Telling Your Followers That McConnell Has a Death Wish...

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (102 posts)
  1. Valeant profile image75
    Valeantposted 2 years ago

    ...with all the acts committed by Trump's base that qualify as domestic terror events, at what point do we get to outright label him the leader of a domestic terror movement?  Note the phrase 'death wish' in capitals to stress the thought to his followers.

    https://hubstatic.com/16176765.jpg

    1. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, Valeant, I saw this story.

      Like I say, Donald Trump is the gift that keeps on giving.

      Attacking McConnell's wife with his abusive and racist barrage is par for the course.

      How anyone can think that such a coarse and calloused man can be a fearless leader is beyond me.

      I wish that McConnell had the conjones to confront Trump and slap him in the puss on national television, just like the Chris Rock, Will Smith matter a few months ago.

      1. Valeant profile image75
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Trump straight up programming his base with violent words against his political opponents.  And his base will dismiss it and still support him.

      2. wilderness profile image88
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        "Attacking McConnell's wife with his abusive and racist barrage is par for the course."

        you're absolutely correct; the statement about McConnell's wife was in incredibly poor taste.  There can be no excuse for such poor judgement.

        But while there is no excuse, racism has become the way of our nation in recent years, led by liberal politicians making points (and buying votes) with their racist actions and remarks.  We have a President, highest office in the land, openly hiring people based on color and sex...and we cheer him for it.  We have a Vice President (second highest office in the land) giving out FEMA dollars based on color.

        Obvious and overt racism has become the way of our government...as long as it is directed against white males this time, as if those white males are the ones that were racist in the past.  The only difference here is that the one is a Republican rather than a Democrat, and used words only rather than actions.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          well said --- this White House and the Dem congress clearly race bait every chance they get. And whoever writes Biden's speeches, Oh my, he puts Joe you there with the best of the race baiters, in my view. 

          Hey, this kind of politicking has well worked for the Dems in the past, one must consider, some Americans appreciate it.

        2. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Because racism seems to be rising to the forefront these days is where lies my beef.

          Wilderness, you can shelve the idea of Democrats buying votes. What do you think that the gun nuts and Bible Thumpers are doing if not buying and selling votes and favors?

          We had Ronald Reagan in the 1980's stating that he wanted to put a woman on the bench. Is that not the same thing or is it different because she was white? Thurgood Marshall was appointed as the first Black Jurist by LBJ back in 1967. No one seemed to make an issue out of that.

          If I were Biden, I would have handled the pre announcement of his intent a little differently. But, it is not unreasonable to be able to acquire qualified people that are not hidebound white males to sit on the court.

          1. Sharlee01 profile image86
            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "Because racism seems to be rising to the forefront these days is where lies my beef."

            All due to Democrats needing to make sure people of color vote as the Democrats expect them to do --- many need a bit of race-baiting to get on board. You know, made to feel they are lesser human beings and need the white man's  (Democrats) help. 

            What have they done for people of color lately?
            Offered them no bail, and more crime.
            Have they offered any progress on Public education?
            Have they helped financially?  Or does this inflation hurt people of color far more than any other citizens?

            So, who has this administration hurt? I would say many people of color.

            So, yes racism is up at this point,  it's election time, and you should be accustomed to that because this is not new, but out of dem's playbook.

            1. Valeant profile image75
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Me waiting for Cred's response to the idea that racism is just an issue raised around election time and not due to the increase in racist rhetoric from the leader of the Republican party.

              https://hubstatic.com/16179057_f1024.jpg

            2. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I dunno, the race baiter in Chief, Donald J. Trump has spewed his venom throughout too large a portion of the Republican Party and that issue is all the time, not just election time.

              I vote Democrat for any number of reasons that are beyond race and equality issues, who would dare to say that I am being manipulated?

              1. Being against privitation of public schools which is basically benefitting the rich and segregationists is an advantage for those that are of more modest means.

              2. Forgiveness of much of the student loans benefit the poor and minorities disproportionately

              3 inflation has been a global phenomenon not just experienced solely by the US and I don't blame Biden for it. I notice "crickets" over the fact that gasoline prices have fallen.

              4. The bill that put a cap on medical expenses under Medicare benefits poor and disproportionately minority citizens, the same bill that Republicans voted against.

