309
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
309 points (97.8% liked)
politics
19136 readers
3692 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
She seems like a good appointee, but honestly I’m just glad to have two functioning senators in my state now.
Yeah, let's get back to appointing judges ASAP.
2nd quote speaks to experience, but the first is irrelevant. Sexuality, gender, and race have nothing to do with competency.
Hard to tell, but she does meet the only two qualifications that Newsom thought were important enough to mention.
She led the largest unions in California and ran Kamala Harris' campaign. Those aren't nothing.
Depends which campaign, if she ran Kamala's presidential campaign then that isn't a glowing statement.
She works for a PAC, it would be nice if she would say that she will not use her position as "incumbent" to gain an unfair advantage by deciding to run when the term is up.
She should stay out of the race and let it be between the currently announced candidates. Barbara Lee, Katie Porter and Pelosi's pick, Adam Schiff as well as any others running currently.
They are definitely something, but they were not the main qualities that Newsom repeatedly stated that he was searching for.
Be explicit. What are you trying to say.
It should be very obvious what I am saying.
I am saying that it is morally wrong to choose a someone primarily based on their skin color and genitals.
I am further saying that if you are going to do it anyways, then you denigrate the person you are choosing by announcing it publicly.
Additionally, I will point out that, Asian, Hispanic, White, and mixed race peoples all significantly out number black people in California. It is bad enough to choose a Senator based on race and sex, but it is even worse to eliminate 97% of his state's population before even considering their qualifications for the job.
Is it not conceivable that there are a number of well qualified black women?
If a race and gender is underrepresented in the Senate, then why wouldn't it be a good thing to push a well qualified candidate that also represents underrepresented demographics?
The issue I take with this meritocracy take is it assumes that the best candidate wouldn't be a black woman.
That is odd. I see this exactly the opposite. To me it looks like Newsom assumed that the best candidate wouldn't be a black woman so he had to eliminate 97% of the field before choosing.
The best candidate very well could have been Butler, but unfortunately we do not know that because Newsom discounted all of her skills and experience and chose race and sex as the most important qualifiers for the position.
Even if he planned to choose based off of race and sex, all he had to do to not undermine his future pick was keep his mouth closed about it.
You are just playing a racist game. The same one that got played with KBJ and Barrack Obama.
Reverse racism is a troupe started by an avowed white nationalists/Nazis. The very same people that started the anti-crt BS that ended up lumping all discussion of civil rights into a "actually, this is racist because it makes white people feel bad".
It is not racist to prioritize well qualified underrepresented minorities over overrepresented majorities. It's not racist to do that explicitly. The undertone of your comment is she must not be well qualified, yet all you want to do is talk about her race and not the qualifications I listed.
She is well qualified. So the only reason you are objecting is because she's black. That is racist.
If you are really concerned about racism, perhaps focus on Tommy tuberville's defense of white nationalists and fight to make the military whiter. Not the appointment of a well qualified black senator.
You're game is transparent fascist.
You are putting words in my mouth and then knocking your own words down like it means something.
Why not try actually arguing against what I said, instead setting up strawmen and then engaging in name-calling?
I could not care less what skin color she has.
I care that for political gain Newsom singled out her sex and skin color like they were the most defining factors about her.
I care because some people buy into it so thoroughly that they think someone pointing it out makes them a fascist.
Yet that's the only issue you've commented on.
You think it's racist to prioritize minority appointments, only racists think that.
It's only a problem if she's unqualified. Yet you want to only focus on white victimhood narratives put up by avowed white nationalists.
You're a racist.
More strawmen, more name-calling.
Just find a mirror, then the conversation will be the same as the one in your head.
The first is fair qualification, but idk if running the Harris campaign is a good one.