• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gillibrand says she's worried about top options in Dem 2020 poll being white men

At some point the Democrats will need to decide what's more important to them, diversity or winning elections. I'm not saying they should pander to the racist, sexist segment of the population that will only ever vote for white men. At the same time, pandering to the segment of Democrats who insist on diversity quotas isn't a winning strategy either. Obama absolutely got votes simply because he's black. He was also well-qualified, articulate, and charismatic. Clinton got votes because she's a woman. She lost the election because she was not particularly articulate or charismatic. If the Democrats want to run a woman or a minority, then find the right one that can win the election. Otherwise we're in for another 4 years of Trump.

Although in this particular case, the age of the Democrats' top 3 candidates has me a lot more concerned than their race or sex. I like both Sanders and Biden, but either of them would be significantly older than any other candidate that has ever run for President let alone one. I feel like either of them would be limited to one term due to their age. Beto O'Rourke is young, but I don't know that much about him to be honest.

I agree with almost all of that, but it's just a straw man that Democrats are going to nominate someone BECAUSE they are female/black/gay, etc. Just to pick one example, Corey Booker is black, but he's been blistered from time to time by 'the left' for being too cozy with Wall Street types and other corporate big dogs. That stance on ISSUES if he's running will play a big role. Same with the rest of them running, whatever color/gender.

Hillary is a woman, but lots of us voted for the white man (although a Jew) in the primary because we didn't trust her on similar issues - the $12 million fill up the coffers speaking tour with the big banks REALLY didn't set well with many of 'the left' and many stayed home, although she was running as a woman. You don't have to look hard on here or in general online to find people on the left (often the far left) who did NOT vote for Hillary for issue-related reasons.

I also object to the sort of implied insults in the bolded. Do you not think W. Bush got votes because he's a white man, with a famous daddy who was formerly POTUS? Reagan got votes because he was a well known actor, and struck a nice pose on the campaign trail with his movie star presence.

And just in general, sure, Obama got votes because he's black, and McCain got votes because he's a white male, and a POW. And probably something like 80% of the votes for POTUS are cast solely on "He got my vote because he's a Democrat (Republican)) - the end. Obama and Hillary also no doubt LOST votes because they were black/female, when there's an unbroken in U.S. history preference for a POTUS who is a white, male, Christian - 100% before Obama.
 
Recognizing that people who are different have different perspectives isn't bigotry. It's the opposite of bigotry in fact - 180 degrees from bigotry. It's embracing people who are different because they are different and recognizing the value of different perspectives and welcoming those differences of perspective as useful.


These people in the photo are different, because they aren't me.
I'm not going to decide that they don't have the necessary knowledge, or experience that allows them to do their jobs. Simply based on the color of their skin.

What you're currently saying is that these men in the photo should embrace people who are different. Because what you're stating is that simple because these people are white, or men, makes them all the same.

That's pretty far from not bigoted.
 
These people in the photo are different, because they aren't me.
I'm not going to decide that they don't have the necessary knowledge, or experience that allows them to do their jobs. Simply based on the color of their skin.

What you're currently saying is that these men in the photo should embrace people who are different. Because what you're stating is that simple because these people are white, or men, makes them all the same.

That's pretty far from not bigoted.

I'm really only saying that white men will likely, as a group, see the world differently than women, or blacks, or recent immigrants, or lesbians, and also that people in a small town of 3,500 like Heflin, AL will see the world differently, have different priorities and concerns, than someone in Manhattan or Atlanta or Birmingham. I don't even have to guess this is true because anything you can look at - starting with polling and elections - tell us this is absolutely true. Your county went 87% Trump. Jefferson county 54% for Clinton. According to this poll, women have a 63/30 disapproval/approval of Trump. For men it's 47/46.

Etc....
 
I'm really only saying that white men will likely, as a group, see the world differently than women, or blacks, or recent immigrants, or lesbians, and also that people in a small town of 3,500 like Heflin, AL will see the world differently, have different priorities and concerns, than someone in Manhattan or Atlanta or Birmingham. I don't even have to guess this is true because anything you can look at - starting with polling and elections - tell us this is absolutely true. Your county went 87% Trump. Jefferson county 54% for Clinton. According to this poll, women have a 63/30 disapproval/approval of Trump. For men it's 47/46.

Etc....

So orange man bad huh?

I should've known.
 
Judging people their appearance is the opposite of bigoted?

Please explain.

The definition:

big·ot·ry
/ˈbiɡətrē/Submit
noun
intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

My claim, such as it is, is that people of different religions, race, colors have different outlooks on life and I welcome those diverse opinions as useful in and of themselves. So I value diversity, which is the opposite of intolerance toward those who are different than me, a white Christian man.
 
The definition:



My claim, such as it is, is that people of different religions, race, colors have different outlooks on life and I welcome those diverse opinions as useful in and of themselves. So I value diversity, which is the opposite of intolerance toward those who are different than me, a white Christian man.

Wow, straight from the concept of being bigoted, all the way to being racist... great.
 
I voted for Hillary. But if Ms. Gillibrand has a problem with the top of the dem ticket as it stands today, she should declare she is running and put her platform positions out there and start talking to the electorate. Then she can rise and fall on her merits. Hillary has shown that at least the dems will judge a candidate on their experience, qualifications, temperment, and positions. Gillibrand has taken a step back in my book.
 
I guess it's opposite day down there in Alabama. :roll:

I hope that you realize, that nearly all you've been doing so far. Is judging people on purely a subjective implication and or physical appearance. Because if memory serves, six of those men are actually jewish. As well as three that I don't already have an inclination of. Though betting on them being Christian is a safe bet to take. It still doesn't change what kind of judgment you're trying to pass here.
 
I hope that you realize, that nearly all you've been doing so far. Is judging people on purely a subjective implication and or physical appearance. Because if memory serves, six of those men are actually jewish. As well as three that I don't already have an inclination of. Though betting on them being Christian is a safe bet to take. It still doesn't change what kind of judgment you're trying to pass here.

I'll quit here because it's impossible for you to miss my point more than you have. I'm afraid we've hit a dead end. No harm done.
 
Back
Top Bottom