Trumps running mate

These two paragraphs sum up why Biden is the greater evil:

This country cannot tolerate another four years of Joe Biden. Four more years of White House ideologues pushing extreme agendas on climate, immigration and crime will permanently enshrine policies that are damaging to our country. Four more years of cozying up to Iran, entrenching the U.S. in globalist agreements, and working against our own geopolitical advantages in, for instance, fossil fuel dominance will further weaken our standing on the world stage.
It is abundantly clear that the elites pulling Joe Biden’s strings do not care about ordinary Americans. People concerned about the cost of living do not spend billions of dollars on electric vehicles and other climate boondoggles. People concerned about public safety do not open our borders to millions of unvetted migrants. People concerned about the nation’s health do not allow diseases and fentanyl to flood across our border.

The following paragraph is one reason the author wants Haley:

Trump is term-limited to four years; if he wins, his running mate will occupy the pole position to run for the presidency in 2028. Haley could be the nation’s first female president.

Another potential running mate is Tim Scott, the author of this article.

Trump's policies have uplifted black families

The key words are the first two in the title: Trump's policies. Policies are why he is the better choice.

(06-21-2024 07:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trumps running mate

These two paragraphs sum up why Biden is the greater evil:

This country cannot tolerate another four years of Joe Biden. Four more years of White House ideologues pushing extreme agendas on climate, immigration and crime will permanently enshrine policies that are damaging to our country. Four more years of cozying up to Iran, entrenching the U.S. in globalist agreements, and working against our own geopolitical advantages in, for instance, fossil fuel dominance will further weaken our standing on the world stage.
It is abundantly clear that the elites pulling Joe Biden’s strings do not care about ordinary Americans. People concerned about the cost of living do not spend billions of dollars on electric vehicles and other climate boondoggles. People concerned about public safety do not open our borders to millions of unvetted migrants. People concerned about the nation’s health do not allow diseases and fentanyl to flood across our border.

The following paragraph is one reason the author wants Haley:

Trump is term-limited to four years; if he wins, his running mate will occupy the pole position to run for the presidency in 2028. Haley could be the nation’s first female president.

Identity politics. Both sides love it!!!

(06-21-2024 09:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 07:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trumps running mate

These two paragraphs sum up why Biden is the greater evil:

This country cannot tolerate another four years of Joe Biden. Four more years of White House ideologues pushing extreme agendas on climate, immigration and crime will permanently enshrine policies that are damaging to our country. Four more years of cozying up to Iran, entrenching the U.S. in globalist agreements, and working against our own geopolitical advantages in, for instance, fossil fuel dominance will further weaken our standing on the world stage.
It is abundantly clear that the elites pulling Joe Biden’s strings do not care about ordinary Americans. People concerned about the cost of living do not spend billions of dollars on electric vehicles and other climate boondoggles. People concerned about public safety do not open our borders to millions of unvetted migrants. People concerned about the nation’s health do not allow diseases and fentanyl to flood across our border.

The following paragraph is one reason the author wants Haley:

Trump is term-limited to four years; if he wins, his running mate will occupy the pole position to run for the presidency in 2028. Haley could be the nation’s first female president.

Identity politics. Both sides love it!!!

But not as the first black-female . That designation was for Kamala, as the defining characteristics of Biden's VP choice.

IAC, I will be glad when we start running out of "firsts" to be achieved. Just waiting on the first lefthanded handicapped lesbian under 5' tall to be selected to the Supreme Court.

The author is a woman, so perhaps the female aspect meant more to her.

