• 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

Parrish said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

your posts are getting petulant and silly. You made the claim that the GOP is anti black and brown-you prove that.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
You have to remember that the left hates white males now. They think that they are the core of all things evil and nasty!

If you are white male sit down and shut up. As far as the left is concerned you are not to be heard. :(
Click to expand...

Wow, as a white male that's good info!! Thanks for letting me know that the left hates people like me, but somehow got behind white male Beto to the tune of $70 million or so, an all time record for a Senate race....
 
TurtleDude said:
I have no idea what her politics are. I vote based on the laws they would pass. I don't care what they look like. a pro gun, pro taxpayer politician of any gender or race or sexual orientation would get my vote over a white gun banner like Chuck Schumer
Click to expand...

Sometimes there might be issues not quite on the table that people feel someone like them may understand. I'm sure rural Americans feel there are aspects of their lives that big city dwellers don't get, and vice versa. What was all that talk about GW Bush being someone you could have a beer with? Didn't that suggest some kind of mutual understanding?

How about a pro gun pro taxpayer pro choice woman who supports affirmative action and believes in climate change? vs. Chuck Schumer. lol? Silly question, she would never get the GOP nod. Point being, non of these things write themselves out clearly from the get go, and maybe you see yourself as adequately represented, where someone else does not.
 
TurtleDude said:
you seem to confuse politics with quotas. GOP platforms that favor net tax payers, law enforcement, corporate management and less governmental handouts is going to appeal to people who are less dependent on government handouts and less likely to be using more governmental welfare. right now that is usually suburban whites. white women who are married generally support the GOP too. Single women tend to support the Democrats because they are often more dependent on government services. So are urban blacks. while Rural whites are often not affluent, they tend to vote GOP for other reasons than tax or welfare issues.
Click to expand...

The numbers speak for themselves. You're must making excuses for the white male quota system in place in the GOP. :roll:

And you're actually the one making the allegations here that liberals don't care about qualifications and vote based on gender and race and religion. I don't think that's true. People vote for those they believe will represent their interests. It's as natural for minorities to want those with a world view that is that of a minority, or a woman, to be at the table as it is for you to love seeing a bunch of rich white guys like you at the table. Of COURSE they're more likely to represent your interests. Why would it be different for others who are not rich white men?
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
The numbers speak for themselves. You're must making excuses for the white male quota system in place in the GOP. :roll:
Click to expand...

you're just making crap up now and its not worth addressing.
 
TurtleDude said:
you're just making crap up now and its not worth addressing.
Click to expand...

I added on an additional point if you're interested. But my point was serious. The image I showed is what a hard quota actually looks like. It's quite different on the Democratic side.
 
trixare4kids said:
It is strange.
Sanders and Biden atop the who they want to win list. :shock:
Click to expand...

An old Fart and an old Socialist walk into a bar...…...yeah that's the ticket!
 
Bullseye said:
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.
Click to expand...

Guess who also has a process to pick candidates? Iran.. Saudi Arabia, Saddams Iraq.. process means jack ****, if the system is tainted with bias against non white males.

Like it or not political parties are not unbiased unless you make them unbiased. This takes time and the GOP has done nothing whatsoever to deal with it. The Dems in the US are far further along in opening up the party to all genders and races and religions. But if you look at the right.. in the US or Europe, you see more than often "old white men" in a boys club where non white men and women in general, have a damn hard time getting in because the process is tainted towards "old white men".
 
JasperL said:
FWIW, getting pneumonia in the middle of a campaign might have played a role in those reduced visits. She was diagnosed around 9/11, and from what I've seen typical full recovery is 2-8 weeks or longer.

She certainly didn't have a reputation as SoS as lazy - just the opposite by every account I've seen.
Click to expand...

I'm more of a numbers guy, one who looks at numbers to explain a lot of things that went on. One can look at the numbers 116-71, that's a big reason why the loss. Numbers never provide the whole story. There are usually hidden reasons behind them. I don't remember it ever being said or reported that Hillary had pneumonia. That could be one of reasons behind the stumbles she had, almost falling during the campaign. This is the first I've heard of it anyway.

