Being a straight, white, Christian male was viewed as a good enough reason for a couple hundred years.
Is it your position that neither Harris nor Davids possess relevant qualifications beyond being women and identifiable minorities?
Cite that this is “her honest to goodness reason for being there”? Quick googling suggests that she advocates for multiple policies that could also be a reason why she ran for office.
And, this is why US politics has been dominated by Native American lesbians for so long.
By the say, it’s “Democratic congresswoman”.
What, was every candidate in the primary a lesbian native American? That’s quite a coincidence! Is she doing a good job representing your area?
You should look up what percentage of Congress is white and male. I don’t think they’re an endangered species just yet. 
If I were you I’d be more concerned that 95% of House members and 100% of senators have college degrees - that’s not exactly representative of the average American.
I dont know much about Harris but Davids definitely no. She hadnt really accomplished anything in her life before running for congress.
Frankly no. Granted this is only her second term. Now previously we did have a democratic congressman Dennis Moore whom I did vote for and did a great job.
That’s a shame. Wikipedia says she defeated Brent Welder, who had been endorsed by Bernie Sanders, to win the Democratic primary. Would you prefer to be represented by a Bernie Bro? (It also says she’s a former professional mixed martial artist, which is more interesting than most politicians.)
This is incorrect.
Looking into her bio for less than 5 minutes, I found out that she’s a graduate of an Ivy League law school, served as a White House fellow (which is crazy prestigious) , and done significant work for local tribes. That’s not a small set of accomplishments.
It also tracks with the accomplishments of most younger Representatives whose credentials and qualifications aren’t called into question.
She’s also a professional MMA fighter. (which is immaterial to the matter at hand - but is just cool.)
Wherever you get your news seems to be significantly underreporting and underrepresenting her background.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the qualifications of Marjorie Taylor Greene?
Or of the current President?
When she ran the first time she really played up her MMA background. It was one of those attention grabbing backgrounds politicians sometimes use. Although your right it is cool but not any indication of leadership. She worked up on at Pine Ridge although she never says what she accomplished.
Remember I’m a local and I have several connections with local democrats that I cannot talk about.
Well quite frankly, I dont know. How really can I make a judgement call on a politician if I dont live in their area and I dont know know local issues or people.
I just wanted to add I’m not trying to be rude or flippant. I’m just saying its hard to judge a local politician when you dont live in that area. For example a person might have met and worked with someone or have a personal connection.
How indeed.
Under this rubric, no politician would make it on the national scene. Hell, they’d be hard pressed to make it out of their own county. It seems to me that to become an elected official, you must first get elected. That requires more than just ‘knowing someone’. It requires people knowing (and voting for) you.
I just saw a link to a previous thread where you previously dismissed and ignored all of Rep. Davids many accomplishments.
Both that thread and the current direction of this thread seem to add another anecdote to the OPs idea that there is some politics of grievance and resentment when it comes to politicians who are not white, cisgendered, heterosexual men.
None of us are completely unbiased. I think the whole idea of whats being talked about is overlooking any bias and vote based on the things you find most important.
Voting for politicians whose policies align with your values is one thing. Asking, ‘What have these women ever done to be elected?’, while implying they only got the job because they are women & minorities is quite another.
To be fair, urbanredneck2 wasn’t implying that. He was stating it outright in this particular instance.
That kind of thinking is so backwards to me. When I see a woman or minority succeed in a white male-dominated role, I assume they must be extra competent. Any white male idiot can make it with the right connections (see: most of congress), but to make it without those connections, and with the existing misogyny and racism seems to indicate some amazing skills.
Saying that someone made it because they are a minority (or a triple minority in this case) is just really odd to me. Why are congress and the presidency completely dominated by white men if it’s so easy for minorities to get elected?