(06-21-2024 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 09:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 07:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trumps running mate

These two paragraphs sum up why Biden is the greater evil:

This country cannot tolerate another four years of Joe Biden. Four more years of White House ideologues pushing extreme agendas on climate, immigration and crime will permanently enshrine policies that are damaging to our country. Four more years of cozying up to Iran, entrenching the U.S. in globalist agreements, and working against our own geopolitical advantages in, for instance, fossil fuel dominance will further weaken our standing on the world stage.
It is abundantly clear that the elites pulling Joe Biden’s strings do not care about ordinary Americans. People concerned about the cost of living do not spend billions of dollars on electric vehicles and other climate boondoggles. People concerned about public safety do not open our borders to millions of unvetted migrants. People concerned about the nation’s health do not allow diseases and fentanyl to flood across our border.

The following paragraph is one reason the author wants Haley:

Trump is term-limited to four years; if he wins, his running mate will occupy the pole position to run for the presidency in 2028. Haley could be the nation’s first female president.

Identity politics. Both sides love it!!!

But not as the first black-female . That designation was for Kamala, as the defining characteristics of Biden's VP choice.

IAC, I will be glad when we start running out of "firsts" to be achieved. Just waiting on the first lefthanded handicapped lesbian under 5' tall to be selected to the Supreme Court.

The author is a woman, so perhaps the female aspect meant more to her.

Who cares? A distinction without a difference.

Right-wingers harrraumph harrraumph when identity politics are trotted out by the left but they are totally happy to employ them themselves.

I thought we wanted "the best person for the job" and that we weren't interested in any identifiers beyond that?

(06-21-2024 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 09:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 07:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trumps running mate

These two paragraphs sum up why Biden is the greater evil:

This country cannot tolerate another four years of Joe Biden. Four more years of White House ideologues pushing extreme agendas on climate, immigration and crime will permanently enshrine policies that are damaging to our country. Four more years of cozying up to Iran, entrenching the U.S. in globalist agreements, and working against our own geopolitical advantages in, for instance, fossil fuel dominance will further weaken our standing on the world stage.
It is abundantly clear that the elites pulling Joe Biden’s strings do not care about ordinary Americans. People concerned about the cost of living do not spend billions of dollars on electric vehicles and other climate boondoggles. People concerned about public safety do not open our borders to millions of unvetted migrants. People concerned about the nation’s health do not allow diseases and fentanyl to flood across our border.

The following paragraph is one reason the author wants Haley:

Trump is term-limited to four years; if he wins, his running mate will occupy the pole position to run for the presidency in 2028. Haley could be the nation’s first female president.

Identity politics. Both sides love it!!!

But not as the first black-female . That designation was for Kamala, as the defining characteristics of Biden's VP choice.

IAC, I will be glad when we start running out of "firsts" to be achieved. Just waiting on the first lefthanded handicapped lesbian under 5' tall to be selected to the Supreme Court.

The author is a woman, so perhaps the female aspect meant more to her.

Who cares? A distinction without a difference.

Right-wingers harrraumph harrraumph when identity politics are trotted out by the left but they are totally happy to employ them themselves.

I thought we wanted "the best person for the job" and that we weren't interested in any identifiers beyond that?

Who said I was happy? CNN? AOC? You? I didn't.

That was the opinion and statement of the author, Liz Peek.

I didn't even say I favored Haley. It was the two paragraphs I quoted before that that caught my eye. The last, that you have focused on, was a throw-in.

I do want the best person for the job, whether a he or she, black or white, tall or small, whatever. Don't you? Where have I said differently?

I think Haley is one of a group of candidates for the job, including some who are female, some who are male, and some who are POCs, some who are not, who would make excellent running mates for the elderly white man I favor(for his policies, not his race or sex), and all would be better than the giggling, ineffectual VP we have now. One more reason to vote Trump.

Good to have ya back, 93. Glad to see that R&R hasn't mellowed you.

