Biden picks Kamala Harris as running mate

[ThinkingSapien]

The self-classification has it’s own problems. (look up Rachel Dolezal) for an example.

I am familiar with her. but she is a bit of a problem individual. Ex: She took a picture with a black man and then claimed him to be her father, among many other deceptions that were part of the image she projected. Race, being a social construct, has many instances of inconsitencies. There is a book titled “The history of white people” that looks at the how the people that were and were not considered “wite” changed over time. Even something such as a religious conviction could affect someone’s classification. The same people may find themselves in different racial categories in different countries. Or two siblings, born to the same parents, might be classified differently by society.

My sister worked with a girl that was from a country in South Asia. The girl had dark brown skin. Where the girl was from, racial classification was dependent on the race classification of the father. Thus, the girl would tell people that she was a white person because her father is white.

 

[Nepperhan]

Abortion and homosexual marriage are certainly not Christian

OK, then you are saying the Constitution is a pagan document. SCOTUS upheld both practices based on the Constitution.

You err.

 

[Nepperhan]

This is a statement by a person who became a judicial nominee:
“That’s not to say the question of how religion might influence judges, broadly, is always off limits. In a 1998 law review article, which she co-wrote as a law student with Notre Dame Law School professor John Garvey (currently president of Catholic University), Barrett herself mused about a possible conflict between a Catholic judge’s allegiance to Catholic teaching opposing capital punishment and existing constitutional case law that supported capital punishment. Like the late Justice Antonin Scalia, Barrett concluded in the article that “judges cannot — nor should they try to — align our legal system with the Church’s moral teaching when the two diverge.” The recognition of that potential conflict apparently concerned certain members of the Judiciary Committee, although the article itself seemed to conclude that a judge in that position might have to consider recusing himself or herself.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...ng-about-judicial-nominees-religious-beliefs/

 

[Ridgerunner]

OK, then you are saying the Constitution is a pagan document. SCOTUS upheld both practices based on the Constitution.

Neither is in the Constitution. Just because a majority of the justices adopt a pagan position and attributed it to the Constitution even though it’s not in there, does not change the wording of the constitution.

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Are you sure?

How I evaluated the exchange based on context.

"Mr. Buescher, who are you going to be loyal to? The Bench or the KOC?

 

[27lw]

KMC:

I can only imagine the outrage and claims of anti-Islamic bigotry if Rep Omar were to be asked if her being a Muslim impacts her impartiality support and defend the constitution.

Asked and answered. Believe me, she was asked.

Links? Have you any? She was asked in what context?

 

[jeannetherese]

Chattel slavery was NEVER the norm! American slavery was the most brutal, dehumanizing form of slavery in human history!

Belgium? What criteria are you using to make this assertion?

Loading…

www.historytoday.com

 

[RidgeSprinter]

Loading…

www.theatlantic.com

Russell Vought​

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

In 2015, Vought’s alma mater, Wheaton College – an evangelical Christian institution – suspended Larycia Hawkins, a tenured professor, because she stated that Muslims worship the same God as Christians.

 

[Nepperhan]

Links? Have you any? She was asked in what context?

Not going to chase that rabbit.

Republicans are divided on how to criticize Ms. Harris:
" The confusing and contradictory lines of attack reflect the GOP’s dilemma in running against Biden and Harris. Some vote rankings have Harris as far to the left in the Senate, but those can be misleading. She is clearly not in the mold of a Sanders or even an Elizabeth Warren. The conventional wisdom about why Harris’s presidential primary campaign faltered, in fact, was that it did not have a defined message and it was not clear what she was about. You can spin that in a positive way as pragmatism, or you can spin it in a negative way as a lack of principles. But to suggest she’s some kind of radical socialist infiltrator is difficult to square with the idea that she has got nonradical principles that she has abandoned out of expediency and is also beholden to Wall Street.

Trump himself doesn’t seem to quite know how to attack Harris. And his campaign has regularly employed what The Post’s Jacqueline Alemany dubbed a “spaghetti-on-the-wall campaign.” They are apparently trying to see which of these disparate lines of attack sticks."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...um=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most

 

[Victoria33]

Neither is in the Constitution. Just because a majority of the justices adopt a pagan position and attributed it to the Constitution even though it’s not in there, does not change the wording of the constitution.

As we know, SCOTUS ruled in favor of slavery, so much for them.

 

[jeannetherese]

Saying a political party has “pagan views” when it clearly does not is disrespectful. That crosses the line.

Maybe we could make a comparison by noting the support for human sacrifice evidenced by the party in it’s abortion platform and by party members’ support for infanticide-evidenced in their votes for legislation which will allow babies who survive abortion attempts to be abandoned on tables to die from exposure.

 

[glencor63]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/08/28/historians-slavery-myths/?arc404=true

 

[ReaderT]

As we know, SCOTUS ruled in favor of slavery, so much for them.

Agreed. They also supported the death penalty for the mentally retarded, Japanese internment camps (Korematsu v. US), segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson), abortion (Roe v. Wade), forced sterilization (Buck v. Bell)…

 

[jeannetherese]

I am familiar with her. but she is a bit of a problem individual. Ex: She took a picture with a black man and then claimed him to be her father, among many other deceptions that were part of the image she projected. Race, being a social construct, has many instances of inconsitencies. There is a book titled “The history of white people” that looks at the how the people that were and were not considered “wite” changed over time.

Indeed. Interestingly, her branch of the NAACP initially supported her, but backed down under pressure.
Discussions continue if you look at more recent discussion with some arguing that she is black based upon self-identification and others disagreeing.
The self-identification arguments are interesting.
First nations in Canada are dealing with this as they try to set limits on who can be perceived as such, from a legal standpoint, in regard to tribal benefits.

 

[Ridgerunner]

First nations in Canada are dealing with this as they try to set limits on who can be perceived as such, from a legal standpoint, in regard to tribal benefits.

That’s true with Indians here too. But I think the government leaves it up to the tribes themselves to determine who is, and is not, entitled to tribal membership.

 

[Victoria33]

OK, then you are saying the Constitution is a pagan document. SCOTUS upheld both practices based on the Constitution.

You err.

So your view is that because the SCOTUS ruled in favor of slavery, it’s okay?

 

[AlNg]

That’s true with Indians here too. But I think the government leaves it up to the tribes themselves to determine who is, and is not, entitled to tribal membership.

There was a similar question that came up about Elizabeth Warren.

 

[Nepperhan]

So your view is that because the SCOTUS ruled in favor of slavery, it’s okay?

No my opinion is that the statement that the Democratic party has ‘pagan views’ cannot be supported. And that opinion has not been refuted.

 

[tuffsmurf]

But… why? Why isn’t he white? Please explain so a non-american can understand.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

But… why? Why isn’t he white?

Because historically in the United States, people of mixed black and white ancestry were considered black. The concept of being multiracial is relatively new.

Is it rational? No. If anything, it emerged to justify the enslavement of children resulting from white slaveowners raping their female slaves. But social customs and perceptions aren’t always rational.