              It is a war between haves verses have nots with the usually liberties taken by one group over the other and it is usually clear who is in which side.

              The little bit conservatives say that Democrats do for poor and minorities is better than their doing nothing at all.

          2. wilderness profile image88
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            "If I were Biden, I would have handled the pre announcement of his intent a little differently. But, it is not unreasonable to be able to acquire qualified people that are not hidebound white males to sit on the court."

            Of course it isn't.  But that, of course, was not Biden's agenda; he intended, and said so, that he WOULD set a black woman on the court.  The #1 priority was sex and race combination, not the best qualified.

            And THAT is pure, unadulterated racism, nothing else.  That you ignore it somehow (the ends justify the means?) simply indicates (to my mind) that you approve of that bit of overt racism.  That Biden stuffed his cabinet with women and blacks, again making those two items a priority, just reinforces his racist agenda NOT to hire white males.

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              But, Reagan said that he would appoint a woman to the court in the Eighties, what was the difference? So, the priority was just gender, sexism, why does Reagan get a free pass? The best qualified according to whose perception, Donald Trump and rightwingers? There hasn't been any nominees presented by Democrats the that rightwing Republicans have not said were too radical.

              So, why should I ever be concerned about their whining? I can make the same observation about Justice Barrett.

              Yes Democrats tend to be more inclusive of representatives of all parts of our society which always make them better than Republican in my humble opinion, of course.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Trump is rallying his base, and the base is really ticked off about the money being poured into the New green Deal. He is politicking, and clerly Mitch is in his sight.  The base can't stand him. He is rallying the get out and vote.

      His comment about his wife was nasty, uncalled for, and wrong in so many ways.

      1. Valeant profile image75
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, I wasn't even going to touch the wife comment.  But as a human with some decency, that would have been an automatic walk-away moment from being associated with someone who would publicize such thoughts.

        Rallying his base with words like death wish?  Since when is death wish associated with get out the vote?

      2. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Ok, I can see Trump having issues with the "old crow", McConnell, but why attack his wife? Wasn't she his Department of Transportation Secretary? Does he secretly abhor the people that he hires and puts into his cabinet?

        Ironically, over 200 years ago, Trump's presidential model, Andrew Jackson, shot and killed a man in a classic duel over this man insulting his wife, Rachel Donaldson.  It is good thing for Trump that Mc Connell is a milquetoast and that such disputes are not settled today as they were then.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Why attack his wife?  I can only share a view. After Jan 6th Mitchs wife was one of the first to come put and blast Trump. On Jan 7th --
          Chao resigns from Transportation Department, citing 'traumatic,' 'avoidable' Capitol riot.

          It is very obvious when Trump feels someone has turned on him, he is done with them, they become an open target to his insults.

          He seems to really dislike people that pull political ploys, such as Mitch's wife. She had his back throughout much of his term until she felt he was road kill, then bye-bye Trump. She jumped ship the day after Jab 6th occurred. Trump can't stand political ploys. Going with the wind is just something one can see, Trump can't stand.

          1. Credence2 profile image80
            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Why attack his wife?  I can only share a view. After Jan 6th Mitchs wife was one of the first to come put and blast Trump. On Jan 7th --
            Chao resigns from Transportation Department, citing 'traumatic,' 'avoidable' Capitol riot.


            Thanks, Sharlee, that explains a great deal of his reaction.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I do know that Elaine Chao was at one time an avid supporter of Trump. She stuck by him when he made the comment --- "and some were good people".

              I think he really became angry that she bailed one day after the riot.  Thinking her to be overly political.

              Hey, who knows?

    3. abwilliams profile image68
      abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      "With all the acts committed by Trump's base that qualify as domestic terror events....."
      Really?
      I see nothing ever changes around here with the Trump hate infestation! Am I to read this garbage and then be expected to pull up a chair and participate in a civil back and forth?!
      I think not!
      McConnell is useless and needed to go long, long ago; along with the other D.C. dinosaurs, including our useless Speaker, Majority leader and President, but first let's give them the time they need to finish destroying the Country? Is that the game plan which works for you!?

      1. Valeant profile image75
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, really.  If you need an example of Trump hate, just read his racist and terror-laden social media post.

