• FuglyDuck
    link
    fedilink
    English
    82 months ago

    They’re both, no doubt.

    But right now they’re pushing the racism hard. I give it a week and it’ll be pushing the sexism hard.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      72 months ago

      They are already claiming she shouldn’t be eligible because she has no children of her own, only step children. No guy ever has been told he should be ineligible for office over not having children.

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        fedilink
        English
        7
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        That’s patently ridiculous.

        Also… wanna bet the originalists are going to shut up about “what the constitution says”?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        32 months ago

        she shouldn’t be eligible because she has no children of her own

        By that metric, Trump isn’t qualified because who wants a president that doesn’t have a dog?!?!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        12 months ago

        There hasn’t been a president without children since the civil war. In fact, unless my Wikipediaing failed me, the last time there was a major party candidate without children was 1876 when Samuel J. Tilden lost to Ruthorford B. Hayes.

        I strongly suspect it would be a major issue for a male candidate to be childless. The requirements for a presidential candidate are extremely conservative. They have to be married. They have to have children. They have to be christian – even being Catholic rather than Protestant has been a major issue for a few, including JFK and to a certain extent Biden. They also have to be tall. Since the advent of TV in 1928, the shorter candidate has only won 6 times. The taller candidate has won 17 times.

        Yes, there’s a ton of sexism about Harris, but in this case a guy would probably be attacked if he were childless too.