(06-21-2024 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 09:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 07:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Trumps running mate

These two paragraphs sum up why Biden is the greater evil:

This country cannot tolerate another four years of Joe Biden. Four more years of White House ideologues pushing extreme agendas on climate, immigration and crime will permanently enshrine policies that are damaging to our country. Four more years of cozying up to Iran, entrenching the U.S. in globalist agreements, and working against our own geopolitical advantages in, for instance, fossil fuel dominance will further weaken our standing on the world stage.
It is abundantly clear that the elites pulling Joe Biden’s strings do not care about ordinary Americans. People concerned about the cost of living do not spend billions of dollars on electric vehicles and other climate boondoggles. People concerned about public safety do not open our borders to millions of unvetted migrants. People concerned about the nation’s health do not allow diseases and fentanyl to flood across our border.

The following paragraph is one reason the author wants Haley:

Trump is term-limited to four years; if he wins, his running mate will occupy the pole position to run for the presidency in 2028. Haley could be the nation’s first female president.

Identity politics. Both sides love it!!!

But not as the first black-female . That designation was for Kamala, as the defining characteristics of Biden's VP choice.

IAC, I will be glad when we start running out of "firsts" to be achieved. Just waiting on the first lefthanded handicapped lesbian under 5' tall to be selected to the Supreme Court.

The author is a woman, so perhaps the female aspect meant more to her.

Who cares? A distinction without a difference.

Right-wingers harrraumph harrraumph when identity politics are trotted out by the left but they are totally happy to employ them themselves.

I thought we wanted "the best person for the job" and that we weren't interested in any identifiers beyond that?

Who said I was happy? CNN? AOC? You? I didn't.

That was the opinion and statement of the author, Liz Peek.

I didn't even say I favored Haley. It was the two paragraphs I quoted before that that caught my eye. The last, that you have focused on, was a throw-in.


I do want the best person for the job, whether a he or she, black or white, tall or small, whatever. Don't you? Where have I said differently?

I think Haley is one of a group of candidates for the job, including some who are female, some who are male, and some who are POCs, some who are not, who would make excellent running mates for the elderly white man I favor(for his policies, not his race or sex), and all would be better than the giggling, ineffectual VP we have now. One more reason to vote Trump.

Good to have ya back, 93. Glad to see that R&R hasn't mellowed you.

Not for the first time the fact that Haley would be the first female President was trotted out as a positive. I remember multiple instances where right-wingers called out Tim Scott's race as a positive.

Would you consider Liz Peek as a right-winger? I was referring to her.

I guess the fact that you pointed that out was of zero importance which makes me wonder why you decided to point it out at all.

*edit* No un-mellowness involved. Just pointing out identity politics. That's the sort of thing we do here, yes?

(06-21-2024 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 09:11 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Identity politics. Both sides love it!!!

But not as the first black-female . That designation was for Kamala, as the defining characteristics of Biden's VP choice.

IAC, I will be glad when we start running out of "firsts" to be achieved. Just waiting on the first lefthanded handicapped lesbian under 5' tall to be selected to the Supreme Court.

The author is a woman, so perhaps the female aspect meant more to her.

Who cares? A distinction without a difference.

Right-wingers harrraumph harrraumph when identity politics are trotted out by the left but they are totally happy to employ them themselves.

I thought we wanted "the best person for the job" and that we weren't interested in any identifiers beyond that?

Who said I was happy? CNN? AOC? You? I didn't.

That was the opinion and statement of the author, Liz Peek.

I didn't even say I favored Haley. It was the two paragraphs I quoted before that that caught my eye. The last, that you have focused on, was a throw-in.


I do want the best person for the job, whether a he or she, black or white, tall or small, whatever. Don't you? Where have I said differently?

I think Haley is one of a group of candidates for the job, including some who are female, some who are male, and some who are POCs, some who are not, who would make excellent running mates for the elderly white man I favor(for his policies, not his race or sex), and all would be better than the giggling, ineffectual VP we have now. One more reason to vote Trump.

Good to have ya back, 93. Glad to see that R&R hasn't mellowed you.

Not for the first time the fact that Haley would be the first female President was trotted out as a positive. I remember multiple instances where right-wingers called out Tim Scott's race as a positive.

Would you consider Liz Peek as a right-winger? I was referring to her.

