Joe Biden says he is considering four Black women to be his running mate

[.Mikha'el.]

In politics, due diligence includes the landscape of gender, race, and other demographics. So the fake outrage is transparently silly. Every Presidential nominee does the same thing. Mike Pence wasn't chosen because he is a nuclear surgeon. He checked off all the boxes and knows how to say, "Yes, Mr. President" and shut up otherwise.

I wouldn't have a problem with this if Biden hadn't been so overt about it. Even if it's the absolute worst-kept secret in the world that he'd pick a woman, and likely an ethnic minority, being so upfront about it just makes it look so horribly politically correct that it's going to turn voters off.

 

[SimplyMe]

If he could find one of those black women to be a lesbian in a wheelchair too I'd bet he'd get bonus points...

Haha.

Nothing like the color of ones skin and having a vagina to determine whether you get picked as VP running mate. Those are some real qualifications there!

Hahaha

Maybe I'm reading a different article than the rest of you (or reading it at all) but I don't see where he has made that determination, that it will definitely be a Black female. What he stated is, "I am not committed to naming any (of the potential candidates), but the people I've named, and among them there are four Black women." He's not saying the four Black women are the only candidates but that there are four among those he is vetting. He went on to say that he is getting two hour vetting reports on each candidate and they have gone through four candidates (at the time of the interview) and that "when I get all the vetting done of all the candidates, then I'm going to narrow the list, and then we'll see."

From his comments, he is vetting more than 4 people -- it sounds like quite a few more, particularly since he does not even have his "short list" yet -- and that is is only 4 on that longer list that are Black females. Yes, he likely is giving "priority" to racial minorities and females but they aren't the only ones he is considering -- so perhaps wait to condemn his choice after he has made it, and not before those 4 Black females are not the only VP candidates.

 

[returntosender]

JULIA LOUISE DREYFUS is his selection.
It wasn't a maybe, it was an absolute. IMO. He was pressed by James Cordin, why her? His answer was that he wanted someone qualified to handle the job if he wasn't available, etc. He went on but I can't post verbatim. You should be able to see or hear the interview at James Cordin's site.

 

[helmut]

....and he excluded Canadians...how dare he

I suppose you will vote for Trudeau as president?

 

[iluvatar5150]

If he could find one of those black women to be a lesbian in a wheelchair too I'd bet he'd get bonus points...

Haha.

Nothing like the color of ones skin and having a vagina to determine whether you get picked as VP running mate. Those are some real qualifications there!

Hahaha

I don’t like how he’s going about this, either, but let’s not pretend that being white and having a penis hasn’t brought its own advantages to those running for his office.

 

[helmut]

JULIA LOUISE DREYFUS is his selection.
It wasn't a maybe, it was an absolute. IMO. He was pressed by James Cordin, why her? His answer was that he wanted someone qualified to handle the job if he wasn't available, etc. He went on but I can't post verbatim. You should be able to see or hear the interview at James Cordin's site.

That's not a news, that's an olds, see this page from April:
Biden jokes he's picking Julia Louis-Dreyfus as running mate
But in PC terms, she is rather optimal: Jewish name (and Grandfather), black, female, well-known - and she already has served as Vice-President (compare Zelensky in Ukraine ...).

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

And when he is told which one to select he will let us know

Is it the deep state or lizardmen pulling strings ? Or deep state lizardmen ? Don`t keep us in suspense.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I don’t like how he’s going about this, either, but let’s not pretend that being white and having a penis hasn’t brought its own advantages to those running for his office.

I don't think being white and having a penis brings with it any inherent advantages... and that is honestly what I think.

My husband is white and has a penis, and he grew up - in America - without running water or electricity. His whiteness has given him zero advatanges in life and to this day he faces prejudice and discrimination (most especially in employment) if he doesn't hide his native accent.

But he doesn't cry about it, doesn't desire anyone's pity and has made it through life with tons of determination and more hard work than most.

But according to people like you, the young black man who grew up with advantages like water you don't have to walk a mile to get from a spring, warm baths that didn't take hours to prepare what with all the boiling water on a wood stove and more, is disadvantaged in life and everything he gets that he didn't have to work for is owed to him by those seriously advantaged whites.

You know, those people like you who treat a black man far better than someone like my husband because, well, my husband must be a racist right and therefore doesn't even deserve the chance to work. . Doesn't deserve to be judged on his merit because his merit doesn't count, according to you. Only the color of his skin and all those advantages that left him sleeping as a child under a roof that allowed snow to collect on his bed in the winter.

