|
If this thread turns into a USPMT 2.0, we will not hesitate to shut it down. Do not even bother posting if all you're going to do is shit on the Democratic candidates while adding nothing of value.
Rules:
- Don't post meaningless one-liners.
- Don't turn this into a X doesn't stand a chance against Trump debate.
- Sources MUST have a supporting comment that summarizes the source beforehand.
- Do NOT turn this thread into a Republicans vs. Democrats shit-storm.
This thread will be heavily moderated. Expect the same kind of strictness as the USPMT. |
On March 16 2020 11:46 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 11:28 Gahlo wrote:On March 16 2020 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2020 11:19 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Debate takeaways: Sanders generally spoke with more substance and a better train of thought than Biden, but I don't think it'll be enough for Sanders to beat Biden in the primary. (Sanders didn't annihilate Biden; Biden didn't get creamed.) Also, if either of them wants to beat Trump in the general election, they're going to need to have a female person-of-color as their runningmate, who can actually energize the Democratic half of the country and unify both the progressive wing and the moderate liberals. Period. On March 16 2020 10:57 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 10:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yo Biden just formally announced that his runningmate will be a woman. First woman VP, potentially. We predicted that would happen, but that's a pretty big reveal. That's likely to be the #1 headline from this debate, unless something else happens in the next 50 minutes. It's a bit strange. I thought the Democratic party wanted to lead the charge against sexism and all the other isms. Mixed messages. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "mixed messages"? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I thought Democrats were into equality, anti-sexism, and that kind of thing. Yet here we have a sexist selection process for VP. Or maybe I'm confusing Biden with new-wave dems. Also, it would be interesting if a male politician changed his identity to female and then accused Biden of bigotry for not considering him/her. I don't understand how you can look at the pairing of a male president with a female vice president and come out thinking that that's unfairly biased towards women. Historically, every president and vice president has been male. For most of that history, being a woman was necessarily disqualifying because of sexism. Balancing the ticket isn't a bad idea, whether it's having different races, sexes, or even ideologies (e.g., progressive vs. moderate liberal). It's certainly an attempt at unifying much of the country. I don't see your trans example as particularly relevant, because if Biden chooses Woman 1 for VP, that doesn't mean that all other women get to blame Biden for not choosing them due to sexism. That makes no sense. It comes down to whether or not a VP's gender is a meaningful criteria. Should well qualified men be overlooked because they're men? Should unqualified women get more of a chance because they're a woman? I'm pretty sure you can find more then a few women qualified for vice-president? I don't get how the unqualified thing get to play here.
Sadly, plenty of people think that being a woman is inherently disqualifying, regardless of their resume. (fwiw, I don't think that's Gahlo's position.)
|
The issue I have is that I don't think Biden selecting a woman VP is any more demonstrative of respecting the political realities of women or addressing the issues that negatively impact them than McCain picking Palin was demonstrative of his support for gender equity.
The sort of reductive and superficial reasoning that celebrates Biden announcing a nondescript woman will be his VP is emblematic of the liberal bastardization of modern feminism imo.
|
On March 16 2020 11:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 11:41 Gahlo wrote:On March 16 2020 11:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2020 11:28 Gahlo wrote:On March 16 2020 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2020 11:19 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Debate takeaways: Sanders generally spoke with more substance and a better train of thought than Biden, but I don't think it'll be enough for Sanders to beat Biden in the primary. (Sanders didn't annihilate Biden; Biden didn't get creamed.) Also, if either of them wants to beat Trump in the general election, they're going to need to have a female person-of-color as their runningmate, who can actually energize the Democratic half of the country and unify both the progressive wing and the moderate liberals. Period. On March 16 2020 10:57 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 10:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yo Biden just formally announced that his runningmate will be a woman. First woman VP, potentially. We predicted that would happen, but that's a pretty big reveal. That's likely to be the #1 headline from this debate, unless something else happens in the next 50 minutes. It's a bit strange. I thought the Democratic party wanted to lead the charge against sexism and all the other isms. Mixed messages. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "mixed messages"? