CNN thinks race and sex are qualifications for governor

Fishking said:

They didn't "explicitly" say it, and you claim to know the difference. I'll help you out, though I know it won't make a difference, but I love seeing the inanity...they did a piece on a candidate running for office where they highlighted not her position in juxtaposition of her opponent but her sex, race, age, ect.

Now, for those with critical thinking skills *ahem* they can clearly see that they are touting those as attributes that add to her qualification to hold office.

Click to expand...

They didn't even imply it, and you know that.

You can't assume what a corporation "thinks". Nor can I. Especially when one person representing that company never says something.

And it's bad to talk about a personality or gender of a candidate? I recall CNN and every other MSM outlet, and every blogger, talking about Obama being black, Trump being a businessman, and Clinton being a woman. Does that mean that, oh let's say Breitbart, thinks that being a male businessman is a qualification to be President?

Some outlets say Jeff Sessions was once a Senator. I guess that means every time it's mentioned, that outlet is thinking that being a Senator qualifies you to be Attorney General.

Fishking said:

Because you're not acting like you do.

Click to expand...

Is this "let's assume what corporations think and what people think" day on DP, and nobody told me?

tres borrachos said:

CNN wrote an article on a candidate. Nowhere in the article did they say "Her race and sex qualify her for the governor's job". Nowhere. They also mentioned the fact she's 6 feet tall. How come you didn't say "CNN thinks height is a qualification for governor"?

Click to expand...

Tall women statistically are worse than average sized men when it comes to leadership...

Rickeroo said:

Given that we've established, by my own admission, that CNN does not say race and sex are qualifiers for governor, we should be able to replace mentions of race and sex in the article and not lose the article's overall meaning:

"She instead looks through the long lens of her family's jello making history that now drives her effort to become the first jello expert governor in US history."
"Jello Country Today counts a total of 23 jello expert candidates"
"I hope you all will add this Democratic candidate running for Gov of Idaho. She would be the first jello expert Governor in US history."
"She is a thoughtful, Caring,Intelligent,Jello expert,Who Would Work TIRELESSLY "
"The two-jello expert ticket, in and of itself, is history-making in the state.

With CNN's and your help, I came to this conclusion: "Woman" and "Native American" are just as relevant as "jello expert" when determining a candidate's qualifications.

Click to expand...

I agree that sex and ancestry aren't relevant to a candidate's qualifications. But I would disagree with the idea of not ever mentioning what makes this candidate different.

The media never ignored that Mia Love is a black conservative woman, and they mentioned it. The media never ignored that Tammy Duckworth is handicapped, and they mention it. They never ignored that Barack Obama was black, and they mentioned it. Nothing wrong with mentioning facts that are part of the candidate's makeup. That doesn't mean the reporter is saying "Because of (insert fact about candidate here), this person is qualified to be (insert role here)".

tres borrachos said:

I agree that sex and ancestry aren't relevant to a candidate's qualifications. But I would disagree with the idea of not ever mentioning what makes this candidate different.

The media never ignored that Mia Love is a black conservative woman, and they mentioned it. The media never ignored that Tammy Duckworth is handicapped, and they mention it. They never ignored that Barack Obama was black, and they mentioned it. Nothing wrong with mentioning facts that are part of the candidate's makeup. That doesn't mean the reporter is saying "Because of (insert fact about candidate here), this person is qualified to be (insert role here)".

Click to expand...

I agree with that sentiment. It's not necessarily a bad thing to focus on a candidate's ethnic heritage. Now, if you're using that as the sole, or main reason to vote for someone, then that would be a problem.

So here's when the political science part of me can't get behind the "rabble rabble rabble" condemnation train.

Is religion, gender, sex, age, class, etc a "qualification" for performing the job? Not at all.