I guess the fact that you pointed that out was of zero importance which makes me wonder why you decided to point it out at all.

*edit* No un-mellowness involved. Just pointing out identity politics. That's the sort of thing we do here, yes?

Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.


I care zero for a person’s skin color, racial background, or sex. I care about policies and competence. Sooner or later, all these stupid “firsts” will be met. Mostly it is the Blue teamers who herald them, as in the case of the VP and the case of the most recent SCOTUS appointment.

Maybe somewhere you can find a Red teamer that cares. Good luck. You won’t find him or her at my house.

(06-21-2024 07:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But not as the first black-female . That designation was for Kamala, as the defining characteristics of Biden's VP choice.

IAC, I will be glad when we start running out of "firsts" to be achieved. Just waiting on the first lefthanded handicapped lesbian under 5' tall to be selected to the Supreme Court.

The author is a woman, so perhaps the female aspect meant more to her.

Who cares? A distinction without a difference.

Right-wingers harrraumph harrraumph when identity politics are trotted out by the left but they are totally happy to employ them themselves.

I thought we wanted "the best person for the job" and that we weren't interested in any identifiers beyond that?

Who said I was happy? CNN? AOC? You? I didn't.

That was the opinion and statement of the author, Liz Peek.

I didn't even say I favored Haley. It was the two paragraphs I quoted before that that caught my eye. The last, that you have focused on, was a throw-in.


I do want the best person for the job, whether a he or she, black or white, tall or small, whatever. Don't you? Where have I said differently?

I think Haley is one of a group of candidates for the job, including some who are female, some who are male, and some who are POCs, some who are not, who would make excellent running mates for the elderly white man I favor(for his policies, not his race or sex), and all would be better than the giggling, ineffectual VP we have now. One more reason to vote Trump.

Good to have ya back, 93. Glad to see that R&R hasn't mellowed you.

Not for the first time the fact that Haley would be the first female President was trotted out as a positive. I remember multiple instances where right-wingers called out Tim Scott's race as a positive.

Would you consider Liz Peek as a right-winger? I was referring to her.

I guess the fact that you pointed that out was of zero importance which makes me wonder why you decided to point it out at all.

*edit* No un-mellowness involved. Just pointing out identity politics. That's the sort of thing we do here, yes?

Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.


I care zero for a person’s skin color, racial background, or sex. I care about policies and competence. Sooner or later, all these stupid “firsts” will be met. Mostly it is the Blue teamers who herald them, as in the case of the VP and the case of the most recent SCOTUS appointment.

Maybe somewhere you can find a Red teamer that cares. Good luck. You won’t find him or her at my house.

Oh s***. I found one. It is the author of the article that you posted.

(06-21-2024 08:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 07:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Who cares? A distinction without a difference.

Right-wingers harrraumph harrraumph when identity politics are trotted out by the left but they are totally happy to employ them themselves.

I thought we wanted "the best person for the job" and that we weren't interested in any identifiers beyond that?

Who said I was happy? CNN? AOC? You? I didn't.

That was the opinion and statement of the author, Liz Peek.

I didn't even say I favored Haley. It was the two paragraphs I quoted before that that caught my eye. The last, that you have focused on, was a throw-in.


I do want the best person for the job, whether a he or she, black or white, tall or small, whatever. Don't you? Where have I said differently?

I think Haley is one of a group of candidates for the job, including some who are female, some who are male, and some who are POCs, some who are not, who would make excellent running mates for the elderly white man I favor(for his policies, not his race or sex), and all would be better than the giggling, ineffectual VP we have now. One more reason to vote Trump.

Good to have ya back, 93. Glad to see that R&R hasn't mellowed you.

Not for the first time the fact that Haley would be the first female President was trotted out as a positive. I remember multiple instances where right-wingers called out Tim Scott's race as a positive.

Would you consider Liz Peek as a right-winger? I was referring to her.

