2024 Field

mqt said:
Oprah’s life did not start when she became a Billionaire. As Zito laid out, the rest of that portion of her speech was about the positive elements of our country and its people.

But just because she lives a life of privilege today due to her wealth and social status, it doesn’t mean that she hasn’t experienced racism or sexism either after or especially before she became Oprah. At the end of the day, *she* earned her place in our society through her talent and hard work, but she can still reflect on challenges she’s faced as a black woman in a place in our country where other black women don’t often make it.
Click to expand...

So she made it to the top in a country that supposedly holds blacks down?
 
thethe said:
Hahah - their voters are dumb enough to believe this versus the platform for the last 16 years.

God bless your stupidity.
Click to expand...

I know you have been following the DNC. The FREEDOM signs, times that God has been mentioned, chants of USA...USA are plain for anyone to see. There is a shift of perception underway within how the party presents itself and the issues it talks about and the Dems are going after it. Voters are indeed smart enough to see that DJT is a lawless man running from accountability and trying to stay out of jail. They also see MAGA and the GOP infringing on long held rights - abortion, books, education, etc. So yes, it is very true that because of DJT and overturning Roe, the Democratic candidate for POTUS finds herself in the enviable position as the more conservative, small "c", candidate.

One of the meanings of "conserve" is to keep and protect. Kamala Harris is indeed the candidate who wants to keep and protect American democracy, its freedoms and the Constitution. The MAGA man wants to blow up America with Project 25. We wants a weak govt, meaningless laws, and a non-existent infrastructure like Russia has so he and a few of his fellow oligarchs can enjoy all the wealth and privilege for themselves.

The Dem ticket this time is the conservative choice, and that's reflected in how many Republicans and ex-Maga folk spoke at the DNC for Harris.

How many Democrats spoke at the RNC?

Did you listen to Geoff Duncan's speech???

Republicans for Harris are going to put her over the top.
 
msstate7 said:
So she made it to the top in a country that supposedly holds blacks down?
Click to expand...

Look, I think most liberals actually take far a far too unsophisticated view on this topic as well, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument about racism and power structures in America. I was interested in exploring my thoughts on this so I got a big long-winded. I don’t expect everyone to agree and I’m aware that I’m going to run into some immediate objections to anything I say about this, but I’d like to lay out my views on this and where I think both sides get it wrong:

To start with taking liberals to task, there’s an aura of tokenism or ‘diversity for the sake of diversity’ in many of the arguments made by many Leftists, particularly white ones. There’s a push to get the first ‘this’ or ‘that’ in some position of power, or to fulfill quotas for people of certain backgrounds in various institutions and jobs. And to be clear, I think it’s a societal good when someone from an underrepresented demographic gets into roles that have largely been reserved for old white men due to prior policies or practices. But many see that as an end goal rather than a byproduct of a more equitable society. I do not think it was any more necessary to have a black female SCOTUS Justice than any other race or gender in America. In a position like SCOTUS, there’s only 9 people and I think diversity of thought is the only thing I’d consider for the role beyond basic qualifications. You can get that diversity of thought through nominating people from any type of different background. I think it’s too simplistic then to ensure that background is of a black woman, when it could be achieved even through something as simple as selecting a judge from the working class who didn’t get to go to Yale and instead worked his or her way through night school before obtaining the necessary qualifications to rise to the Supreme Court. Race and gender are powerful drivers of different perspectives, but they’re not the only ones and the left forgets this at times. I think the Left also gets Affirmative Action wrong for the same reasons. The focus is on the result, not the process. Real affirmative action would involve addressing the cycle of poverty that some of our communities (including “white” rural America) have faced for generations. My preferred method would be through investing more in education and measures to improve the living conditions for people in these communities. Simply measuring and trying to increase the percentage of people of different races getting into schools does nothing to lift up those that are still left behind.

But the Right also often takes a cynically narrow view of what someone needs to do to succeed in America. People look at immensely gifted individuals like Oprah or the Obamas and say “hey, they did it. How can there still be a problem?” The reality is that success on that level requires an almost cosmic amount of talent and luck, or a head start. Up until a couple generations ago, there were still laws allowing for segregation and many of the extensive social programs that helped to increase the middle class were able to explicitly exclude certain races. That typically makes the ‘head start’ route to success pretty out-of-reach for black Americans, regardless of improvements made since the Civil Rights Movement.