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I thought Democrats were into equality, anti-sexism, and that kind of thing. Yet here we have a sexist selection process for VP. Or maybe I'm confusing Biden with new-wave dems. Also, it would be interesting if a male politician changed his identity to female and then accused Biden of bigotry for not considering him/her. I don't understand how you can look at the pairing of a male president with a female vice president and come out thinking that that's unfairly biased towards women. Historically, every president and vice president has been male. For most of that history, being a woman was necessarily disqualifying because of sexism. Balancing the ticket isn't a bad idea, whether it's having different races, sexes, or even ideologies (e.g., progressive vs. moderate liberal). It's certainly an attempt at unifying much of the country. I don't see your trans example as particularly relevant, because if Biden chooses Woman 1 for VP, that doesn't mean that all other women get to blame Biden for not choosing them due to sexism. That makes no sense. It comes down to whether or not a VP's gender is a meaningful criteria. Should well qualified men be overlooked because they're men? Should unqualified women get more of a chance because they're a woman? There's been no assertion by either Democratic candidate that they're going to select a woman despite that woman being unqualified. Naturally, that assertion will be put forth by plenty of sexists. In general, not just this occasion. In the end, it's a matter of their beliefs, not the content of their pants. The gender of a candidate shouldn't be a deciding factor - whether that's excluding women or being exclusive to them. Sure, but we can't just look at 2020 and ignore the entire history of American presidents and vice presidents. Not considering women as world leaders is sexist; considering women as world leaders isn't sexist... it's equality. Also, acknowledging the strengths of a person who is different from you (sex, race, politics, whatever) because they're likely to have diverse and useful perspectives, experiences, and knowledge isn't discriminatory. The runningmate's sex is a point of merit in this case, because the presidential candidates are actually putting their money where their mouths are and actually having female runningmates, rather than just merely saying they support women. The point of contention isn't just that a singular presidential race happened to have men vs. men and no women; the point of contention comes from the systemic and historic dismissal of women in positions of power (especially in the American executive branch). And to deal with that contention, women should also be runningmates. Not every time. But ONCE would be a good starting point.
I believe I stated the gender isn't a relevant aspect when I consider a candidate to vote for. There's good women candidates and shit ones. There's good male candidates and shit ones. I don't know a ton about Merkel, but I respect what I have heard. I know a ton of people have soured on Warren, and I admit I have to a degree, but I'm not bitter about it or her. I'm concerned about people like Klob, who don't really add anything to the ticket other than being a woman as far as I can tell.
|
On March 16 2020 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The issue I have is that I don't think Biden selecting a woman VP is any more demonstrative of respecting the political realities of women or addressing the issues that negatively impact them than McCain picking Palin was demonstrative of his support for gender equity.
The sort of reductive and superficial reasoning that celebrates Biden announcing a nondescript woman will be his VP is emblematic of the liberal bastardization of modern feminism imo.
I don't see McCain/ Palin and Biden/ ??? as likely to be equivalent, because Palin was explicitly not qualified to be a world leader. I'd imagine that Biden or Sanders would be likely to pick someone who isn't a complete moron. If it turns out that the runningmate is indeed a complete bimbo, then (and only then) would I criticize the choice. But I'm not going to assume that the woman is unqualified simply because all we know about her is that she's unqualified, and I'm sure that the vast majority of feminists and women still cringed at Palin being the woman to represent women on the national stage at the time.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On March 16 2020 11:43 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 11:19 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Debate takeaways: Sanders generally spoke with more substance and a better train of thought than Biden, but I don't think it'll be enough for Sanders to beat Biden in the primary. (Sanders didn't annihilate Biden; Biden didn't get creamed.) Also, if either of them wants to beat Trump in the general election, they're going to need to have a female person-of-color as their runningmate, who can actually energize the Democratic half of the country and unify both the progressive wing and the moderate liberals. Period. On March 16 2020 10:57 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 10:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yo Biden just formally announced that his runningmate will be a woman. First woman VP, potentially. We predicted that would happen, but that's a pretty big reveal. That's likely to be the #1 headline from this debate, unless something else happens in the next 50 minutes. It's a bit strange. I thought the Democratic party wanted to lead the charge against sexism and all the other isms. Mixed messages. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "mixed messages"? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I thought Democrats were into equality, anti-sexism, and that kind of thing. Yet here we have a sexist selection process for VP. Or maybe I'm confusing Biden with new-wave dems. Also, it would be interesting if a male politician changed his identity to female and then accused Biden of bigotry for not considering him/her. I think it is odd that you don't think he has already picked the person and they just happen to be a women. What about him announcing that he will pick a women makes you think that the person he is picking is not the person he thinks is best for the job? It was not presented that way in the announcement and subsequent news coverage. It is sexism by definition. Whether or not that is a bad thing, in this case, is a matter of opinion. For example, I have no issue with sexism in some competitive sports.
|
Canada8990 Posts
On March 16 2020 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The issue I have is that I don't think Biden selecting a woman VP is any more demonstrative of respecting the political realities of women or addressing the issues that negatively impact them than McCain picking Palin was demonstrative of his support for gender equity.
