“this is a moment to put a woman of color on that ticket."

[dan_bgblue]

Amy Klobuchar withdraws from Biden VP selection to make room for ‘woman of color’

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/amy...woman-of-color

[blueboss]

Condoleeze Rice needs to get back into politics... and not on a democratic ticket.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Catonahottinroof]

Gee....you think her failure to prosecute Derek Chauvin had anything to do with it?

Amy Klobuchar withdraws from Biden VP selection to make room for ‘woman of color’

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/amy...woman-of-color

[KeithKSR]

Gee....you think her failure to prosecute Derek Chauvin had anything to do with it?

These former prosecutors aren’t going to be able to withstand the level of scrutiny they have helped to create.

[Doc]

These former prosecutors aren’t going to be able to withstand the level of scrutiny they have helped to create.

Which is why Chameleon Harris wont be the pick

[Terminus]

Just a thought, but why not choose the best, most qualified candidate regardless of race, color, national origin, sex or religion. Unfortunately I believe that’s become an antiquated mindset on both sides of the aisle.

[UKHistory]

Terminus,

Great question. Let the merit of the person be the deciding factor. Of course geography has played a major role in the VP selection process.

[Catonahottinroof]

In Biden’s case, he needs to be picking the best qualified candidate, simply because he appears to be suffering from the early onset of dementia....

[kingcat]

Just a thought, but why not choose the best, most qualified candidate regardless of race, color, national origin, sex or religion. Unfortunately I believe that’s become an antiquated mindset on both sides of the aisle.

I agree and understand the reasoning for feeling that way. But it could just be that, all things being equal, a Black candidate would be the most qualified given the current situation.

That's the reality of the matter.

[Catonahottinroof]

It could very well be that way, but the quote referenced in this post puts gender and race above qualifications.....

I agree and understand the reasoning for feeling that way. But it could just be that, all things being equal, a Black candidate would be the most qualified given the current situation.

That's the reality of the matter.

[Doc]

I agree and understand the reasoning for feeling that way. But it could just be that, all things being equal, a Black candidate would be the most qualified given the current situation.

That's the reality of the matter.

But if a presidential candidate came out and said "I am picking a white male" all hell would break out for being racist and sexist, and rightly so. However if the clamour is for equality then its equality at all levels including selection where race and gender is a factor. Don't claim you want equality then demand inequality when its in your best interests. Otherwise you are no better then the people you protest against

[CitizenBBN]

I agree and understand the reasoning for feeling that way. But it could just be that, all things being equal, a Black candidate would be the most qualified given the current situation.

That's the reality of the matter.

Which means Martin Luther King's dream is dead.

[UKRxman93]

I agree and understand the reasoning for feeling that way. But it could just be that, all things being equal, a Black candidate would be the most qualified given the current situation.

That's the reality of the matter.

Did not Martin Luther King Jr say he looked to a day when a man/woman was judged NOT by the color of their skin BUT the CONTENT of their CHARACTER?

[kingcat]

And that day has obviously not arrived. "They" have been accused of looting and burning since the start of the protests.

Acknowledging the color of someone's skin is not judging the content of their character.

[kingcat]

Which means Martin Luther King's dream is dead.

No, just not yet fulfilled it seems.

It still comes down to what you believe about the legitimacy of protests. Either you believe there is systemic racial profiling and outright racial injustice of and against Blacks or you don't. Still, the fact that a Black VP candidate who is qualified in general terms, is even more a benefit to the nation by instilling a certain trust that issues will be fairly addressed cant be denied by either.
In this particular situation, mine is not a political post, just common sense

I believe we all know the above is using Dr. Kings words inappropriately to fit a political argument. It holds no water here.

That color shouldn't matter is obvious to every decent human being. That it is also appropriate to describe someone is also obvious. And the protests around the world are about those described as Black so the point I make stands.

That's why Condolezza Rice has been mentioned as a good choice for office here several times recently. And withouut disregarding the fact she is a well respected conservative African American.

In fact come to think of it, I would love to see Joe ask her if he chooses not to ask the former first lady. As some of you have mentioned..she would likely be a great choice for the times.

[blueboss]

I don’t see Condoleeza jumping party’s, but if she did and Sleepy would happen to win, Condi would be president in two years when Sleepy finally cracks.

If Sleepy picks or previous presidents wife, we’re screwed... it’ll be four more years of our previous president.

IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dan_bgblue]

Michelle has stated many times in the last 6 months that she WILL NOT ACCEPT an invitation to complete a ticket.

[CitizenBBN]

No, just not yet fulfilled it seems.

It still comes down to what you believe about the legitimacy of protests. Either you believe there is systemic racial profiling and outright racial injustice of and against Blacks or you don't.