It is true that legally all citizens are equally protected on paper. And despite what some on the left will tell you, criminal justice abuses are not exclusively a race issue. But it’s also not true that there isn’t a bias in the policing, convicting and sentencing of black Americans. Nor is it true that DEI has “overtaken” the board rooms in America and a white person can’t get a job these days. The reality is that the vast majority of those in positions of true power like the lawmakers and the ultra-wealthy are still white men, and not always just in the same proportion to the overall population. Generational wealth and land ownership drive a lot of this, and it’s cyclical not only because they have the resources to begin with, but because many of the systems were built around their resources.

The word equity is more than just a Leftist buzzword (though it’s also that). It’s recognizing that despite the nominal equality we have, the public schools in poor neighborhoods are still worse than the ones in affluent ones, as are the roads and other infrastructure and that if we don’t fix this, the cycle will repeat itself. The most gifted and determined of the bunch will still rise to the top and pull their family out of poverty, but the majority will not. And notice I didn’t mention race here. We don’t need to just build programs around helping black people or Latino people or Asian people. We need to build programs that help people who are vulnerable in our society. But it’d be nice if some would be brave enough to admit that all other things equal in America, it’s still better to be a straight white male today.

I also think many on the right are too quick to dismiss a person as unqualified due to certain pushes for diversity. Justice Jackson was 100% qualified for her role, as was Kamala Harris. Just because someone’s race or gender played a role in the decision doesn’t mean they aren’t also capable and qualified for the role.
 
Last edited:
"No death penalty" scrubbed from the Democratic Platform.

That's quite a policy shift for a California liberal. Meaning...she ain't as liberal as MAGA world says.
 
She was much better than anyone could have expected. Very patriotic, strong and professional, but governing and speech delivering are not the same thing.

MAGA supporter - "Who knew she could make her case like that? Almost sounded like a professional lawyer. ???"
 
Last edited:
Anyone want to explain Trump's claim everyone including liberals wanted Roe v Wade overturned to me. Is that not the same as Biden saying everyone including Republicans want open borders?
 
cajunrevenge said:
Anyone want to explain Trump's claim everyone including liberals wanted Roe v Wade overturned to me. Is that not the same as Biden saying everyone including Republicans want open borders?
Click to expand...

I'm gonna let you in a little secret - politicians lie... all of them lie.
 
cajunrevenge said:
Anyone want to explain Trump's claim everyone including liberals wanted Roe v Wade overturned to me. Is that not the same as Biden saying everyone including Republicans want open borders?
Click to expand...

The most generous interpretation is that he’s trying to invoke what RBG and many legal scholars felt about the ruling, that it was build on a shoddy legal foundation that would leave it vulnerable to being overturned. Which of course is a far cry from “everyone wanting” it to be overturned.
 
Tapate50 said:
Holy **** That video of Walz jerking his special needs son along the stage is going to play very very poorly.
Click to expand...

As a father to a son with a very similar set of diagnoses, I don’t see it, even putting biases aside. Partially because some morons on the right saw him cry and decided to run their mouths, which is almost all you’ll find if you search for Gus Walz right now. But also there’s not enough there for me to believe more is going on behind the scenes. I love my son and would never hurt him, but there have been times where I’ve had to redirect him in a hurry and it can look way worse than it is. I’ve probably made a similar motion when moving through crowds with my son, because sometimes his brain doesn’t pay attention to his surroundings and he’ll get sidetracked if I don’t get his attention a little. Notice the general lack of reaction from Gus, it doesn’t appear he was in any pain.
 
acesfull86 said:
The most generous interpretation is that he’s trying to invoke what RBG and many legal scholars felt about the ruling, that it was build on a shoddy legal foundation that would leave it vulnerable to being overturned. Which of course is a far cry from “everyone wanting” it to be overturned.
Click to expand...


Which I agree with. The constitutional argument that makes the basis of Roe v Wade is not applied to anything else. Either we have the right to privacy of our body or we dont. But they just make a special exception for abortion and throw that logic out when applied to anything else. So constitutionally speaking, they were right to overturn it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top