The sort of reductive and superficial reasoning that celebrates Biden announcing a nondescript woman will be his VP is emblematic of the liberal bastardization of modern feminism imo.
It is a really weird statement to make, at this point just say who it is or say something along the line of "I'm considering many women for the position". I didn't watch this debate tho.
I assume if it's a women it will be one of Harris, Warren or Klob? Although I assume people most verse than me in American politics know some other names.
Palin was an hail mary play from McCain looking for a third straight republican presidency in the midst of the middle east war, there was many more traditional or well regarded women to chose from.
|
On March 16 2020 12:01 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 11:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2020 11:41 Gahlo wrote:On March 16 2020 11:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2020 11:28 Gahlo wrote:On March 16 2020 11:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2020 11:19 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Debate takeaways: Sanders generally spoke with more substance and a better train of thought than Biden, but I don't think it'll be enough for Sanders to beat Biden in the primary. (Sanders didn't annihilate Biden; Biden didn't get creamed.) Also, if either of them wants to beat Trump in the general election, they're going to need to have a female person-of-color as their runningmate, who can actually energize the Democratic half of the country and unify both the progressive wing and the moderate liberals. Period. On March 16 2020 10:57 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 10:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yo Biden just formally announced that his runningmate will be a woman. First woman VP, potentially. We predicted that would happen, but that's a pretty big reveal. That's likely to be the #1 headline from this debate, unless something else happens in the next 50 minutes. It's a bit strange. I thought the Democratic party wanted to lead the charge against sexism and all the other isms. Mixed messages. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "mixed messages"? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I thought Democrats were into equality, anti-sexism, and that kind of thing. Yet here we have a sexist selection process for VP. Or maybe I'm confusing Biden with new-wave dems. Also, it would be interesting if a male politician changed his identity to female and then accused Biden of bigotry for not considering him/her. I don't understand how you can look at the pairing of a male president with a female vice president and come out thinking that that's unfairly biased towards women. Historically, every president and vice president has been male. For most of that history, being a woman was necessarily disqualifying because of sexism. Balancing the ticket isn't a bad idea, whether it's having different races, sexes, or even ideologies (e.g., progressive vs. moderate liberal). It's certainly an attempt at unifying much of the country. I don't see your trans example as particularly relevant, because if Biden chooses Woman 1 for VP, that doesn't mean that all other women get to blame Biden for not choosing them due to sexism. That makes no sense. It comes down to whether or not a VP's gender is a meaningful criteria. Should well qualified men be overlooked because they're men? Should unqualified women get more of a chance because they're a woman? There's been no assertion by either Democratic candidate that they're going to select a woman despite that woman being unqualified. Naturally, that assertion will be put forth by plenty of sexists. In general, not just this occasion. In the end, it's a matter of their beliefs, not the content of their pants. The gender of a candidate shouldn't be a deciding factor - whether that's excluding women or being exclusive to them. Sure, but we can't just look at 2020 and ignore the entire history of American presidents and vice presidents. Not considering women as world leaders is sexist; considering women as world leaders isn't sexist... it's equality. Also, acknowledging the strengths of a person who is different from you (sex, race, politics, whatever) because they're likely to have diverse and useful perspectives, experiences, and knowledge isn't discriminatory. The runningmate's sex is a point of merit in this case, because the presidential candidates are actually putting their money where their mouths are and actually having female runningmates, rather than just merely saying they support women. The point of contention isn't just that a singular presidential race happened to have men vs. men and no women; the point of contention comes from the systemic and historic dismissal of women in positions of power (especially in the American executive branch). And to deal with that contention, women should also be runningmates. Not every time. But ONCE would be a good starting point. I believe I stated the gender isn't a relevant aspect when I consider a candidate to vote for. There's good women candidates and shit ones. There's good male candidates and shit ones. I don't know a ton about Merkel, but I respect what I have heard. I know a ton of people have soured on Warren, and I admit I have to a degree, but I'm not bitter about it or her. I'm concerned about people like Klob, who don't really add anything to the ticket other than being a woman as far as I can tell.
I agree with you on all of those points 
|
On March 16 2020 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The issue I have is that I don't think Biden selecting a woman VP is any more demonstrative of respecting the political realities of women or addressing the issues that negatively impact them than McCain picking Palin was demonstrative of his support for gender equity.