I believe everyone should be judged on their merit. Not on preconceived prejudices, either way it goes. I have respect for anyone who stands on their own two feet, of any color. Only they are worthy of my respect.

What I think is the height of wrong however, isn't the fact people think my husband must have some advantage to life, but those who are so racist as to think standing toe to toe on merit with people like my husband, the black man is too stupid to measure up and compete with him. THAT thought process is racism at its core, and it's not a thought process anyone I know of on the right side of the isle employs.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

I don't think being white and having a penis brings with it any inherent advantages... and that is honestly what I think.

It does not guarantee anything, but your chances are better.

Same with being handsome/beautifull or tall. Doesn`t mean you are going to be succesfull whatever you take that to mean but it is just that much easier to get ahead of regular folks let alone bit boorish looking short guy.

 

[helmut]

It does not guarantee anything, but your chances are better.

Same with being handsome/beautifull or tall. Doesn`t mean you are going to be succesfull whatever you take that to mean but it is just that much easier to get ahead of regular folks let alone bit boorish looking short guy.

The point of Hazelelponi was (in my perception) that there are white men that are more discriminated than the ordinary black. She didn't give enough details to evaluate that point.

And some of what she writes has nothing to do with discrimination, it is just hardship that happened. Life is not fair, and being white does not guarantee that one experiences no hard times. It is the difference based on sex, race, religion etc. that constitutes discrimination.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

The point of Hazelelponi was (in my perception) that there are white men that are more discriminated than the ordinary black. She didn't give enough details to evaluate that point.

Sure, the effective word here is the ordinary. On average I doubt anyone can seriously say that average black guy has it easier than average white guy.

 

[disciple Clint]

Is it the deep state or lizardmen pulling strings ? Or deep state lizardmen ? Don`t keep us in suspense.

Come now how could you not know?

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Come now how could you not know?

Lizard woman ? Does Hillary have a tail ?

 

[SimplyMe]

I don't think being white and having a penis brings with it any inherent advantages... and that is honestly what I think.

My husband is white and has a penis, and he grew up - in America - without running water or electricity. His whiteness has given him zero advatanges in life and to this day he faces prejudice and discrimination (most especially in employment) if he doesn't hide his native accent.

But he doesn't cry about it, doesn't desire anyone's pity and has made it through life with tons of determination and more hard work than most.

But according to people like you, the young black man who grew up with advantages like water you don't have to walk a mile to get from a spring, warm baths that didn't take hours to prepare what with all the boiling water on a wood stove and more, is disadvantaged in life and everything he gets that he didn't have to work for is owed to him by those seriously advantaged whites.

You know, those people like you who treat a black man far better than someone like my husband because, well, my husband must be a racist right and therefore doesn't even deserve the chance to work. . Doesn't deserve to be judged on his merit because his merit doesn't count, according to you. Only the color of his skin and all those advantages that left him sleeping as a child under a roof that allowed snow to collect on his bed in the winter.

I believe everyone should be judged on their merit. Not on preconceived prejudices, either way it goes. I have respect for anyone who stands on their own two feet, of any color. Only they are worthy of my respect.

What I think is the height of wrong however, isn't the fact people think my husband must have some advantage to life, but those who are so racist as to think standing toe to toe on merit with people like my husband, the black man is too stupid to measure up and compete with him. THAT thought process is racism at its core, and it's not a thought process anyone I know of on the right side of the isle employs.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. How many of our Presidents and Vice Presidents have not been male? How many have not been white? It is hard to argue there isn't some type of advantage there. You can argue that not every white male is "privileged" but there clearly is an advantage in terms of running for President.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. How many of our Presidents and Vice Presidents have not been male? How many have not been white? It is hard to argue there isn't some type of advantage there. You can argue that not every white male is "privileged" but there clearly is an advantage in terms of running for President.

The only advantage seems to be more in the fact men are more prone to spending copious amounts of time working and building their careers than women.

Women who have career paths generally still have concerns about time spent with their children, something some, more career oriented men don't have time for whether they have children or not because men don't let familial considerations stop them from keeping the long hours required.

As president, everything is and must be secondary to the job of presidency and men are more likely to have 1.) the mindset and 2) that level of dedication to a job.

More women these days are more likely to put their children second to their careers, but it's still not as common in women as it is in men. However, the women who do put every other consideration in life second to their careers, can stand toe to toe upon their merit with any man. They don't need special considerations or special accommodations given - something that can never be given a sitting president.