I guess the fact that you pointed that out was of zero importance which makes me wonder why you decided to point it out at all.

*edit* No un-mellowness involved. Just pointing out identity politics. That's the sort of thing we do here, yes?

Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.


I care zero for a person’s skin color, racial background, or sex. I care about policies and competence. Sooner or later, all these stupid “firsts” will be met. Mostly it is the Blue teamers who herald them, as in the case of the VP and the case of the most recent SCOTUS appointment.

Maybe somewhere you can find a Red teamer that cares. Good luck. You won’t find him or her at my house.

Oh s***. I found one. It is the author of the article that you posted.

She’s not at my house.

You found ONE. (Your words). I would wager you could find some more, as diligently as you are pursuing this……point?. Especially women who would like to see a woman elected to this post or that one.


Amazing how the left always tries to equate a single incident (George Floyd) or a few people (Jan 6 or Charlottesville) to being representative of the entire right. You should be embarrassed to be a part of that.

But I think you could find far more people who care about race/sex in the Leftist Party.

(06-21-2024 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 08:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 07:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:27 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Who said I was happy? CNN? AOC? You? I didn't.

That was the opinion and statement of the author, Liz Peek.

I didn't even say I favored Haley. It was the two paragraphs I quoted before that that caught my eye. The last, that you have focused on, was a throw-in.


I do want the best person for the job, whether a he or she, black or white, tall or small, whatever. Don't you? Where have I said differently?

I think Haley is one of a group of candidates for the job, including some who are female, some who are male, and some who are POCs, some who are not, who would make excellent running mates for the elderly white man I favor(for his policies, not his race or sex), and all would be better than the giggling, ineffectual VP we have now. One more reason to vote Trump.

Good to have ya back, 93. Glad to see that R&R hasn't mellowed you.

Not for the first time the fact that Haley would be the first female President was trotted out as a positive. I remember multiple instances where right-wingers called out Tim Scott's race as a positive.

Would you consider Liz Peek as a right-winger? I was referring to her.

I guess the fact that you pointed that out was of zero importance which makes me wonder why you decided to point it out at all.

*edit* No un-mellowness involved. Just pointing out identity politics. That's the sort of thing we do here, yes?

Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.


I care zero for a person’s skin color, racial background, or sex. I care about policies and competence. Sooner or later, all these stupid “firsts” will be met. Mostly it is the Blue teamers who herald them, as in the case of the VP and the case of the most recent SCOTUS appointment.

Maybe somewhere you can find a Red teamer that cares. Good luck. You won’t find him or her at my house.

Oh s***. I found one. It is the author of the article that you posted.

She’s not at my house.

If your contention was that I would not find one at your house then you probably need to go back and write your post over to convey that idea.

(06-21-2024 08:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 08:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 07:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Not for the first time the fact that Haley would be the first female President was trotted out as a positive. I remember multiple instances where right-wingers called out Tim Scott's race as a positive.

Would you consider Liz Peek as a right-winger? I was referring to her.

I guess the fact that you pointed that out was of zero importance which makes me wonder why you decided to point it out at all.

*edit* No un-mellowness involved. Just pointing out identity politics. That's the sort of thing we do here, yes?

Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.


I care zero for a person’s skin color, racial background, or sex. I care about policies and competence. Sooner or later, all these stupid “firsts” will be met. Mostly it is the Blue teamers who herald them, as in the case of the VP and the case of the most recent SCOTUS appointment.

Maybe somewhere you can find a Red teamer that cares. Good luck. You won’t find him or her at my house.

Oh s***. I found one. It is the author of the article that you posted.

She’s not at my house.

If your contention was that I would not find one at your house then you probably need to go back and write your post over to convey that idea.

It’s the part right after the bolded.

Getting really petty and nitpicky now. As usual with most lefties.

Restating….


Generally speaking, the Dems are the party that hangs its hat on racial and/ or sex identities. For exampleBiden’s promises to have a black female running mate and to nominate a black female to the Supreme Court, as though the important things were race and sex, not ability or competency.