        And as for a destroyed country, letting a deadly virus reach us, one that crushes supply chains and gives us less goods and services available, which puts millions out of work - where they got warnings of the dangers of two years prior - followed by an incitement of an attack against their own country, that kind of destruction was not in my game plan.

        Sure there are problems in the country.  The border has been a major problem long before Biden.  Violating the human rights of children as a deterring method is not my idea of a game plan.  The stock market is down because we're no longer propping it up with $1 billion in tax cut deficit spending that the American citizenry will have to pay in the future.  That everyone knew would not pay for itself who has ever studied history.

        But the fact that there is a refusal to condemn an easily notable post that could pose a domestic terror threat to McConnell, just as such criticism of the FBI led to an attack by one of his supporters on their offices in Cincinnati, let alone the racist attack on his wife, really surprises no one.  In fact, it was expected from Trump's most ardent supporters. 

        If condemning his posts that clearly incite his rabid base to violence is 'garbage' to some, so be it.  That just helps us realize who is not seeing them for what they are.

  2. Stephen Tomkinson profile image81
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

    Rants like this are directed at his base support. Trump is dividing the Republican party and re-making it in his own image. I firmly believe that traditional Republican supporters will turn against him sooner or later. Ideally, he should stop this hijacking of a party with such a proud tradition and form his own group - it wouldn't get very far.
    The Republican party is more than just a vehicle for this flawed man.

  3. Valeant profile image75
    Valeantposted 2 years ago

    I like how the far-right claims that Biden 'hires' people.  Political appointments are not 'hires' and are not governed by hiring rules.  Nor does the Vice President give out FEMA dollars based on color, as the President authorizes FEMA dollars to go to states and local governments to distribute.

    The only thing on display with those claims is an overt case of white victimhood.  And 'poor taste' is a nice step in being able to admit it was openly racist.  Someday, maybe some on the far-right will get there.

    1. wilderness profile image88
      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I would have to say the right understands racism far better than the left.  Again, witness the left cheering overtly racist actions by our president - they obviously do not understand what the word (or the morality behind it) mean.  Instead they make excuses such as Biden does not hire people, only appoint them, pretending that it somehow makes makes a big difference in who the paycheck goes to.

      1. Valeant profile image75
        Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        If giving a representative voice for the first time in United States history to a segment of the country is 'cheering overtly racist actions,' then no, the right does not understand racism much at all.  Criticizing that is actually quite the opposite.

        1. wilderness profile image88
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          If hiring or choosing employees, or the giving relief funds, based on color (or sex or religion, etc.) is not considered racism then the left does not understand what racism is.

          We have seen government ordered racism in the past (capture of slaves, land ownership, voting, affirmative action, etc.) - we should have learned by now that racism is not something we wish to embrace as a legal standard.  Democrats do not seem able to grasp this concept, instead promoting racism and using it to buy votes from others that find the practice acceptable and desirable.

          1. Valeant profile image75
            Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Well since it's obvious that we cannot move past the fact that it's impossible to make it understood the differences between a hire and an appointment, let alone the prior examples of presidents wanting to nominate those from certain sexes or diverse backgrounds, let's at least look at some of the definitions of the word racism.

            Racism
            Oxford
            - the unfair treatment of people who belong to a different race; violent behaviour towards them
            - the belief that some races of people are better than others, or a general belief about a whole group of people based only on their race

            - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

            Merriam-Webster
            - a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
            - the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another

            In the most general sense
            - unfair treatment of people of a particular race in a society especially to the benefit of people of another race

            Now, if the claim is that white people are a marginalized group when looking at the Supreme Court, or men for that example, I don't think that the makeup of the court would support such a claim.  Whereas, there has clearly been a systematic oppression that has allowed other sexes and races a political advantage in terms of this particular court based on history. 

            Using the most general definition of the term racism, yes, there is an argument.  Using other definitions of the term that explain marginalized groups and factor in past systemic oppressions, this was an example of trying to give representation where none had previously existed in the previous 232 years of the court's existence. 

            I get the reasons why white men, one of the largest groups in the country, may feel marginalized these days.  There are more opportunities for them to feel slighted since they are one of the two largest segments of the US population.  But in terms of systemic oppression, it's not exactly close yet with what other races have had to endure.

            And in terms of this position and the appointments, not until this one, has a president been labeled sexist or racist for wanting to have a certain type of representation that they preferred. 