The sort of reductive and superficial reasoning that celebrates Biden announcing a nondescript woman will be his VP is emblematic of the liberal bastardization of modern feminism imo. I don't see McCain/ Palin and Biden/ ??? as likely to be equivalent, because Palin was explicitly not qualified to be a world leader. I'd imagine that Biden or Sanders would be likely to pick someone who isn't a complete moron. If it turns out that the runningmate is indeed a complete bimbo, then (and only then) would I criticize the choice. But I'm not going to assume that the woman is unqualified simply because all we know about her is that she's unqualified, and I'm sure that the vast majority of feminists and women still cringed at Palin being the woman to represent women on the national stage at the time.
Feels weird reading a woman referred to as a "bimbo" while talking about sexism like this, but I don't mean that they would be unqualified (I honestly don't even know what makes someone "qualified" in that sense to be president or not), but that being 'qualified' is a vacuous bar to clear. That the celebrating of him picking a woman as VP isn't warranted without knowing what that woman represents politically.
The way he talks about working with Republicans I don't know we can count out that he's considering Palin himself lol
|
On March 16 2020 12:07 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The issue I have is that I don't think Biden selecting a woman VP is any more demonstrative of respecting the political realities of women or addressing the issues that negatively impact them than McCain picking Palin was demonstrative of his support for gender equity.
The sort of reductive and superficial reasoning that celebrates Biden announcing a nondescript woman will be his VP is emblematic of the liberal bastardization of modern feminism imo. It is a really weird statement to make, at this point just say who it is or say something along the line of "I'm considering many women for the position". I didn't watch this debate tho. I assume if it's a women it will be one of Harris, Warren or Klob? Although I assume people most verse than me in American politics know some other names.
There are a few other potential names also being predicted, such as Stacey Abrams, but I can't possibly guess who it'll end up being. I'll sit tight and wait for the name to be released.
As far as it being weird to announce any characteristic of a runningmate, I suppose that entirely depends on what the audience is looking for. There has been quite a lot of criticism in the news and among voters about this next election ultimately coming down to 2 old, white, Democratic men and 1 old, white, Republican man (although, ironically, this is exactly who the voters have voted for, so the merits of these complaints are certainly mixed). Also, minorities and women have been historically (and even to this day) disenfranchised and discriminated against, so the release of a relevant characteristic is probably a good strategy (and the appointment of a relevant runningmate is definitely a good strategy). A lot of this comes down to unifying demographics.
|
On March 16 2020 12:07 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The issue I have is that I don't think Biden selecting a woman VP is any more demonstrative of respecting the political realities of women or addressing the issues that negatively impact them than McCain picking Palin was demonstrative of his support for gender equity.
The sort of reductive and superficial reasoning that celebrates Biden announcing a nondescript woman will be his VP is emblematic of the liberal bastardization of modern feminism imo. It is a really weird statement to make, at this point just say who it is or say something along the line of "I'm considering many women for the position". I didn't watch this debate tho. I assume if it's a women it will be one of Harris, Warren or Klob? Although I assume people most verse than me in American politics know some other names. Palin was an hail mary play from McCain looking for a third straight republican presidency in the midst of the middle east war, there was many more traditional or well regarded women to chose from.
I'm not 100% on it, but it sounded like he already had the person picked. I'm sure they'll want the hype of an actual announcement rather than just leaking it in the middle of a boring debate. Then they can also announce that there will be an announcement if they've learned anything from ESports.
There are quite a few other women to pick from in politics although Warren and Klob are probably near the top of the list right now.
|
On March 16 2020 12:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2020 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The issue I have is that I don't think Biden selecting a woman VP is any more demonstrative of respecting the political realities of women or addressing the issues that negatively impact them than McCain picking Palin was demonstrative of his support for gender equity.
