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

PleasantValley said:

"...a more inclusive America is a stronger America" ???????

except if you are male and white.
I have heard this old song being played before.
...and they wonder why were are always so angry?

It is because everyone under the sun thinks it is OK to attack white males.

Click to expand...

Force inclusiveness is an oxymoron, IMHO. If the top three Dems happen to be males it's probably for a reason; should a woman or women or a person of color happen to raise in polls and win the nomination - great, if not, oh well.

PeteEU said:

Yes and no. We have a female head of state... We have had a female Prime Minister. We have had many female heads of parties over the years .. oh and our current "speaker of the house".. is female.. a racist bitch but still a female. Also almost 40% of our parliamentarians are female.. we can do better!.. the US.. under 20% last I looked.

Point is, she does have a point. The Dems should do better in picking non old white males like the GOP.. but both parties need to be more inclusive. Ever look at the new congressmen/women pictures of the 2 parties... it clearly shows the problem in the GOP but shows promise for the Dems... but as with my own country... it can be better.

Click to expand...

Why not like the process pick who becomes the candidate - we have caucuses and primaries that do exactly that. If a non-white and/or non-male wins so much the better.

Bullseye said:

Yeah, yet another nothingburger for you guys to spin out of control about. Now if your could only find a LGBTAQ female with a Hispanic surname you'd have it made.

Click to expand...

You never fail to make me laugh.

:lamo

slick said:

Gillibrand is an accidental senator appointed by the governor who took over when Spitzer resigned.
That governor was slightly blind in more than one way by appointing Gillibrand, Gillibrand's competition
at the time was JFK's daughter. Gillibrand has no chance to be in the top 10 of prospective candidates.
If a women as Gillibrand suggests a woman should be one of the main contenders it won't be her, Kamala Harris
fills all the boxes, Gillibrand fills only the women box & is not very smart. Even Pocahontas will have more backing
than Gillibrand.

Click to expand...

That's a completely unfair characterization of Gillibrand. Before she was appointed to fill the empty seat she won two races for the House, the first time in a heavily GOP district - 2-1 GOP. She also ran and won her last Senate race by the highest margin in New York state history. I don't have an opinion about her as a candidate, but no need to make up crap as if she lucked into the seat and is a political incompetent. She's a good politician - everything she has done confirms that.

trixare4kids said:

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

What's wrong with "three top white guys" atop the presidential list????
Gillibrand's response to Van Jones, perhaps unintentional, appears as sexist and racist as Jone's question... When will some ever learn to get over themselves and realize that skin color and gender have nothing to do with the overall picture? If people even notice gender or sex instead of concentrating only on their political belief when voting, I really have to wonder about them.

Click to expand...

I don't give a hoot about gender, race or what have you. All I want is the best and most qualified person or folks vying for the democratic nomination. Certainly not another Hillary Clinton. If the Democrats get tied up worrying about gender and race, not worry about getting the best and most qualified for the job, there's a chance of another 2016 repeat.

holbritter said:

I'd love to see a woman president. That doesn't mean I'll vote for a woman just because she's a woman.

Click to expand...

The likes of Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher might be acceptable but no one on the horizon in the USA
measures up those two were solid. Mrs. Clinton made it harder for a women to successfully emerge.
Current odds of women vying for the big job:

betonline.ag

2003 Kamala Harris +800
2025 Tulsi Gabbard +2500
2006 Elizabeth Warren +3300
2008 Kirsten Gillibrand +3300
2012 Michelle Obama +5000
2011 Nikki Haley +5000
2010 Oprah Winfrey +5000
2023 Hillary Clinton +8000

If someone gave me thousands to vote for a woman for president I'd go with Tulsi Gabbard

According to abcislands.ag here are the leaders for being the Democratic candidate:

2020 DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE
75171 BETO OROURKE +400
75172 KAMALA HARRIS +400
75173 JOE BIDEN +800
75174 BERNIE SANDERS +1000
75175 ELIZABETH WARREN +750
75176 KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND +1500
75177 AMY KLOBUCHAR +2000
75178 CORY BOOKER +1500
75179 MICHAEL BLOOMBERG +2000
75180 TULSI GABBARD +1500
75181 OPRAH WINFREY +2000
75182 JOHN HICKENLOOPER +2500

trixare4kids said:

Why would I think liberals suck?
I love liberals.. it's the anti-liberal, far left progressives that have ruined the Democratic Party, IMO.
I ought to know as a lifelong Democrat what I am talking about. You don't, obviously.

Click to expand...

Again, I made a reasoned argument you dismissed with a throwaway comment. I'm trying to engage honestly, but if you just want to insult or quote and ignore my points, that's fine, and I'll bow out.

JMR said:

You make a good point, but I think you might be dealing in the realm of innumeracy here. I don't think they get that at all.

Click to expand...

Such delicious irony
What would we do without the left who has been anointed to sanitize the unwashed masses?

JasperL said:

Again, I made a reasoned argument you dismissed with a throwaway comment. I'm trying to engage honestly, but if you just want to insult or quote and ignore my points, that's fine, and I'll bow out.