Actually that has absolutely nothing, not a single thing, to do with it.

I accept racism exists. I also accept that the only way to end racism is to not separate, but integrate people. I can accept the problem and yet see a totally different solution.

Your response is, IMO frankly, the problem with our current situation. "Either you accept X or you clearly think Y". It's just not so. "Either you endorse the BLM or you're a racist". But what if you agree we need to combat racism, but see a wholly different approach based in the words of Dr. King instead of the words of Malcolm X?

Both Dr. King and Malcolm X believed in the cause of fighting racism did they not? Yet they very much disagreed on how to do it.

Lost in all of this is the idea of real equality, real liberty. It's painted in us v. them terms for the political benefit of the elites, followed by those who don't see how they are no more than modern day useful Brown Shirts to the cause, while the real answers of respecting each other's rights as inalienable and finding common ground are lost to the hysteria.

The death of Dr. King was IMO a blow that set this nation back 100 years in progress towards being truly color blind. Leftist identity politics are the opposite of color blind, and you cannot abandon the rule of law in order to insure equality before the law.

[kingcat]

Your response is, IMO frankly, the problem with our current situation. "Either you accept X or you clearly think Y". It's just not so. "Either you endorse the BLM or you're a racist". But what if you agree we need to combat racism, but see a wholly different approach based in the words of Dr. King instead of the words of Malcolm X?

That is just totally wrong. Not what I think, and not what I stated. And is basically reforming an argument to fit an answer.

Thing is, there is no argument from me in this thread as to the merit of any group of protesters. No doubt some are Nobel in their cause and others fall short. I stand with those who I agree with when it comes to racism, and take no offense to Black Lives Matter.
It is certainly not an affront to all other lives. Are there some who abuse its meaning? I'm certain their are, just as there are those who claim to take offense for reasons other than that born of prejudice and bigotry. Then there are others like us who legitimately disagree with the methods being used to achieve certain goals, and who exactly is behind the looting and burning etc..

Now Chuck, Doc, etc..all of you guys know I do not believe there is a racist bone in your bodies. I know better just as you should know me..and would never suggest such a thing. I do believe that any of us can let politics blind us to the points others try to make. And I believe that happened here in this thread.
But this isnt political for me at all, because if the president himself decided to name a new VP candidate and they were a qualified African American...I'd say it was a good move. I wouldn't vote for them but Id acknowledge the wisdom in it.

Regardless of how you or I feel about the ongoing protests, an African American would just have a more powerful and resilient voice as well as a better understanding of the issue. And if that person meets the other criteria involved (which they obviously should) it could be the wisest of choices.
Unless there is some reason a qualified Black candidate should not be considered.
There is none I can see personally.
And no, that does not stand in opposition to Dr. Kings message.

Or it may be that the wisest choice is someone a shade different, but a running mate Mr Biden finds more qualified. But not one chosen just because they are Caucasian.

[kingcat]

It could very well be that way, but the quote referenced in this post puts gender and race above qualifications.....

Yeah I got that and disagree wholeheartedly.

That's why I used the phrase.
"But it could just be that, all things being equal, a Black candidate would be the most qualified given the current situation"

I think Amy was just saving face and political clout. Gracefully stepping aside, even while being ever so desirable, and publicly allowing Mr Biden the freedom to choose someone less qualified
.

[Doc]

And that day has obviously not arrived. "They" have been accused of looting and burning since the start of the protests.

Acknowledging the color of someone's skin is not judging the content of their character.

By my definition "they" are people who smashed windows and stole, regardless of skin color and gender. The left is fond of doing this, taking what I say and defining it under their terms then criticize others for saying not what they said but what they want them to say. I saw videos of white people stealing **** during the riots.

[Catonahottinroof]

So you disagree that putting a woman of color on the ticket puts puts race and gender above qualifications? If that’s your opinion, you are not a part of the solution, that thinking is part of the problem.
Find the best qualified person, especially in this instance since that person may well run the country at some point should Biden win. If it’s a woman fine, if it’s a man, fine. If it’s an ethnic minority, fine. Dictating that is has to be a woman of color narrowed the pool, and is pandering for a certain segment of votes IMO.

Yeah I got that and disagree wholeheartedly.

That's why I used the phrase.
"But it could just be that, all things being equal, a Black candidate would be the most qualified given the current situation"

I think Amy was just saving face and political clout. Gracefully stepping aside, even while being ever so desirable, and publicly allowing Mr Biden the freedom to choose someone less qualified
.

[UKRxman93]

By my definition "they" are people who smashed windows and stole, regardless of skin color and gender. The left is fond of doing this, taking what I say and defining it under their terms then criticize others for saying not what they said but what they want them to say. I saw videos of white people stealing **** during the riots.