However, is it something that is a positive "qualification" for Campaigning and winning an election? Yes. Right along side "attractive", and "tall", and "fit". To paraphrase the big purple man; dread it, run from it, reality still arrives...and reality is that these kind of things DO affect the voting population. Not the left voting population, not the right voting population, but voters as a whole.

If Cory Booker was white or fat, he's not getting the attention he's getting. If Mia Love is white or male, she's not getting the attention she's getting. If you think that's a bad thing, so be it; it's just the reality of politics and voting. Hell, if Bill Clinton was a Massachusetts governor instead of a southern one, I wouldn't have been surprised if he didn't get the nomination. These kind of things affect a candidates attractiveness towards a voting base, sometimes even more so than policy views.

ThoughtEx. said:

It's an overarching institutionalized problem, not an individual problem. Those black liberals can't address the problems until the root of the problem is addressed. The war on drugs. A black mayor can't do **** about federal laws, or state laws. So nice try.

Click to expand...

Is that what you think? Interesting that many other places have decided to change their local policies and laws to remedy that situation and I’m expected to believe that you’re wholly unaware of this.

camlok said:

Question: Would you support the US being held accountable for its war crimes, terrorism and genocides?

Click to expand...

Is that a “no”?

ThoughtEx. said:

Baltimore's high murder rate is a consequence of the war on drugs,

Click to expand...

Then it stands to reason that NYC, with far less murder, prosecutes drug dealers less. Why deal in Baltimore and get murdered because of the war on drugs when one can deal drugs in NYC and have a more peaceful drug enterprise?

With this logic, it seems that for Baltimore to improve, the war on drugs needs to lessen. In other words, a black mother tells her child in Baltimore: "It's not your fault for picking up that gun, there's a war on drugs. Your life will improve only when white people make all drugs legal."

It's a crippling way to think. Imagine if I sat on my duff during the Obama years, waiting for Trump to "pass laws" to make my life better. Waiting for third parties or blaming third parties doesn't do an individual any good.

tres borrachos said:

I agree that sex and ancestry aren't relevant to a candidate's qualifications. But I would disagree with the idea of not ever mentioning what makes this candidate different.

The media never ignored that Mia Love is a black conservative woman, and they mentioned it. The media never ignored that Tammy Duckworth is handicapped, and they mention it. They never ignored that Barack Obama was black, and they mentioned it. Nothing wrong with mentioning facts that are part of the candidate's makeup. That doesn't mean the reporter is saying "Because of (insert fact about candidate here), this person is qualified to be (insert role here)".

Click to expand...

It is true that on a personal level, we take other factors into consideration when evaluating a candidate. When the press mentions Native American and woman over and over as part of Jordan's makeup, they are being both racial and sexual. I am against the press taking racial and sexual views in describing a candidate's makeup.

My reply to the TheGoverness will delve further into why.

Rickeroo said:

It is true that on a personal level, we take other factors into consideration when evaluating a candidate. When the press mentions Native American and woman over and over as part of Jordan's makeup, they are being both racial and sexual. I am against the press taking racial and sexual views in describing a candidate's makeup.

My reply to the TheGoverness will delve further into why.

Click to expand...

But again, rick, they didn't ever say that these personal attributes are "qualifications for governor". The article didn't say "the governor needs to be female" or "the governor needs to be a Native American" or "If you're female, you are qualified to be a governor".

They reported on interesting facts about her. Not to me, but I am not a resident of that state and wouldn't vote for her anyway. In my state, our governor, who I voted for, is Chris Sununu, who is the son of John Sununu who was HW Bush's Chief of Staff, and he's also the brother of John Sununu Jr, who was one of our US Senators for a long time. That was mentioned repeatedly. And why not? It was even mentioned in some of our local newspapers that endorsed his opponent. Mentioning his familial relationship was factual, and if you're endorsing his opponent's candidacy, you don't mention personal facts about someone as a means of contradicting your own endorsement.