Click to expand...

You're the person who accused me of thinking liberals suck.

trixare4kids said:

You never fail to make me laugh.

:lamo

Click to expand...

I forgot to mention she would get extra points if she's a single mother of a transgender child whose father was a Dreamer.

trixare4kids said:

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

What's wrong with "three top white guys" atop the presidential list????
Gillibrand's response to Van Jones, perhaps unintentional, appears as sexist and racist as Jone's question... When will some ever learn to get over themselves and realize that skin color and gender have nothing to do with the overall picture? If people even notice gender or sex instead of concentrating only on their political belief when voting, I really have to wonder about them.

Click to expand...

Great more sexism/racism... that's all the democratic party needs right now.

Perotista said:

I don't give a hoot about gender, race or what have you. All I want is the best and most qualified person or folks vying for the democratic nomination. Certainly not another Hillary Clinton. If the Democrats get tied up worrying about gender and race, not worry about getting the best and most qualified for the job, there's a chance of another 2016 repeat.

Click to expand...

Great message. Totally agree.
Hillary sunk the Democrat's chances.
She should have won the EC but because she was a fatally flawed candidate she lost it for them.

ttwtt78640 said:

Yep, there is an extreme shortage of qualified women in Denmark. Although, I must note that Denmark once had a female prime minister and the US has not yet had a female POTUS.

Click to expand...

Well let's all hope that the next one to run for president, isn't a corrupt, cackling, chronically ill witch.

It would also be a great boon if she were more of a centrist as well.

Bullseye said:

I forgot to mention she would get extra points if she's a single mother of a transgender child whose father was a Dreamer.

Click to expand...

It wouldn't hurt if her parents were commies and she would attend Rev. GD America's weekly sermons for the last couple of decades either.

Oborosen said:

Well let's all hope that the next one to run for president, isn't a corrupt, cackling, chronically ill witch.

It would also be a great boon if she were more of a centrist as well.

Click to expand...

Centrist is good. Remember, Donald J. Trump was elected, unbeknownst to him, to fix what's wrong with government.
I've been saying it takes a radical like him to bring us back to the center for a long time...

JasperL said:

We could say the GOP qualifies based on race and gender - just look at a photo of the GOP in Congress. Virtually all white and nearly all male.

And I don't think it's fair to say that the Democrats 'quantify' based on race and gender - plenty of white men are Democrats in office - it's just that Democrats see a value in diversity, recognize that it's possible women, or minorities, bring a different perspective and that is in and of itself a good thing.

Here's a good example - this is the GOP panel in 2017 discussing healthcare, including things like maternity care, contraception, abortion. Notice what's missing?

View attachment 67246182

It might be that an all white, all male panel will properly consider the needs of women and the poor and minorities, but don't you think it might be good to have a representative in the room who is a woman while discussing subjects most important to...you know....women? If not, OK, but surely you understand why others might have a different view. Think about why you might not like it if 100% of the GOP were minority women from big cities, if you are a white farmer in the country. Maybe they have a different perspective on what the big problems are in this country than you do.

Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with this picture. Though I can also see the multitudes of minority voters, both male and female. That helped get these men herein the first place. So maybe the issues isn't as cut and dry as some like to pretend it to be.

trixare4kids said:

Great message. Totally agree.
Hillary sunk the Democrat's chances.
She should have won the EC but because she was a fatally flawed candidate she lost it for them.

Click to expand...

Hillary had a ton of baggage, that's for sure. She was also lazy which I have pointed out numerous times. She sat on her butt while Trump was out on the campaign trail both out working and out campaigning her. What I'll never understand, if Hillary wasn't willing to do the work and do the campaigning that it takes to win, why in he heck did she run for president in the first place?

FYI, the numbers for which I am great at providing, campaign visits/stops/rallies between 1 Sep 2016 and 8 Nov 2016, Trump 116, Hillary Clinton 71. There isn't a democrat alive that if they were running for president that would have let their opponent both out work and out campaign them by that huge a number. The election was Hillary's to lose and she lost it, perhaps I should say, gave it away.

trixare4kids said:

I hope you believe me when I say I always thought Trump's platform was more like my present beliefs for the direction of the country than Hillary's.

Saying this does not mean I think Trump is my savior or the best person. I really did not vote him because of his character flaws, especially when it comes to women.
And now it looks like I was right... his cheating on his wife, (wives) will be the thing that might bring him down.
This doesn't mean I think Hillary would have been a better president than him.

At heart, I am a feminist, and IMO, Hillary was being a fraud about being a feminist.
Another thread, I know...

Click to expand...

It wasn't the cheating that may bring him down (I also don't think for a minute that that's the end of it). It will be the illegal money stuff as a result of the cheating.

Cardinal said:

It wasn't the cheating that may bring him down (I also don't think for a minute that that's the end of it). It will be the illegal money stuff as a result of the cheating.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah. That is what I meant.
Right now we can only judge by what we hear he may have done or not done... growing weary, how about you?

I hope whatever it is, we shall soon see, and proceed from there...
Prolonging the investigation is not good for the country.

trixare4kids said:

Well, yeah. That is what I meant.
Right now we can only judge by what we hear he may have done or not done... growing weary, how about you?