Yes, content of character once again not skin color or gender. The “they” are looters, rioters, and anarchists of all backgrounds not just “one” particular group.

[kingcat]

So you disagree that putting a woman of color on the ticket puts puts race and gender above qualifications? If that’s your opinion, you are not a part of the solution, that thinking is part of the problem.
Find the best qualified person, especially in this instance since that person may well run the country at some point should Biden win. If it’s a woman fine, if it’s a man, fine. If it’s an ethnic minority, fine. Dictating that is has to be a woman of color narrowed the pool, and is pandering for a certain segment of votes IMO.

Not what I said at all. In fact If you actually read my post completely through it’s just the opposite of what I stated. But if disagreement is the desired result.. so be it.

[Doc]

I would have no issue if he stated he wanted the most qualified person, be it man or woman, white or "of color".... and that he felt that a woman or person of color would bring a different perspective to the table. But that isn't what he said. He said it will be a woman of color. Those were the TWO first criteria. Not smart, not experienced, not a strong uniter, not a good leader.... but I am sure Joe does not think those qualifications are needed since he was selected and served as VP. Joe's only trait in that group is "experienced". since he is a life long politician who has never had a real job that did not suck on the government teat, other than a life quard who managed to roust "corn pop" and put him in his place.

[Catonahottinroof]

I’m not trying to be disagreeable at all. Your post said.....and I quote “Yeah I got that and disagree wholeheartedly” with the added quote “ But it could just be that, all things being equal, a Black candidate would be the most qualified given the current situation.” Nothing is ever equal....that is Utopian thought....at best. It also depends on what day, week, month, year, millennium.... so it’s not about qualifications, it’s about gender or racial ethnicity.....

Not what I said at all. In fact If you actually read my post completely through it’s just the opposite of what I stated. But if disagreement is the desired result.. so be it.

[Doc]

I’m not trying to be disagreeable at all. Your post said.....and I quote “Yeah I got that and disagree wholeheartedly” with the added quote “ But it could just be that, all things being equal, a Black candidate would be the most qualified given the current situation.” Nothing is ever equal....that is Utopian thought....at best. It also depends on what day, week, month, year, millennium.... so it’s not about qualifications, it’s about gender or racial ethnicity.....

Exactly...he (Biden, or whoever tells him what to say) put gender and race first and second. It was the litmus test. I don't think there is any single best candidate because there never is one single best. Too many factors in play. However he ruled out roughly 85% of the potential candidates which is incredibly ironic when you claim to want race/gender neutrality.

To be clear, he is free to pick who he wants based on whatever criteria he wants. Just don't lecture me if I elect to pick a doctor, or lawyer, or who I hire based first on race and gender because that is exactly what he did. Of course if I do it then it is discrimatory, and subject to penalty by law

[kingcat]

I’m not trying to be disagreeable at all. Your post said.....and I quote “Yeah I got that and disagree wholeheartedly” with the added quote “ But it could just be that, all things being equal, a Black candidate would be the most qualified given the current situation.” Nothing is ever equal....that is Utopian thought....at best. It also depends on what day, week, month, year, millennium.... so it’s not about qualifications, it’s about gender or racial ethnicity.....

Wearing me down a bit but I'll try by going back to your post and my reply to it. A post that pointed to the quote by Amy Klobuchar. One which I disagree with wholeheartedly.

Originally Posted by Catonahottinroof

"It could very well be that way, but the quote referenced in this post puts gender and race above qualifications"

And I replied..

Yeah I got that and disagree wholeheartedly
(meaning I disagree with the quote referenced in this thread which you pointed out. Perhaps we do disagree on her motives for saying it though.)


...and I followed with

"That's why I used the phrase.
"But it could just be that, all things being equal, a Black candidate would be the most qualified given the current situation"

(All things being equal would mean candidates equally qualified otherwise)

And I further clarified with this..

"I think Amy was just saving face and political clout. Gracefully stepping aside, even while being ever so desirable, and publicly allowing Mr Biden the freedom to choose someone less qualified"

[Doc]

You are digging a deeper hole

"I think Amy was just saving face and political clout. Gracefully stepping aside, even while being ever so desirable, and publicly allowing Mr Biden the freedom to choose someone less qualified"

If he is choosing a less qualified person based on gender and race.....that is wrong and exactly what he is supposidly against. Now maybe Klobchar is more qualified, maybe not. IMO likely equally qualified, but the idea that somebody was ruled out based on gender and race is WRONG.

[dan_bgblue]

Just don't lecture me if I elect to pick a doctor, or lawyer, or who I hire based first on race and gender because that is exactly what he did. Of course if I do it then it is discrimatory, and subject to penalty by law

Ding, ding, ding