As a result if I ever voted personally for a female president, it would be a republican female because they believe in being judged on their merit and don't expect things to just be handed to them based on gender, or race, while expecting special treatment. We can't afford a president like that in this country, no nation can.

 

[SimplyMe]

The only advantage seems to be more in the fact men are more prone to spending copious amounts of time working and building their careers than women.

Women who have career paths generally still have concerns about time spent with their children, something some, more career oriented men don't have time for whether they have children or not because men don't let familial considerations stop them from keeping the long hours required.

As president, everything is and must be secondary to the job of presidency and men are more likely to have 1.) the mindset and 2) that level of dedication to a job.

More women these days are more likely to put their children second to their careers, but it's still not as common in women as it is in men. However, the women who do put every other consideration in life second to their careers, can stand toe to toe upon their merit with any man. They don't need special considerations or special accommodations given - something that can never be given a sitting president.

As a result if I ever voted personally for a female president, it would be a republican female because they believe in being judged on their merit and don't expect things to just be handed to them based on gender, or race, while expecting special treatment. We can't afford a president like that in this country, no nation can.

As someone who voted back in the 80s, I remember many of the first mainstream female candidates and how they were viewed. I still remember many men talking about how we couldn't trust them -- they were moody, who knew what they might do during "that time of the Month" (including PMSing in office and starting a war), etc. Then there is the idea that if a woman is "tough" she is a [CF censored word], if she didn't take time off to be a wife/mother than that is evidence of something being wrong, etc -- at the same time, as you point out, being "tough" and putting the job first are seen as requirements to be president.

In fact, your "point" of men being more likely to have the "mindset" and "level of dedication" alone would appear to be proof of the discrimination that women face in society. It is an extra hurdle that women must "clear" that men are not required to.

 

[Hazelelponi]

As someone who voted back in the 80s, I remember many of the first mainstream female candidates and how they were viewed. I still remember many men talking about how we couldn't trust them -- they were moody, who knew what they might do during "that time of the Month" (including PMSing in office and starting a war), etc. Then there is the idea that if a woman is "tough" she is a [CF censored word], if she didn't take time off to be a wife/mother than that is evidence of something being wrong, etc -- at the same time, as you point out, being "tough" and putting the job first are seen as requirements to be president.

In fact, your "point" of men being more likely to have the "mindset" and "level of dedication" alone would appear to be proof of the discrimination that women face in society. It is an extra hurdle that women must "clear" that men are not required to.

I don't see it as an extra hurdle to jump through, and I'm a woman.

As far as being seen as a lesbian for putting career first, that's not necessary, many women are barren.

I do believe that if a woman can't go toe to toe with her opponents in a presidential run and win on merit (not gender), she has no right to the office.

The reason being is that as president you have to face all measure of personality in diplomatic situations that aren't so diplomatic, and if one cant face it and win over her countrymen what makes anyone think she can deal with people like Putin, Jinping or the Saudi royal family.

Some women have done it, it can be done but it won't be done by saying you have to vote for me because I'm a woman or else I'll start name calling and if you didn't vote for me then that just means your x, y or z.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I do believe that if a woman can't go toe to toe with her opponents in a presidential run and win on merit (not gender), she has no right to the office.

I agree. However, I've yet to see a woman win the presidency based on her gender OR her merit, so I don't see the relevance of your stipulation.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I agree. However, I've yet to see a woman win the presidency based on her gender OR her merit, so I don't see the relevance of your stipulation.

Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister in the U.K. in the 80's who was excellent at her job.

Just because we haven't yet had a female president in the U.S. doesn't mean there's any particular bar to having one... Tulsi Gabbard would have gotten excellent following 15 years ago in her bid for presidency, its just that now she's just not nutty enough for her party... (which is weird because she's pretty far left).

We simply haven't found the right woman most can agree upon, but that doesn't mean there's some bar to having a female president here.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister in the U.K. in the 80's who was excellent at her job.

Okay, I thought we were talking about the US here, but I still don't see how this justifies your stipulation that a woman should be elected because of her merits rather than her gender. Show me a case where a woman was elected to national office over a more qualified candidate because of her gender.

Just because we haven't yet had a female president in the U.S. doesn't mean there's any particular bar to having one... Tulsi Gabbard would have gotten excellent following 15 years ago in her bid for presidency, its just that now she's just not nutty enough for her party... (which is weird because she's pretty far left).

We simply haven't found the right woman most can agree upon, but that doesn't mean there's some bar to having a female president here.

No, it doesn't mean that a bar exists, but it does certainly suggest it, especially given the number of women who have held equivalent office in other nations.