The sort of reductive and superficial reasoning that celebrates Biden announcing a nondescript woman will be his VP is emblematic of the liberal bastardization of modern feminism imo. I don't see McCain/ Palin and Biden/ ??? as likely to be equivalent, because Palin was explicitly not qualified to be a world leader. I'd imagine that Biden or Sanders would be likely to pick someone who isn't a complete moron. If it turns out that the runningmate is indeed a complete bimbo, then (and only then) would I criticize the choice. But I'm not going to assume that the woman is unqualified simply because all we know about her is that she's unqualified, and I'm sure that the vast majority of feminists and women still cringed at Palin being the woman to represent women on the national stage at the time. Feels weird reading a woman referred to as a "bimbo" while talking about sexism like this, but I don't mean that they would be unqualified (I honestly don't even know what makes someone "qualified" in that sense to be president or not), but that being 'qualified' is a vacuous bar to clear. That the celebrating of him picking a woman as VP isn't warranted without knowing what that woman represents politically. The way he talks about working with Republicans I don't know we can count out that he's considering Palin himself lol
I understand the term "bimbo" to mean a woman who's perceived as both attractive and unintelligent. And if Biden ends up picking Palin or a Palin-clone, I will certainly be disappointed and angry! While I agree with you that "being qualified" is subjective, I think if we sat down and made a list of important criteria for the leader of the free world (or the runningmate who is a heartbeat away from becoming the leader of the world), you and I would agree that Palin is pretty objectively unqualified. We'll just need to wait and see who Biden chooses.
|
|
|
On March 16 2020 12:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 12:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2020 12:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2020 11:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The issue I have is that I don't think Biden selecting a woman VP is any more demonstrative of respecting the political realities of women or addressing the issues that negatively impact them than McCain picking Palin was demonstrative of his support for gender equity.
The sort of reductive and superficial reasoning that celebrates Biden announcing a nondescript woman will be his VP is emblematic of the liberal bastardization of modern feminism imo. I don't see McCain/ Palin and Biden/ ??? as likely to be equivalent, because Palin was explicitly not qualified to be a world leader. I'd imagine that Biden or Sanders would be likely to pick someone who isn't a complete moron. If it turns out that the runningmate is indeed a complete bimbo, then (and only then) would I criticize the choice. But I'm not going to assume that the woman is unqualified simply because all we know about her is that she's unqualified, and I'm sure that the vast majority of feminists and women still cringed at Palin being the woman to represent women on the national stage at the time. Feels weird reading a woman referred to as a "bimbo" while talking about sexism like this, but I don't mean that they would be unqualified (I honestly don't even know what makes someone "qualified" in that sense to be president or not), but that being 'qualified' is a vacuous bar to clear. That the celebrating of him picking a woman as VP isn't warranted without knowing what that woman represents politically. The way he talks about working with Republicans I don't know we can count out that he's considering Palin himself lol I understand the term "bimbo" to mean a woman who's perceived as both attractive and unintelligent. And if Biden ends up picking Palin or a Palin-clone, I will certainly be disappointed and angry! While I agree with you that "being qualified" is subjective, I think if we sat down and made a list of important criteria for the leader of the free world (or the runningmate who is a heartbeat away from becoming the leader of the world), you and I would agree that Palin is pretty objectively unqualified. We'll just need to wait and see who Biden chooses.
I agree that waiting and seeing who Biden chooses is determinative to whether his commitment to picking a woman for VP is a good or bad thing for furthering feminist causes.
Celebrating it at this point is dangerously reductive imo.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On March 16 2020 12:22 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 12:05 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:43 JimmiC wrote:On March 16 2020 11:19 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Debate takeaways: Sanders generally spoke with more substance and a better train of thought than Biden, but I don't think it'll be enough for Sanders to beat Biden in the primary. (Sanders didn't annihilate Biden; Biden didn't get creamed.) Also, if either of them wants to beat Trump in the general election, they're going to need to have a female person-of-color as their runningmate, who can actually energize the Democratic half of the country and unify both the progressive wing and the moderate liberals. Period. On March 16 2020 10:57 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 10:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yo Biden just formally announced that his runningmate will be a woman. First woman VP, potentially. We predicted that would happen, but that's a pretty big reveal. That's likely to be the #1 headline from this debate, unless something else happens in the next 50 minutes. It's a bit strange. I thought the Democratic party wanted to lead the charge against sexism and all the other isms. Mixed messages. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "mixed messages"? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I thought Democrats were into equality, anti-sexism, and that kind of thing. Yet here we have a sexist selection process for VP. Or maybe I'm confusing Biden with new-wave dems. Also, it would be interesting if a male politician changed his identity to female and then accused Biden of bigotry for not considering him/her. I think it is odd that you don't think he has already picked the person and they just happen to be a women. What about him announcing that he will pick a women makes you think that the person he is picking is not the person he thinks is best for the job? It was not presented that way in the announcement and subsequent news coverage. It is sexism by definition. Whether or not that is a bad thing, in this case, is a matter of opinion. For example, I have no issue with sexism in some competitive sports. Could you link some of the news coverage that indicates that he picked a unqualified women for VP, I have not seen that. As I stated, it is sad that it is news at all, but it is. To Gahlo point we do not not know who was picked or why, and it could end up being what you suggest, but without knowing that it is or is not going to be and to instantly go to "it is sexist" says more about your biases than it does about the person being picked. The news coverage I have seen mostly quotes his words: "If I’m elected president, my cabinet, my administration will look like the country and I committed that I will pick a woman to be my vice president." It is a sexist selection process by definition. What someone may think of it is another matter. The statement also suggests a racist selection process in his cabinet and administration. He also said tonight he will "appoint the first black woman to the court. It is required that they have representation now. It's long overdue."