I think if she wins, she'll be the first Native American governor. That's pretty interesting. Hell, I enjoyed reading about Nikki Haley being the first female governor of South Carolina and only the second Indian-American governor in our history. I never enjoyed those anecdotes and decide those were the reasons she was qualified to be governor. And when CNN mentioned those things when she was running (and obviously favoring her opponent), do you think they were deciding her race and sex were qualifications to be governor of SC?

TheGoverness said:

I agree with that sentiment. It's not necessarily a bad thing to focus on a candidate's ethnic heritage. Now, if you're using that as the sole, or main reason to vote for someone, then that would be a problem.

Click to expand...

I vehemently disagree that it's not necessarily a bad thing to focus on ethnic heritage when evaluating a candidate. When one race is advertised above others in the press on a national level (in this case, Native Americans), I'm guessing that the prevailing attitude may include voting for Jordan at least partially because she is of that race.

This is wrong on two levels. First, the fact that she is of a certain race does not make her better than any other race (at least in theory), and should not be advertised as such on the national stage of CNN. It fosters racism.

Second, if it's ok for liberals to consider race in voting (a racist practice), then it's also ok for Nazis to consider race in voting (a racist practice). Liberals are free to determine why Native Americans are superior to other races in the gubernatorial race, and others are free to determine why Native Americans, by virtue of their race, are inferior.

Racial or racist sentiment by the media, even when disguised as a good deed (Isn't it nice we'll have the first Native American?) does much more harm than good.

tres borrachos said:

But again, rick, they didn't ever say that these personal attributes are "qualifications for governor". The article didn't say "the governor needs to be female" or "the governor needs to be a Native American" or "If you're female, you are qualified to be a governor".

They reported on interesting facts about her. Not to me, but I am not a resident of that state and wouldn't vote for her anyway. In my state, our governor, who I voted for, is Chris Sununu, who is the son of John Sununu who was HW Bush's Chief of Staff, and he's also the brother of John Sununu Jr, who was one of our US Senators for a long time. That was mentioned repeatedly. And why not? It was even mentioned in some of our local newspapers that endorsed his opponent. Mentioning his familial relationship was factual, and if you're endorsing his opponent's candidacy, you don't mention personal facts about someone as a means of contradicting your own endorsement.

I think if she wins, she'll be the first Native American governor. That's pretty interesting. Hell, I enjoyed reading about Nikki Haley being the first female governor of South Carolina and only the second Indian-American governor in our history. I never enjoyed those anecdotes and decide those were the reasons she was qualified to be governor. And when CNN mentioned those things when she was running (and obviously favoring her opponent), do you think they were deciding her race and sex were qualifications to be governor of SC?

Click to expand...

I would have had to take a look at the CNN articles about Haley prior to the election. I would compare how they treated her race and sex with how they treat Jordan's in this article.

Race, much more so than sex, is a dangerous road to go down - 80% of the danger is due to the press's manipulation of race, and 20% due to just the way humans are. That 20% will never go away. But the 80% can, and that is what I fight against. This article played up Jordan's race to the max. The message is that Jordan is special because of her race. Those that have low self esteem will get jealous, those that feel pity for Native Americans will think that her race makes her 'special', but the bad kind of special. I think it encourages low esteem for Natives, along the lines of "Look, Billy the Special Ed kid finally might get picked for the team".

In other words, if we are to uphold high esteem for the Native race (like the high esteem we hold white people in), it should be no big deal that Jordan is running. Treat her as if she was white - at least at the CNN level.

Rickeroo said:

Then it stands to reason that NYC, with far less murder, prosecutes drug dealers less. Why deal in Baltimore and get murdered because of the war on drugs when one can deal drugs in NYC and have a more peaceful drug enterprise?

With this logic, it seems that for Baltimore to improve, the war on drugs needs to lessen. In other words, a black mother tells her child in Baltimore: "It's not your fault for picking up that gun, there's a war on drugs. Your life will improve only when white people make all drugs legal."

