at the sky and pounding your fist on the table over how mad you are she didn't pick Waltz. That's the real headline here.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

No, it’s just the irony of not picking a gay man. because he’s gay, then picking one who could pass for gay.

For some reason you’re only looking at one aspect of electability. Gay or straight. There’s also the experience factor. While I think Pete has shown good judgment and leadership as transportation secretary, that just doesn’t come across as weighty to the average voter as governor does. Another aspect is age. I think Pete comes across as a bit too young to be VP and one heartbeat away from the presidency. I feel the same way about Vance.

 

[BPPLEE]

I wasn't so much using it as an excuse as I was explaining why this has become boring. A discussion when one of the participants isn't being intellectually honest a pointless use of my time.


Yawn. You're just arguing to argue at this point. You can't even keep track of what you're saying or advocating for or what your viewpoints are.

More excuses. You can't tell me I'm being dishonest, you don't know me.
It's just your way of bowing out

 

[Hank77]

Why should someone's sexuality matter? Really?

If it doesn't matter, then electing a prostatute for VP would be fine too?

 

[BPPLEE]

I certainly did say that you are advocating for DEI. You are upset the person they determined was less suitable wasn't given the position anyway over somebody they determined was more suited.

I'm not particularly upset or not upset he didn't get the VP slot as I anticipated he wouldn't be. If he had gotten the slot, I would have known the Democrats wouldn't win, but I wouldn't have assumed he got there because they felt they had to put him there. I'd have assumed he was qualified. You, however, are looking at the white, heterosexual male who was given the job based on the determining he was the right fit, and complaining they didn't choose the guy they had said was less suited for the job instead.

Not that it matters, mind you, because it's not like you'd have voted for her if they did pick Pete, you're just outrage shopping because you want to be mad at Kamala. The article could have been "actually, I thought Tim Waltz was the better candidate but we went with Pete because we thought he'd do better on the ballot" and there would still be a thread here where you're yelling at the sky and pounding your fist on the table over how mad you are she didn't pick Waltz. That's the real headline here.

"I certainly did say that you are advocating for DEI. You are upset the person they determined was less suitable wasn't given the position anyway over somebody they determined was more suited."

He wasn't chosen because he was gay, not because he wasn't qualified.
I never said he should be chosen just because he's gay. That would be DEI

 

[BPPLEE]

If it doesn't matter, then electing a prostatute for VP would be fine too?

You're equating being gay with being a prostitute?
Really?

 

[BPPLEE]

For some reason you’re only looking at one aspect of electability. Gay or straight. There’s also the experience factor. While I think Pete has shown good judgment and leadership as transportation secretary, that just doesn’t come across as weighty to the average voter as governor does. Another aspect is age. I think Pete comes across as a bit too young to be VP and one heartbeat away from the presidency. I feel the same way about Vance.

That has nothing to do with what Kamala said. She said he wasn't picked because he is gay.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

That has nothing to do with what Kamala said. She said he wasn't picked because he is gay.

She said that was the only reason?

This is just more proof she was never as “far left” as the right tried to paint her during the election.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

More excuses. You can't tell me I'm being dishonest, you don't know me.
It's just your way of bowing out

I certainly can tell you that you're being dishonest. I just did. I saw it happen.

"I certainly did say that you are advocating for DEI. You are upset the person they determined was less suitable wasn't given the position anyway over somebody they determined was more suited."

He wasn't chosen because he was gay, not because he wasn't qualified.
I never said he should be chosen just because he's gay. That would be DEI

One of the qualifications they needed was somebody who could appeal to a wide range of people, and in that he did not fit the bill so they went with somebody else who did. Advocating for Pete to be chosen when they've determined another candidate checks all the boxes, including a lifestyle that is seen as broadly acceptable to the base they're trying to get listen to them would be advocating he be chosen based on DEI (as explained by conservatives, anyway... We will tackle that it isn't what DEI is on another thread).

You are complaining the more qualified, more well-rounded, higher-performing in focus groups not get the job in favor of Pete... That is exactly what you insist DEI is. Handouts to less qualified people based on their minority status, my guy, lol.

 

[BPPLEE]

I certainly can tell you that you're being dishonest. I just did. I saw it happen.

One of the qualifications they needed was somebody who could appeal to a wide range of people, and in that he did not fit the bill so they went with somebody else who did. Advocating for Pete to be chosen when they've determined another candidate checks all the boxes, including a lifestyle that is seen as broadly acceptable to the base they're trying to get listen to them would be advocating he be chosen based on DEI (as explained by conservatives, anyway... We will tackle that it isn't what DEI is on another thread).

You are complaining the more qualified, more well-rounded, higher-performing in focus groups not get the job in favor of Pete... That is exactly what you insist DEI is. Handouts to less qualified people based on their minority status, my guy, lol.

I'm not complaining about anything and I haven't been dishonest about anything Jan.
Sad that you have to resort to personal attacks

 

[Hank77]

You're equating being gay with being a prostitute?
Really?

I'm equating two lifestyles that are considered by many to be morally undesirable. Therefore, a person might be regarded as a bad representative and even a disadvantaged leader for our country.

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm equating two lifestyles that are considered by many to be morally undesirable. Therefore, a person might be regarded as a bad representative and even a disadvantaged leader for our country.

I think if a person can do the job well they should get the job. That doesn't work in politics though

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I'm not complaining about anything and I haven't been dishonest about anything Jan.
Sad that you have to resort to personal attacks

You are complaining... You started with complaining about Kamala over Pete, then Tim over Pete, and now you're accusing me of personal attacks.

For the record, I said you're being dishonest, which isn't a personal attack. It's a statement that you're moving goalposts to keep from being pinned down in a losing argument, which is true. When you want to have an actual discussion, let me know, but this whole pretending to be a victim thing when the problem is you just don't like your words reflected back to you is boring.