For the VP, cabinet, administration, and court positions it does not sound like he already has someone specifically in mind, but rather has committed to using a sexist and racist selection process as he sees fit.
|
On March 16 2020 12:37 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 12:22 JimmiC wrote:On March 16 2020 12:05 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:43 JimmiC wrote:On March 16 2020 11:19 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Debate takeaways: Sanders generally spoke with more substance and a better train of thought than Biden, but I don't think it'll be enough for Sanders to beat Biden in the primary. (Sanders didn't annihilate Biden; Biden didn't get creamed.) Also, if either of them wants to beat Trump in the general election, they're going to need to have a female person-of-color as their runningmate, who can actually energize the Democratic half of the country and unify both the progressive wing and the moderate liberals. Period. On March 16 2020 10:57 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 10:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yo Biden just formally announced that his runningmate will be a woman. First woman VP, potentially. We predicted that would happen, but that's a pretty big reveal. That's likely to be the #1 headline from this debate, unless something else happens in the next 50 minutes. It's a bit strange. I thought the Democratic party wanted to lead the charge against sexism and all the other isms. Mixed messages. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "mixed messages"? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I thought Democrats were into equality, anti-sexism, and that kind of thing. Yet here we have a sexist selection process for VP. Or maybe I'm confusing Biden with new-wave dems. Also, it would be interesting if a male politician changed his identity to female and then accused Biden of bigotry for not considering him/her. I think it is odd that you don't think he has already picked the person and they just happen to be a women. What about him announcing that he will pick a women makes you think that the person he is picking is not the person he thinks is best for the job? It was not presented that way in the announcement and subsequent news coverage. It is sexism by definition. Whether or not that is a bad thing, in this case, is a matter of opinion. For example, I have no issue with sexism in some competitive sports. Could you link some of the news coverage that indicates that he picked a unqualified women for VP, I have not seen that. As I stated, it is sad that it is news at all, but it is. To Gahlo point we do not not know who was picked or why, and it could end up being what you suggest, but without knowing that it is or is not going to be and to instantly go to "it is sexist" says more about your biases than it does about the person being picked. The news coverage I have seen mostly quotes his words: "If I’m elected president, my cabinet, my administration will look like the country and I committed that I will pick a woman to be my vice president." It is a sexist selection process by definition. What someone may think of it is another matter. The statement also suggests a racist selection process in his cabinet and administration. He also said tonight he will "appoint the first black woman to the court. It is required that they have representation now. It's long overdue." For the VP, cabinet, administration, and court positions it does not sound like he already has someone specifically in mind, but rather has committed to using a sexist and racist selection process as he sees fit.
Before that quote, he explicitly states that there are plenty of women he already considers to be qualified enough to be a vice president. And that's a true statement. It's not like Biden or Sanders are necessarily selecting from a pool of bad candidates. It also doesn't mean that men aren't qualified either.
Giving representation to women and black people is not "sexist" and "racist".