It's a crippling way to think. Imagine if I sat on my duff during the Obama years, waiting for Trump to "pass laws" to make my life better. Waiting for third parties or blaming third parties doesn't do an individual any good.

Click to expand...

Supply and demand, if the drug dealers leave an area for greener pastures, more will replace them to fulfill the demand. But that is basic common sense that any child could tell you.

That is a drastic exaggeration that just exposes your ignorance.

I don't need to imagine anything, what you did or did not do during the Obama years is not relevant to anything at all.

No one is waiting on anything, if Conservatives were not selling us down the river for a buck, the many activists and politicians and the overwhelming majority of people that want to end the war on drugs would do so readily and easily.

But no, you're right, let's do it the dumbest way possible, because it's more convenient for you and other white people...

Fishking said:

Is that what you think? Interesting that many other places have decided to change their local policies and laws to remedy that situation and I’m expected to believe that you’re wholly unaware of this.

Click to expand...

yeah I'm not in the mood for your bull**** today man, we both know your full of **** on this and want to split hairs on individual points to draw attention away from the overall point. So please do me a favor and go argue with a wall somewhere. You'll have better luck.

ThoughtEx. said:

yeah I'm not in the mood for your bull**** today man, we both know your full of **** on this and want to split hairs on individual points to draw attention away from the overall point. So please do me a favor and go argue with a wall somewhere. You'll have better luck.

Click to expand...

I totally trashed your stupid point trying to make it some kind of conservative thing, proved it without question. Now that you are backed into a corner you're going to whine about it. I'll go a step further. Obama was President for 8 years and never had the FDA even remove marijuana from being a schedule 1 drug, on the same level as cocaine so you can take your utterly debunked point and try and peddle it with someone that isn't smart enough to catch it.

Rickeroo said:

This is wrong on two levels. First, the fact that she is of a certain race does not make her better than any other race (at least in theory), and should not be advertised as such on the national stage of CNN. It fosters racism.

Click to expand...

Uh....what? Where did CNN or anyone imply that her heritage makes her better than anyone else? That is a ridiculous assumption that you made up. Focusing on one's ethnic background, is not the same thing as "my race is better than yours".

Second, if it's ok for liberals to consider race in voting (a racist practice), then it's also ok for Nazis to consider race in voting (a racist practice). Liberals are free to determine why Native Americans are superior to other races in the gubernatorial race, and others are free to determine why Native Americans, by virtue of their race, are inferior.

Click to expand...

Same response as above. And the fact that you're trying to compare this, to Nazis, only further serves to highlight your ridiculousness.

[QUOTE
Racial or racist sentiment by the media, even when disguised as a good deed (Isn't it nice we'll have the first Native American?) does much more harm than good.[/QUOTE]

There's nothing to wrong with pointing out someone's ethnic background, or even gender. I'm not saying that it should be the main factor for voting for someone, but acting like the act of simply pointing it out is "racist", is absolutely ridiculous.

TheGoverness said:

Uh....what? Where did CNN or anyone imply that her heritage makes her better than anyone else? That is a ridiculous assumption that you made up. Focusing on one's ethnic background, is not the same thing as "my race is better than yours".



Same response as above. And the fact that you're trying to compare this, to Nazis, only further serves to highlight your ridiculousness.

[QUOTE
Racial or racist sentiment by the media, even when disguised as a good deed (Isn't it nice we'll have the first Native American?) does much more harm than good.

Click to expand...

There's nothing to wrong with pointing out someone's ethnic background, or even gender. I'm not saying that it should be the main factor for voting for someone, but acting like the act of simply pointing it out is "racist", is absolutely ridiculous.[/QUOTE]

My response is related to your statement here:

"It's not necessarily a bad thing to focus on a candidate's ethnic heritage. Now, if you're using that as the sole, or main reason to vote for someone, then that would be a problem."