Excluding roughly 80-85% of the pool arbitrarily is not often going to result in the selection of the best overall candidate. If anyone thinks that it always results in the selection of a superior candidate.

The GOP, OTOH, does much, much less of that.

Any proof to the contrary will be welcomed and inspected.

Maybe if 93would just state the point he is trying to make…..

(06-21-2024 10:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Getting really petty and nitpicky now. As usual with most lefties.

Broad generalizations that don’t even apply, as usual with OO.

Quote:Restating….


Generally speaking, the Dems are the party that hangs its hat on racial and/ or sex identities. For exampleBiden’s promises to have a black female running mate and to nominate a black female to the Supreme Court, as though the important things were race and sex, not ability or competency.

Excluding roughly 80-85% of the pool arbitrarily is not often going to result in the selection of the best overall candidate. If anyone thinks that it always results in the selection of a superior candidate.

The GOP, OTOH, does much, much less of that.

Any proof to the contrary will be welcomed and inspected.

Maybe if 93would just state the point he is trying to make…..

See post #3 in this thread. While crying foul regarding identity politics, right wingers often employ identity politics themselves.

(06-21-2024 09:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 08:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 08:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 07:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.


I care zero for a person’s skin color, racial background, or sex. I care about policies and competence. Sooner or later, all these stupid “firsts” will be met. Mostly it is the Blue teamers who herald them, as in the case of the VP and the case of the most recent SCOTUS appointment.

Maybe somewhere you can find a Red teamer that cares. Good luck. You won’t find him or her at my house.

Oh s***. I found one. It is the author of the article that you posted.

She’s not at my house.

If your contention was that I would not find one at your house then you probably need to go back and write your post over to convey that idea.

It’s the part right after the bolded.

The bolded part where you said would be hard to find a red teamer that cared about identity politics? Because that read as being separate from the lack of examples at your house.

(06-21-2024 11:40 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 09:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 08:42 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 08:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 08:16 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Oh s***. I found one. It is the author of the article that you posted.

She’s not at my house.

If your contention was that I would not find one at your house then you probably need to go back and write your post over to convey that idea.

It’s the part right after the bolded.

The bolded part where you said would be hard to find a red teamer that cared about identity politics? Because that read as being separate from the lack of examples at your house.

Hard, not impossible. Surely you know the difference?

I think 93’s thesis is that if one can find an oak or two in a 90%+ pine forest, it is exactly the same as an 90%+ oak forest. Does that about cover it, 93? If not, what is the point you are trying to make?

Since 93 has very effectively diverted this thread, I am reposting the important parts of Liz Peek’s article here for the attention of other posters.



This country cannot tolerate another four years of Joe Biden. Four more years of White House ideologues pushing extreme agendas on climate, immigration and crime will permanently enshrine policies that are damaging to our country. Four more years of cozying up to Iran, entrenching the U.S. in globalist agreements, and working against our own geopolitical advantages in, for instance, fossil fuel dominance will further weaken our standing on the world stage.
It is abundantly clear that the elites pulling Joe Biden’s strings do not care about ordinary Americans. People concerned about the cost of living do not spend billions of dollars on electric vehicles and other climate boondoggles. People concerned about public safety do not open our borders to millions of unvetted migrants. People concerned about the nation’s health do not allow diseases and fentanyl to flood across our border.

(06-21-2024 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Who cares? A distinction without a difference.

Right-wingers harrraumph harrraumph when identity politics are trotted out by the left but they are totally happy to employ them themselves.

I thought we wanted "the best person for the job" and that we weren't interested in any identifiers beyond that?

Here is the difference...