            Was Trump a man-hating sexist for wanting a woman after Ginsburg, a woman-hater for considering three white men to replace Scalia?  Was it racial to only nominate 16% of minority judges when the country is populated at closer to 25%?  Would the right say Obama discriminated against Caucasians when he appointed 36% compared to a 25% US population?  The claim exists for both of those examples as cases of systemic racism.

            It's clear that we differ on a generalized sense of racism and one that considers historical and marginalized segments of the US populace.  In this case, both of us can be right.

            1. wilderness profile image88
              wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              You got it the first try.  "Racism
              Oxford
              - the unfair treatment of people who belong to a different race

              When Biden chose not to consider anyone not of the "proper" race and sex for a Supreme Court nomination it fit in perfectly with your definition.  Racism, defined perfectly in your quote from Oxford.

              It also fits perfectly with what I presume is your own words: "In the most general sense
              - unfair treatment of people of a particular race in a society especially to the benefit of people of another race". 

              Again, racism exhibited and performed by the highest ranking official in the land.

              "It's clear that we differ on a generalized sense of racism and one that considers historical and marginalized segments of the US populace.  In this case, both of us can be right."

              You are correct.  If one takes a subset of hour history then you have the upper hand, for overt racism against those of dark skin (or even other nationalities) and women was prevalent.  The problem occurs when you try to take the sins of our forefathers and use them to punish people today, people solely of one racial or sex.  That's racism in a nutshell, as practiced today.  Which you appear to approve of and which both of us recognize as racism.

              1. Valeant profile image75
                Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                'The problem occurs when you try to take the sins of our forefathers and use them to punish people today, people solely of one racial or sex. Which you appear to approve of and which both of us recognize as racism.'

                As usual, the way something appears to someone on the far right is misconstrued.  As this is not a job, but a lifetime appointment, to a court which determines the very fabric of the society in which the American populace lives, having more representation - after having been discriminated against for generations - is something long overdue. 

                What we on left look at are the other various definitions of racism and not just the more general one.  We understand many want to stop at the most general sense of the word and the historical sins of our forebears should no longer be a consideration.  Where different races and sexes are still paid lower wages for doing the same job.  That's systemic.  Where it's seen as racist for wanting a black woman on the court, but not sexist for wanting a man or a woman.  For those that go there, at least be consistent with your -isms.

  4. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    "rabid base"? You need to take a break.

  5. abwilliams profile image68
    abwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    DEATH WISH - Rabid base....DEATH WISH - Rabid base.
    Nope, even in caps, your words are much uglier, much nastier, much more divisive.

    1. Valeant profile image75
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Rabid.
      - having or proceeding from an extreme or fanatical support of or belief in something.

      That's divisive?  I really wish people would expand their vocabs to understand the variety of meanings words have.

      1. abwilliams profile image68
        abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Funny you'd use "rabid" when you were simply trying to express Trump supporters strong beliefs! So nice to know that a foaming at the mouth never entered your thought process, when choosing that particular word.

        1. Valeant profile image75
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Less funny than troubling as I was using it to describe someone that got triggered to attack an FBI field office by ugly rhetoric because the FBI followed DOJ guidelines in executing a lawful search warrant.  So the extreme and fanatical support seemed to fit just about right.

          1. abwilliams profile image68
            abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Which FBI field office was attacked by a Trump supporter(s)? When did this happen? What is the history of the Trump supporter(s)? What are the details? I have been otherwise engaged.... recovering from COVID and dealing with a hurricane, I've missed a lot of news.

            1. Valeant profile image75
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              This happened over two months ago, so the fact that you're unaware of it is an issue in and of itself in terms of your media consumption.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnat … ice_attack

              1. abwilliams profile image68
                abwilliamsposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                So you are dwelling on old stuff? Thought that I had missed something new. I am curious as to what this Wikipedia story offers, so I will look into their version.
                I think all that this determines is your obsession with finding fault in others and your over-consumption of mainstream media.

                1. Valeant profile image75
                  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Really, so you cannot recognize a link between Trump's verbal attacks on the FBI and one of his followers committing a violent attack on them within three days?

                  And two months is not old.  Nor have the verbal attacks on the FBI and DOJ stopped from Trump.  If a person does not see programming a rabid base to violence as fault, that's just a sad commentary on their belief structure.