This implies that while not valid as the sole reason to vote for someone, it's not a bad thing to focus on ethnicity for a portion of the reason to vote for someone. This means that for a portion of the reason to vote, one ethnicity can be preferred over another, the "preferred" ethnicity in our mind, much like 5 years experience is "superior" to 2 years experience. Preferred, desirable, superior, favorite - it doesn't matter, the point is that one ethnicity is chosen over another.

The nazi comment was to show that once we grant ethnicity as a valid, partial reason to vote for someone, we forget that "white" is also an ethnicity to vote "for", and people are allowed to vote "against" other races, since it's not necessarily a bad thing to focus on a candidates ethnic heritage.

I can't believe anyone would condone candidate choice - even partial - based on race. I think this may be accepted because there is a conception that ethnic voting can only go one way, the way that CNN thinks it should go.

Rickeroo said:

snip

Click to expand...

That ridiculous, and not what I was saying at all. And your little "racial superiority" screed is just as ridiculous now as it was in the post I responded to. I'm going to state this for the last time, as I have no further desire to continue this conversation with you. It is not necessarily a bad thing to focus on a candidate's ethnic heritage, especially when breaking milestones (First black woman to be an X, etc.). I have no problem with that. But, if one is using that as their reason for voting for someone, then that's wrong IMO. A candidate's policies at the end of the day are what matter most.

Harshaw said:

She knows what she's doing.

Click to expand...

I know, but its fun for me to see how long she can keep her foot wedged in this dead horse.

I work a late shift, with two very boring consultations in the morning. Now to mention the my pass along for the oncoming therapist...

I am bored, so a good laugh will do me well.

tres borrachos said:

No, I'm not "claiming" anything other than the fact that even the OP agreed to. CNN never at any time in that article said that race and sex are qualifications for governor, and we can't decide what a non-entity "thinks", since we aren't mind readers, and CNN isn't a person anyway. I hope you understand that.

Click to expand...

Yet you are missing the fact that the OP has driving necessity to either be factual with its statement. Or to be a complete and total lie.

If that were the case I would have stuck that same spear to jackasses putting articles up that are factually not true. It works better to face them on the actual information contained within the subject.

Of which the OP is rather apt in pointing out. That this is basically the door they are knocking on.

Hatuey said:

Bleh, stupid tapatalk.

Will report it to mods so it gets moved, thanks.



Sent from a memo written by Nunes and edited by Trump.

Click to expand...

No problem. These things happen.

-Found on Hillary's partially scrubbed email servers-

ecofarm said:

Race and sex carry perspective which is legitimately a qualification.

Click to expand...

Bull****, it should have no bearing on anything. She's not there to represent her race and her sex. That's exactly what MLK didn't want. Being Native American or black is irrelevant.............except to race hustlers of course.

American said:

Bull****, it should have no bearing on anything. She's not there to represent her race and her sex. That's exactly what MLK didn't want. Being Native American or black is irrelevant.............except to race hustlers of course.

Click to expand...

You're totally wrong about MLK. He would certainly support the black perspective being represented in our country. Your interpretation of "I Have a Dream" is stupid beyond belief. He didn't mean to ignore racism. How shockingly dumb would that be?

Presuming a person is qualified for a position, race and sex are perspectives with value. Diverse perspectives are the lifeblood of democracy.

There is nothing wrong with giving a candidate points for an underrepresented perspective.

ecofarm said:

You're totally wrong about MLK. He would certainly support the black perspective being represented in our country. Your interpretation of "I Have a Dream" is stupid beyond belief. He didn't mean to ignore racism. How shockingly dumb would that be?

Presuming a person is qualified for a position, race and sex are perspectives with value. Diverse perspectives are the lifeblood of democracy.

There is nothing wrong with giving a candidate points for an underrepresented perspective.

Click to expand...

My interpretation is right on, and todays black leaders that BLM types are completely wrongheaded. He wanted people to be judged by character and not skin color. Skin colored perspectives are just that, skin colored.