|
Canada5565 Posts
On March 16 2020 12:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 12:37 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 12:22 JimmiC wrote:On March 16 2020 12:05 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:43 JimmiC wrote:On March 16 2020 11:19 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Debate takeaways: Sanders generally spoke with more substance and a better train of thought than Biden, but I don't think it'll be enough for Sanders to beat Biden in the primary. (Sanders didn't annihilate Biden; Biden didn't get creamed.) Also, if either of them wants to beat Trump in the general election, they're going to need to have a female person-of-color as their runningmate, who can actually energize the Democratic half of the country and unify both the progressive wing and the moderate liberals. Period. On March 16 2020 10:57 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 10:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yo Biden just formally announced that his runningmate will be a woman. First woman VP, potentially. We predicted that would happen, but that's a pretty big reveal. That's likely to be the #1 headline from this debate, unless something else happens in the next 50 minutes. It's a bit strange. I thought the Democratic party wanted to lead the charge against sexism and all the other isms. Mixed messages. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "mixed messages"? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I thought Democrats were into equality, anti-sexism, and that kind of thing. Yet here we have a sexist selection process for VP. Or maybe I'm confusing Biden with new-wave dems. Also, it would be interesting if a male politician changed his identity to female and then accused Biden of bigotry for not considering him/her. I think it is odd that you don't think he has already picked the person and they just happen to be a women. What about him announcing that he will pick a women makes you think that the person he is picking is not the person he thinks is best for the job? It was not presented that way in the announcement and subsequent news coverage. It is sexism by definition. Whether or not that is a bad thing, in this case, is a matter of opinion. For example, I have no issue with sexism in some competitive sports. Could you link some of the news coverage that indicates that he picked a unqualified women for VP, I have not seen that. As I stated, it is sad that it is news at all, but it is. To Gahlo point we do not not know who was picked or why, and it could end up being what you suggest, but without knowing that it is or is not going to be and to instantly go to "it is sexist" says more about your biases than it does about the person being picked. The news coverage I have seen mostly quotes his words: "If I’m elected president, my cabinet, my administration will look like the country and I committed that I will pick a woman to be my vice president." It is a sexist selection process by definition. What someone may think of it is another matter. The statement also suggests a racist selection process in his cabinet and administration. He also said tonight he will "appoint the first black woman to the court. It is required that they have representation now. It's long overdue." For the VP, cabinet, administration, and court positions it does not sound like he already has someone specifically in mind, but rather has committed to using a sexist and racist selection process as he sees fit. Before that quote, he explicitly states that there are plenty of women he already considers to be qualified enough to be a vice president. And that's a true statement. It's not like Biden or Sanders are necessarily selecting from a pool of bad candidates. It also doesn't mean that men aren't qualified either. Giving representation to women and black people is not "sexist" and "racist". Joe Biden committed to discounting viable candidates solely due to their sex or race. According to him, they have the wrong sex or race for the position. That cannot be explained away.
|
On March 16 2020 13:04 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 12:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2020 12:37 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 12:22 JimmiC wrote:On March 16 2020 12:05 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:43 JimmiC wrote:On March 16 2020 11:19 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Debate takeaways: Sanders generally spoke with more substance and a better train of thought than Biden, but I don't think it'll be enough for Sanders to beat Biden in the primary. (Sanders didn't annihilate Biden; Biden didn't get creamed.) Also, if either of them wants to beat Trump in the general election, they're going to need to have a female person-of-color as their runningmate, who can actually energize the Democratic half of the country and unify both the progressive wing and the moderate liberals. Period. On March 16 2020 10:57 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 10:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yo Biden just formally announced that his runningmate will be a woman. First woman VP, potentially. We predicted that would happen, but that's a pretty big reveal. That's likely to be the #1 headline from this debate, unless something else happens in the next 50 minutes. It's a bit strange. I thought the Democratic party wanted to lead the charge against sexism and all the other isms. Mixed messages. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "mixed messages"? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I thought Democrats were into equality, anti-sexism, and that kind of thing. Yet here we have a sexist selection process for VP. Or maybe I'm confusing Biden with new-wave dems. Also, it would be interesting if a male politician changed his identity to female and then accused Biden of bigotry for not considering him/her. I think it is odd that you don't think he has already picked the person and they just happen to be a women. What about him announcing that he will pick a women makes you think that the person he is picking is not the person he thinks is best for the job? It was not presented that way in the announcement and subsequent news coverage. It is sexism by definition. Whether or not that is a bad thing, in this case, is a matter of opinion. For example, I have no issue with sexism in some competitive sports. Could you link some of the news coverage that indicates that he picked a unqualified women for VP, I have not seen that. As I stated, it is sad that it is news at all, but it is. To Gahlo point we do not not know who was picked or why, and it could end up being what you suggest, but without knowing that it is or is not going to be and to instantly go to "it is sexist" says more about your biases than it does about the person being picked. The news coverage I have seen mostly quotes his words: "If I’m elected president, my cabinet, my administration will look like the country and I committed that I will pick a woman to be my vice president." It is a sexist selection process by definition. What someone may think of it is another matter. The statement also suggests a racist selection process in his cabinet and administration. He also said tonight he will "appoint the first black woman to the court. It is required that they have representation now. It's long overdue." For the VP, cabinet, administration, and court positions it does not sound like he already has someone specifically in mind, but rather has committed to using a sexist and racist selection process as he sees fit. Before that quote, he explicitly states that there are plenty of women he already considers to be qualified enough to be a vice president. And that's a true statement. It's not like Biden or Sanders are necessarily selecting from a pool of bad candidates. It also doesn't mean that men aren't qualified either. Giving representation to women and black people is not "sexist" and "racist". Joe Biden committed to discounting viable candidates solely due to their sex or race. According to him, they have the wrong sex or race for the position. That cannot be explained away.