  6. Kathleen Cochran profile image74
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 years ago

    "When Biden chose not to consider anyone not of the "proper" race and sex for a Supreme Court nomination". She was qualified - with more than four years experience as a judge. If that is the worst you can say about President Biden, I think the country is in good hands. (As opposed to the hands we were in for the previous four years.) He picked a member of a minority but also an underrepresented majority.

  7. Fayetteville Faye profile image60
    Fayetteville Fayeposted 2 years ago

    How about this..
    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene accused Democrats of murdering Republicans in “killings” that she claims are underway. “I am not going to mince words with you all,” Greene said at Mr.  Trump’s rally in Warren, Michigan, on Saturday night. “Democrats want Republicans dead, and they have already started the killings.”

    This is unhinged. Republicans who don't denounce this and Mr. Trump's rhetoric  are  complicit.
    The GOP strategy seems to be that if you can't give people a good reason to vote for you, scare them into believing terrible things will happen if they don't.

  8. GA Anderson profile image83
    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago

    This tangent about racism and Pres. Biden's SCOTUS nominee is one that doesn't look as complicated as it is being discussed—if it is considered as an action, and not a level of an action. I think that view can discuss the 'is it or isn't it' issue without being bogged down, (or deflected), by the details of position or rationale.

    Looking at Pres. Biden's nomination as simply an action of selecting someone for a position, the specific position and specific person are secondary details. I think that's a true and fair perspective—for a start.

    If that is a fair representation of the discussion, then it is surely comparable to any other decision-making person doing the same thing in the private sector.

    The only difference is the details of 'level' of the position being filled, i.e. janitor vs. CEO, or maybe government contractor vs. the executive branch.

    Without those details there is no difference in the compared actions. That seems to make the 'qualifiers' used to justify the action proof of the claim that it is racism in play. That argument ends up as, 'Yeah, but .. . ' rationalization.

    I guess that line of logic fails if I am wrong about racism being racism regardless of its level or perceived need.

    GA

    1. Valeant profile image75
      Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Even in the private sector, once candidates meet the minimum requirements, the job does not always go to the most qualified.  The candidate may have the most experience, but a personality fit is not ideal and a less qualified, but better fitted individual for a company's culture will get the job.

      But all of that is separate from nominations made by the executive.  Some need Congressional approval, many others are just the whim of the person selected for the office.

      1. GA Anderson profile image83
        GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        You skipped ahead of me. Do you not think the starting point for this could be the perspective I offered?

        There's no need to go into the points you mention if we don't start with something we agree on—such as what the definition of 'IS' is. We'd just be arguing past each other.

        GA

        1. Valeant profile image75
          Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          If the starting point is the claim that this was a hiring similar to one that occurs in the private sector, then I wasn't skipping ahead so much as operating in a parallel plane of existence as nominations are not governed in the same way.

          1. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Not much chance for a discussion if you're on one 'plane' and I'm on another.

            I contend that although the details of a private sector 'hire' are different from an Executive branch 'nomination', the actions themselves aren't different. Each is an action of 'selecting' someone for a position.

            As I see it, your details of the selection don't change that. I think you might agree if those 'details' were about a declaration to only appoint a white man to a position.

            GA

            1. Valeant profile image75
              Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              'As I see it, your details of the selection don't change that. I think you might agree if those 'details' were about a declaration to only appoint a white man to a position.'

              Honestly, this position has a lot to do with my acceptance, as this is such a unique one in our society, and the historical discrimination of women and people of color from it I just cannot strip away.  Let alone what the position does and how that affects the entirety of the country.

              If it were a normal job hiring, I definitely would have had an issue with Biden eliminating so many other races and genders from the pool based on laws.  But knowing these nominations do not fall under those laws is a factor.

              And like I noted earlier, that so many suddenly have an issue when past Presidents have done the same kind of elimination based on qualities like gender and stayed quiet, it behooves the question of why when it involves a certain quality as the one Biden chose, is it such a big deal?  Partisanship or something deeper?

              1. GA Anderson profile image83
                GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                You seem to be saying that without the action achieving what you deem to be extraordinarily worthy and long-overdue goals, it would be as racist as was claimed.

                That's the same as another noted: You agree it is racism in play, but because you agree with the 'ends' it isn't really racism.