While I am generalizing, a few have actually admitted this.... I specifically recall this regarding the SCOTUS nomination of KJB. The left decides what race or gender or gender identity they want to promote... and then they find 'the best' among those people. They value identity over quality. That is specifically what most 'affirmative action' does. It does things (and this is an obvious example, not a representative one) like setting the bar at the bare minimum... 35, natural born, lived here for 14 years.... and then assumes that everyone who meets those criteria are equally qualified... so selecting among them for other reasons now is legitimized. I think you can set the bar sufficiently high so as to let the differences between candidates be de minimus... and demographics can play the deciding role... but this is as a result of RAISING, not lowering the bar...

The right (generally... certainly not exclusively) finds 'the best people', and then celebrates when that turns out to be someone who has risen above historical oppression. Of course, bringing in a demographic can also be strategic... especially in an election... I don't mean in any way to imply that demographics can't play a role... it just shouldn't be (as it was for KJB) the first cut.

My short list would be Ramaswami, Tim Scott, Nikky Haley and Tulsi Gabbard. I think they are all highly qualified and would all make excellent Presidents... should something happen. That is criteria 1. Not one white man in my list... and it's not intentional. I think the white men being bantered about are 'qualified'.... but they simply don't appeal to me. They don't appear to be exceptionally smart, or exceptionally devoted or exceptionally compelling.

Tell me... Was or would Kamala Harris be on your personal short list for President? Do you think she'd be on 30% of the nation's list?? If not, then why is she literally the 'President in waiting'??

Even Mayor Pete got 2.5% of the votes in the 2020 Democratic Primary.

Nobody has a problem with celebrating firsts... the problem is how they reached that summit. Were they the best, or were they just the best 'token'. That is literally where the phrase came from.

That is a distinction WITH a difference.

Speaking of identity hires...

(06-25-2024 08:54 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-21-2024 10:14 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Who cares? A distinction without a difference.

Right-wingers harrraumph harrraumph when identity politics are trotted out by the left but they are totally happy to employ them themselves.

I thought we wanted "the best person for the job" and that we weren't interested in any identifiers beyond that?

Here is the difference...

While I am generalizing, a few have actually admitted this.... I specifically recall this regarding the SCOTUS nomination of KJB. The left decides what race or gender or gender identity they want to promote... and then they find 'the best' among those people. They value identity over quality. That is specifically what most 'affirmative action' does. It does things (and this is an obvious example, not a representative one) like setting the bar at the bare minimum... 35, natural born, lived here for 14 years.... and then assumes that everyone who meets those criteria are equally qualified... so selecting among them for other reasons now is legitimized. I think you can set the bar sufficiently high so as to let the differences between candidates be de minimus... and demographics can play the deciding role... but this is as a result of RAISING, not lowering the bar...

The right (generally... certainly not exclusively) finds 'the best people', and then celebrates when that turns out to be someone who has risen above historical oppression. Of course, bringing in a demographic can also be strategic... especially in an election... I don't mean in any way to imply that demographics can't play a role... it just shouldn't be (as it was for KJB) the first cut.

My short list would be Ramaswami, Tim Scott, Nikky Haley and Tulsi Gabbard. I think they are all highly qualified and would all make excellent Presidents... should something happen. That is criteria 1. Not one white man in my list... and it's not intentional. I think the white men being bantered about are 'qualified'.... but they simply don't appeal to me. They don't appear to be exceptionally smart, or exceptionally devoted or exceptionally compelling.

Tell me... Was or would Kamala Harris be on your personal short list for President? Do you think she'd be on 30% of the nation's list?? If not, then why is she literally the 'President in waiting'??

Even Mayor Pete got 2.5% of the votes in the 2020 Democratic Primary.

Nobody has a problem with celebrating firsts... the problem is how they reached that summit. Were they the best, or were they just the best 'token'. That is literally where the phrase came from.

That is a distinction WITH a difference.

Well said. Should I ever ascend to the WH (the write-in campaign is underway as I type), you will be my first choice for communications director.

I like your short list, especially the inclusion of Gabbard. I would add Donalds, not because he is black nor because he is male, but because he has impressed me on the Sunday shows.