What I find fascinating about Hillary Clinton is most people had a favorable view of her as SOS, but didn't want her to become president. I fall into that category, I think she was a good SOS, but never wanted her as president. That's not unusual. One can like someone in one job and appreciate the job their doing, but want them to stay away from another job and would never approve of them taking on that different job. I think this was saying, it good, fine to have Hillary as a high underling in government, but not top boss. Hillary's approval/favorables as SOS was around 55% given the normal ups and down. Running for president or as president if she won, 40%.

Different jobs, different ratings. I'm big on numbers.
 
Business as usual for Republicans. Nothing to see here, all is normal and as it should be:

2473.jpg
 
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...

You don't understand socialism which Gillabrand is part of. Socialism doesn't deal in who's the best. Doesn't deal in what the people want. Does deal in some progressive moral principle.
 
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...

Gillibrand is the Senate version of Ocassio Cortez. Beyond dimwitted.

I hope she, Nadler, Cortez, Pelosi and Schumer get tons of FaceTime in the coming 24-months.
 
cabse5 said:
You don't understand socialism which Gillabrand is part of. Socialism doesn't deal in who's the best. Doesn't deal in what the people want. Does deal in some progressive moral principle.
Click to expand...

Go sell crazy, socialism, somewhere else.
 
cabse5 said:
You don't understand socialism which Gillabrand is part of. Socialism doesn't deal in who's the best. Doesn't deal in what the people want. Does deal in some progressive moral principle.
Click to expand...

Socialism is amoral.

We have a century of such examples.

A hundred million were executed in the last century thanks to this amoral, feces of an ideology.

Tell me, is Venezuela moral? Cuba?

What is moral about an ideology that keeps people down?
 
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...
Yet they savagely attack diversity from the GOP.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Perotista said:
I'm more of a numbers guy, one who looks at numbers to explain a lot of things that went on. One can look at the numbers 116-71, that's a big reason why the loss. Numbers never provide the whole story. There are usually hidden reasons behind them. I don't remember it ever being said or reported that Hillary had pneumonia. That could be one of reasons behind the stumbles she had, almost falling during the campaign. This is the first I've heard of it anyway.
Click to expand...

I think a quick search will show you it was widely reported in every major media outlet.

What I find fascinating about Hillary Clinton is most people had a favorable view of her as SOS, but didn't want her to become president. I fall into that category, I think she was a good SOS, but never wanted her as president. That's not unusual. One can like someone in one job and appreciate the job their doing, but want them to stay away from another job and would never approve of them taking on that different job. I think this was saying, it good, fine to have Hillary as a high underling in government, but not top boss. Hillary's approval/favorables as SOS was around 55% given the normal ups and down. Running for president or as president if she won, 40%.

Different jobs, different ratings. I'm big on numbers.
Click to expand...

All that's fine, I was just pointing out that it was unfair and uninformed to go beyond "the numbers" and attribute a cause, which was she was "lazy," at least without explicitly recognizing the pneumonia diagnosis right in the middle of your sample period. While SoS, every account I read is she worked tirelessly and was the opposite of lazy. That didn't likely change. What did change was a very serious illness that at best only completely saps your energy and requires rest from which to recover, which is difficult in a POTUS campaign.
 
zimmer said:
Socialism is amoral.

We have a century of such examples.

A hundred million were executed in the last century thanks to this amoral, feces of an ideology.

Tell me, is Venezuela moral? Cuba?

What is moral about an ideology that keeps people down?
Click to expand...

It's always interesting you guys never pick a country in Europe, any of them, or maybe Israel, or Australia, or New Zealand or Japan - all of which would be "socialist" using the definition used by right wingers to describe American politicians.
 