                That was my original point, something either is, or it isn't. The details of the 'something' don't change that, they only change acceptance levels.

                You even say so when you say you wouldn't approve of Pres. Biden doing the same thing for "normal hiring." The action didn't change, but the level of its application did.

                Moving to your 'plane,' if the winnowing of the selection pool ended with equally qualified candidates I can see the logic and benefit of race and sex being acceptable criteria. The difference is my acceptance is based on those criteria being the last applied, not the first. In Pres. Biden's action it was the first, (as noted by another, before I jumped in).

                GA

                1. Valeant profile image75
                  Valeantposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, I can agree that based on the various definitions of racism, the one that is the most general, there is an element of racism in the way this was handled.

                  But can also argue that previous racism in excluding people of color and women from the process needed to be considered for this appointment. The selection pool is already automatically winnowed, often by political party.  Discrimination already exists in the process, by political affiliation and sometimes even by sex. That things like sexism have been accepted practice in the nomination process, but that when race was added to the mix, suddenly the right has an issue.  That discrimination is acceptable until it's directed against white people is where I have an issue with consistency.

                  And when I say normal hiring, I am referring to a non-appointment where US law applies.  That these positions are exempt from those laws does change my acceptance of the choices a president will make.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image83
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    And from that humble first-step agreement . . .  we can get to your details.

                    I was never speaking to the points of the law or the legality of racism. Racism, even though frequently accepted and exempted from the law, is never right, so your points about 'the law' don't really affect the 'IS' determination.

                    I jumped into the discussion at the point of whether Pres. Biden's decision was racist, or not, (more accurately, I would politely substitute that racism was involved in his decision, rather than the inference that his decision was that of a racist). We seem to agree on that point but differ in acceptance of rationalizations.

                    I'm not making his selection process a big deal. I didn't have a big problem with it. My perception is that this type of thing is almost 'normal' in positions at the levels involved, (a nod to the truth of your 'higher plane'), in both the private and government sectors.  My point was that reality doesn't change what was being discussed. You thought it did.

                    Ipso facto, I just had to 'sally forth, wielding my warrior pen on high.' ;-)

                    GA

                2. Ken Burgess profile image71
                  Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Ahh, much better, I agree with this counter.

                  Knew I needed a drink.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image83
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    A Stoli's martini or two usually does the job for me.

                    GA

        2. Ken Burgess profile image71
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          "We'd just be arguing past each other."

          Exactly.

          Nothing new there.

          1. GA Anderson profile image83
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            That is usually the case at the start of political discussions, but ignoring the "details" of an argument in order to find a common starting point is possible.

            Both Credence2 and Valeant come to mind as examples of past conversations where a small piece of common ground has been found. Mutual agreement probably wasn't the outcome, but at least all were talking about the same thing. I'm still working on that in this topic. ;-)

            GA

  9. Valeant profile image75
    Valeantposted 2 years ago

    The idea that Biden's cabinet being made up of 45% of women is somehow an issue compared to Trump's of 18% is pretty laughable.  That a nearly even split between men and women is something troubling.

    Or that Latinos, Asian Americans, Native Americans and African Americans are all represented to give different views on policy is a bad thing is the example of wanting a continuation of the racism we have seen in our history.  That 95% of this cabinet actually has prior government experience compared to 68% of the previous, also speaks to the qualifications of the nominees (not hires, again).

    1. Ken Burgess profile image71
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      There must be something wrong.

      I am leaning towards your side on this argument.

      Hold on... I have to go get myself a drink... or two.

  10. Stephen Tomkinson profile image81
    Stephen Tomkinsonposted 2 years ago

    To nominate a person for what (s)he is rather than what (s)he can bring to the job is, I think, inherently wrong and potentially divisive. But affirmative action is not racist in the same sense as the subjugation of one race by another is. Racism is about dominance, and affirmative action (wrong though it might be) is preference.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image71
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Well said.

      I think how it is presented is the most harmful, whether its VP Harris with her deranged laughter talking about how certain segments of society deserve aid after a disaster, over others; or whether its the President coming out and saying he is going to choose a Black Female without any consideration to others, does not sit well with the American ethos of fairness and being the most qualified, which was what Equal Rights was supposed to be all about... not Equity... but Equality under the Law.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)