@freemo I can see it an easy way to partially fight discrimination by picking minorities, who have a much better likelihood of understanding the issues, a better likelihood of having experienced the problems. We have, never in history, really complained about appointing a slate of white men. This isn't something that should bother us either.
This gets a pass from me.
🇳🇱
I have quite often complained about appointing a slate of white men.
That said, if they were good picks and clearly the top priority was ability, not race, then I wouldnt care what race they are... But when you do things like pick a VP because she is a black woman AND has a horrible track record supporting bills harmful to women, then yea we have a problem them.. Assuming someone will be better with social justice simply for being a rich black person is just idiotic.
@freemo History, not you or me. History has not complained about only appointing white men. No one cares that every head of the FBI has been a republican, for example. Or that there are just an overwhelming number of white men in every segment of the government. Cops, the military, judges, college professors, etc.
We can agree that there are individuals who are problematic. Harris is one of them. But I see no harm in trying to address historical bigotry by just running down a list and picking minorities. We did the same thing for 400 years in America, under all governments, and flipping the script for a few decades won't hurt. And has the potential to help.
@JonKramer
Well I am not history... we dont fix history by doing the same racism against new people... We fix the problem by not picking people by race, by not judging people (merits or failing) by race... When nearly all of your picks consist of the 13% of the population that is black you've screwed up, no two ways about it. Doubly so when those picks have horrific history wrt their stance on various issues.