IMO that was Amy Klobuchar from the folks that ran in the primaries. Advocated for her at the time.Who was the "best"?
SMFH
From her flame out I certainly didn’t think it was Harris.
IMO that was Amy Klobuchar from the folks that ran in the primaries. Advocated for her at the time.Who was the "best"?
SMFH
It was an eventual criteria. There are pros and cons to any choice. The fact that they wanted the perspective of a woman and a PoC is as valid as any other criteria at that point.I didn’t say “only” Riley. But it was the litmus test to get to the qualification part.
The final 4 were all women of color Riley. It pretty obvious.
You can pretend otherwise but I think you know it’s true. Just can’t admit it.
Was that a consensus? Do you acknowledge that different people mught have different, valid, opinons?IMO that was Amy Klobuchar from the folks that ran in the primaries. Advocated for her at the time.
From her flame out I certainly didn’t think it was Harris.
I said she was qualified in my first response to you.It was an eventual criteria. There are pros and cons to any choice. The fact that they wanted the perspective of a woman and a PoC is as valid as any other criteria at that point.
If she is qualified why does it matter to you what the reasons are for the final choice?
Sure.Was that a consensus? Do you acknowledge that different people mught have different, valid, opinons?
Sigh.I basically have 3 issues with what you're saying. The first is, no quantifiable definition of "best" exist for VP, you're operating under the assumption that pledge to select a female POC was the first filter ignoring any vetting processes that were already underway within the campaign and your basic assumption that by not including white males in the pool automatically has eliminated the "best" person for this entirely unique elected position.(whatever the hell that means to you)
In regards to your first issue…
For a 78 year old candidate the #1 consideration should have been picking the best person to take over if he was incapacitated.
Sure.
Is it your opinion Harris was the best choice if Joe was incapacitated?
It was a qualification, not THE qualification. That's where you and the others get off track.I said she was qualified in my first response to you.
It’s his pick…he can pick who wants. Just don’t pretend that being a woman of color wasn’t the litmus test.
I think she is a completely viable choice. I would have no way of determining who is "best". And neither do you.Sure.
Is it your opinion Harris was the best choice if Joe was incapacitated?
It was a qualification, not THE qualification. That's where you and the others get off track.
The question remains, if she is qualified in your eyes why does it make a difference?
Sigh.
1) I'm saying that race and gender, unless you're doing it for vote getting itself, don't make any sense as a positive predictor of performance. To filter on those could only serve to unnecessarily narrow your set of good candidates. Just like height or hair style or being male or roller skating. Yes, there are diverse criteria for what might be "best" -- but race and gender aren't included in that set.
2) Of course it's always possible that it just so happened that the people that roller skate are also the best candidates. But if you're screeching about the need to pick roller skating people, or siblings of the president (nepotism) or only white people you're going to come under scrutiny for filtering on attributes that don't matter. And rightfully so.
3) If your given selection sort of sucks -- or appeared to suck as Harris did in the primaries -- and you've got a selection criteria on an attribute irrelevant to the job that favored them.... people are going to wonder. And they might even just be a bit critical of your decision making.
4) Biden and the democrats came under fire for explicitly stating that they would pick a woman (and then a woman of color I think, the final 4) coupled with the fact that Harris didn't seem to be a strong candidate. If Harris was a strong candidate, and or they had said we're doing this to turn out the black vote, I don't think you get any of this clapback. But that's not what happened.
Capeesh?
The republicans are the only ones bothered by it. And it's obvious why.The obvious point is that that race and gender qualification knocks out a bunch of other candidates and people are left wondering how good the candidate chosen is.
I mean, nepotism is frowned upon for the same reason.
But maybe your brother really is the best for the job...
She did well enough to be picked as the VP running mate.And this is all easy to question in regards to Kamala because we watched her perform very poorly on the national stage during the primaries.
That coupled all the clamoring for a woman of color on the left obviously led you to believe she may be there because of those attributes
I said she was qualified in my first response to you.
It’s his pick…he can pick who wants. Just don’t pretend that being a woman of color wasn’t the litmus test.
She’s half black but no part African American. Her father, who basically shunned her, is Jamaican and descended from the owner of a slave market.She's not black.
Is it your opinion that Mike Pence or JD Vance was/is the best choice if Trump is incapacitated? Why do you think they were chosen by Trump?Sure.
Is it your opinion Harris was the best choice if Joe was incapacitated?
It's obviously because A) they don't believe in affirmative action logic B) they don't think Kalama is a strong pick.The republicans are the only ones bothered by it. And it's obvious why.