JasperL said:
It's always interesting you guys never pick a country in Europe, any of them, or maybe Israel, or Australia, or New Zealand or Japan - all of which would be "socialist" using the definition used by right wingers to describe American politicians.
Click to expand...

I live in Europe, have spent half my life there, so what would you like to know about the failed Eurosocialist states?

Like the fact, the top 5 EU countries, were they US States... would be in the bottom five!!!

New Zealand... was bankrupt... and shed its socialist cloth... only to recover with a vengeance.
 
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...

The problem is the 'most qualified' is simply who can win. It has more to do with personality and charisma than qualifications, and it's not close. I also kind of chuckle that picking a white man isn't ALSO about gender and race - of course at some level it is, because that's the kind of person most comfortable to much of the electorate.
 
zimmer said:
I live in Europe, have spent half my life there, so what would you like to know about the failed Eurosocialist states?

Like the fact, the top 5 EU countries, were they US States... would be in the bottom five!!!

New Zealand... was bankrupt... and shed its socialist cloth... only to recover with a vengeance.
Click to expand...

Would be in the bottom, below Mississippi, on what metric?
 
Roadvirus said:
People should be elected based on MERIT, not on what color they are or reproductive organ they have.

MLK: I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

The same goes for electing people. Vote for them on their character, not their gender or skin tone.
Click to expand...

I'm not reading this whole thread but this made me laugh. The GOP elected Trump. How many of those voters went by character and not by skin and gender. That would be 0.

There isn't anyone lower than Trump when it comes to character. You voted in a man that said he liked to walk in on teen girls in various stages of undress in the dressing room for fun.

If it wasn't for the laughs, the fact there are so many people (all trump voters and supporters) that should be considered of no character would be terrifying. Fortunately they are mostly fat old dudes. Honestly I can't even imagine what a female Trump supporter is. Gotta be daddy issues or something.
 
PeteEU said:
Guess who also has a process to pick candidates? Iran.. Saudi Arabia, Saddams Iraq.. process means jack ****, if the system is tainted with bias against non white males.
Click to expand...
one of the most massive non sequiturs I've seen in a long time. In the US we VOTE on party candidates; they're called caucuses or primaries.

PeteEU said:
Like it or not political parties are not unbiased unless you make them unbiased. This takes time and the GOP has done nothing whatsoever to deal with it. The Dems in the US are far further along in opening up the party to all genders and races and religions. But if you look at the right.. in the US or Europe, you see more than often "old white men" in a boys club where non white men and women in general, have a damn hard time getting in because the process is tainted towards "old white men".
Click to expand...
You have no idea what you're talking about. Anyone can register to vote for any party they want. They're not closed clubs.
 
Last edited:
Acadia said:
Merit has been replaced with the misguided notion of "intersectionality". MLK's words about the content of character, ring hollow, it would appear.
Click to expand...

imho, This is only the beginning of merit going the way of the dodo bird... currently... the metoo woman movement has discovered how well accusations have worked to remove men from positions of authority/employment in many sectors of our society today.

Today there is a tool that can be utilized to remove people from positions of authority/employment by other people via sexual harassment claims.

If, anyone thinks they are safe from sexual harassment claims based on being non-white or non-male, they would be wrong. It applies to all people.

And, from what I read in the link below sexual harassment is based on the what a victim or an observer qualifies as sexual harassment.

Check out bullet point # 3 in the 1st link I provided... If, the victim does not think it was sexual harassment and does not make a claim... an observer who thinks it was sexual harassment can make a claim.

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs-sex.cfm

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/04/business/eeoc-sexual-harassment-reports/index.html

The agency said it filed 41 lawsuits that involved allegations of sexual harassment, a 50% increase from the previous year.

Even so, the number of complaints filed to the EEOC is believed to vastly underestimate the scope of harassment in American workplaces.

As many as 70% of people who are harassed never file a complaint with their employer, according to a 2016 EEOC report.

Is the following link an example of sexual harassment?

Biden Has No Chance In 2016, Because Of His Fetish !, page 1


Roseann:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom