Quote (kenw @ 22 Dec 2020 02:14)
I'm not even going to lie - I barely know Gabbard. I did a bit of digging during the democratic debates a year ago and after learning she voted present during Trump's impeachment and didn't vote like 85% of the time as an elected Congresswoman, I wasn't really impressed. I would have personally preferred Warren but I think Kamala was the safest option out of all three. Yes, he could have probably amassed more Republicans or independents if she had been picked but IMO he would have bled even more Democrats because she's not particularly liked in the party from what I've seen. They both performed poorly at the end of the day . Biden didn't want to take the risk of alienating his core base by choosing a wild card.
My qualm with you is when you categorize people as racist or sexist or unpatriotic just because of they identify more with ones gender, birth place, race, etc. You would think that most voters are informed when you look at social media platforms but from my experience, people there are the vocal minority . If you ever were to canvass neighborhoods , you'd realize that the average person isn't an online debating edgelord and essentially only know the basics such as a vague nothing of health care - nothing else. Do I personally agree with voting mostly on race or gender, not really but if you cannot extrapolate that and try to twist this into some kind of affirmative action argument. Just because you hate her doesn't make her unqualified or undeserving of the title - she's not some random homeless person Joe picked off the street.
Majority reaction to Gabbard among moderate democrats is positive. Among the Progressive Stack they hate her. Hence my assertion that she wouldn't lose democrat votes. We've already determined that the Progressives were going to vote against Trump. It didn't matter who the VP was. Thus, the target was always expected to be moderate democrats, independents, and moderate republicans. Hence why Harris' positions and actions during her long tenure in public service was absolutely not something that could be considered "qualified".
And any form of judgement about a person based on inherent traits is discrimination. When you accuse somebody of being a racist because they are criticizing the actions and positions of a person, not based on those actions or positions, but due to the ethnicity of the person, that's actively racist. As to your claim that the average voter doesn't really know anything that's going on, voter awareness of issues, events, and candidates is higher than it has ever been in the history of the United States. It also happens to be part of why large media companies and social media companies are doing their best to form narratives, rather than simply allow the free flow of all relevant information. Sadly, all calls to demonize and deplatform any who hold a different viewpoint actively reduces voter awareness. Much as with the ACA, the Democratic platform has tended towards, "You need to vote it in to understand what it's about." This is an incredibly dangerous way of handing out the positions of governmental power.
Edit: VP picks are always to either consolidate the base, or walk along the aisle. With Trump, NOBODY believed he was a conservative, or would back conservative values. His actions, policy, and history was that of a Moderate Democrat/Left leaning independent. The entire reason Pence was chosen as his VP was because Pence was a staunch conservative with no background whatsoever of controversy or drama. Squeaky clean conservative. He added legitimacy to a republican vote. Without him, Trump would likely have lost 2016, due to a severe lack of support among republicans. His only real support would have been from independents and right leaning democrats. This is, again, why Harris made no legitimate sense as a VP pick. She added no support or legitimacy for the candidacy, and has stood quite opposite to many of the platform positions the campaign was [barely] run on.
This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Dec 22 2020 05:13am