To be clear, Sanders and Biden would both be accused of doing this, but either way: if two candidates are both considered qualified, and one of those candidates has the additional advantage of being able to unify and represent a demographic that the other does not (because the other candidate is the same as you), then it would not only be reasonable to go with the diverse option, but it would be ridiculous not to go with them. Neither Biden nor Sanders committed to disqualifying men because they're men. That's your assertion, not their position. Saying that qualified women exist - which is what they said - is not saying that no man is also qualified.
|
|
|
Canada5565 Posts
On March 16 2020 13:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 13:04 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 12:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2020 12:37 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 12:22 JimmiC wrote:On March 16 2020 12:05 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:43 JimmiC wrote:On March 16 2020 11:19 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 11:06 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Debate takeaways: Sanders generally spoke with more substance and a better train of thought than Biden, but I don't think it'll be enough for Sanders to beat Biden in the primary. (Sanders didn't annihilate Biden; Biden didn't get creamed.) Also, if either of them wants to beat Trump in the general election, they're going to need to have a female person-of-color as their runningmate, who can actually energize the Democratic half of the country and unify both the progressive wing and the moderate liberals. Period. On March 16 2020 10:57 Xxio wrote:
[quote]It's a bit strange. I thought the Democratic party wanted to lead the charge against sexism and all the other isms. Mixed messages. Can you please elaborate on what you mean by "mixed messages"? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but I thought Democrats were into equality, anti-sexism, and that kind of thing. Yet here we have a sexist selection process for VP. Or maybe I'm confusing Biden with new-wave dems. Also, it would be interesting if a male politician changed his identity to female and then accused Biden of bigotry for not considering him/her. I think it is odd that you don't think he has already picked the person and they just happen to be a women. What about him announcing that he will pick a women makes you think that the person he is picking is not the person he thinks is best for the job? It was not presented that way in the announcement and subsequent news coverage. It is sexism by definition. Whether or not that is a bad thing, in this case, is a matter of opinion. For example, I have no issue with sexism in some competitive sports. Could you link some of the news coverage that indicates that he picked a unqualified women for VP, I have not seen that. As I stated, it is sad that it is news at all, but it is. To Gahlo point we do not not know who was picked or why, and it could end up being what you suggest, but without knowing that it is or is not going to be and to instantly go to "it is sexist" says more about your biases than it does about the person being picked. The news coverage I have seen mostly quotes his words: "If I’m elected president, my cabinet, my administration will look like the country and I committed that I will pick a woman to be my vice president." It is a sexist selection process by definition. What someone may think of it is another matter. The statement also suggests a racist selection process in his cabinet and administration. He also said tonight he will "appoint the first black woman to the court. It is required that they have representation now. It's long overdue." For the VP, cabinet, administration, and court positions it does not sound like he already has someone specifically in mind, but rather has committed to using a sexist and racist selection process as he sees fit. Before that quote, he explicitly states that there are plenty of women he already considers to be qualified enough to be a vice president. And that's a true statement. It's not like Biden or Sanders are necessarily selecting from a pool of bad candidates. It also doesn't mean that men aren't qualified either. Giving representation to women and black people is not "sexist" and "racist". Joe Biden committed to discounting viable candidates solely due to their sex or race. According to him, they have the wrong sex or race for the position. That cannot be explained away. To be clear, Sanders and Biden would both be accused of doing this, but either way: if two candidates are both considered qualified, and one of those candidates has the additional advantage of being able to unify and represent a demographic that the other does not (because the other candidate is the same as you), then it would not only be reasonable to go with the diverse option, but it would be ridiculous not to go with them. Neither Biden nor Sanders committed to disqualifying men because they're men. That's your assertion, not their position. Saying that qualified women exist - which is what they said - is not saying that no man is also qualified. Incorrect. Biden believes that men, due to their sex, do not fulfill a necessary condition to be his VP and as such are not qualified for the position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