I hope whatever it is, we shall soon see, and proceed from there...
Prolonging the investigation is not good for the country.

Click to expand...

"Weary" is just what is, now. As for the investigation, it will take as long as it takes. The amount of corruption and foreign infiltration appears to be extremely extensive. That, as well as everybody lying to Federal Prosecutors, is what's prolonging the investigation. If Trump, his family and his associates had told the truth from the start this could have wrapped up in 2017.

trixare4kids said:

Having been a registered Democrat for most of my life, I think you are incorrect but I can't prove it anymore than you can prove what you have said above.

Click to expand...

To me the proof is in the pudding. Do you really think the GOP did a color and sex blind search for the best candidates and 99% of them are white Christians, 90% of them males? I'm married to a pretty impressive woman and I don't believe men are at all inherently more qualified than men, but you would think looking at the GOP that with few exceptions the only people qualified to wield power are rich, white, Christian men.

Bottom line is I pretty much reject that political races are 'merit' based. They're mostly popularity contests, a lot more akin to naming the Prom King than the best PERSON for a given job that requires skill. What you mostly have to do is look good on TV, speak well in front of a crowd, and raise money. Your political consultants tell you the focus grouped and poll tested positions to take, and a lot of the words to use while campaigning. Candidates just have to sell them. Trump also destroyed the notion that POTUS is a merit-based position - everyone he ran against was far more qualified, and he won. Is it coincidence that the least qualified POTUS in history is a rich white man? LOL.... :roll:

I know Democrats pander to minorities and women but can anyone actually prove that the Republicans care less about their needs than the Democrats?

Click to expand...

And the GOP panders to whites, especially rural whites. Can you prove that the Democrats care less about THEIR needs than the GOP? I know a lot of rural whites depend on social safety nets supported by Democrats. Look at WV and how many poor whites got insurance after the ACA. What have the GOP done for poor whites in WV in the past 30 years?

I live in CA. I am here to tell you that it was minorities who are registered Democrats, (Blacks and Hispanics) who voted for Prop. #8; marriage should be between a man and a woman only.
Look it up if you don't believe me.

Click to expand...

I knew that a majority of blacks voted for Prop 8 but I don't see how that is relevant to anything we are discussing.

trixare4kids said:

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

What's wrong with "three top white guys" atop the presidential list????
Gillibrand's response to Van Jones, perhaps unintentional, appears as sexist and racist as Jone's question... When will some ever learn to get over themselves and realize that skin color and gender have nothing to do with the overall picture? If people even notice gender or sex instead of concentrating only on their political belief when voting, I really have to wonder about them.

Click to expand...

I don't see a problem with 3 white guys being on top in polling. Women are over 50% of voters. Good women candidates just need to step up and announce. Its early, if its mostly old white guys and Corey Booker and Beto O'Rourke more than likely that's who will be at the top of polling.

trixare4kids said:

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

What's wrong with "three top white guys" atop the presidential list????
Gillibrand's response to Van Jones, perhaps unintentional, appears as sexist and racist as Jone's question... When will some ever learn to get over themselves and realize that skin color and gender have nothing to do with the overall picture? If people even notice gender or sex instead of concentrating only on their political belief when voting, I really have to wonder about them.

Click to expand...

Do you have a problem with women and persons of color being candidates for POTUS or, any office, for that matter? Doesn't having a problem with her comment indicate that one has a problem with those groups? Is that why you posted this thread?

Mr Person said:

No no, noticing is fine in Trixland. But if a woman says it was nice to see a black person win and that it'd be nice if a woman won, that first woman is racist and sexist.

It's a fine distinction, I know. But she thinks about these things quite carefully...



_________________
Edit: honestly, it's no different than the huge fuss about the Pelosi quote about Obamacare. (I don't like Pelosi, btw, but whatever).

They ran with "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

But what she actually said was: You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention--it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.




It's easy to score cheap points by taking an admittedly weak line out of its context and present it as the only thing said. I really have to wonder if most people realize how they sound when they speak publicly and not from a memorized script. I don't like most politicians much at all, but I have to give them this: it's actually pretty tough to speak regularly off-the-cuff without slipping up here and there.

I really do make an effort to correct myself if I catch a slip when I'm speaking - even a little thing that might be misinterpreted - but that can be rather tough when you're simultaneously trying to say what you mean to say as efficiently as possible while also monitoring one, poise, etc. And of course, most of the time we're speaking with friends, where we don't have to be on guard for any little thing slip-up to be cut out from the surrounding sentences and used in a frontal assault.

Click to expand...

You're a riot.
And I don't mean this in a good way.

Next time you are in town, be sure and visit "Trixland"
Tell them you know me and they'll charge you twice the admission.

Parrish said:

Do you have a problem with women and persons of color being candidates for POTUS or, any office, for that matter? Doesn't having a problem with her comment indicate that one has a problem with those groups? Is that why you posted this thread?

Click to expand...

Three questions of yours above are laced with supposition.
I'm not surprised.