|
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 13:19 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 13:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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.
[quote]
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.
This is you, projecting. You're the one saying things like "necessary". He's not.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On March 16 2020 13:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 13:19 Xxio wrote:On March 16 2020 13:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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:
[quote]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. This is you, projecting. You're the one saying things like "necessary". He's not. It was used in explanation of why your use of "disqualifying" was incorrect. All I can do for you and JimmiC at this point is recommend Merriam-Webster and objectivity. Biden's blatant sexual and racial prejudices cannot be explained away.
|
|
|
Can we just skip to the part where racism and sexism are justified in selection because (some people feel like) identity representation after historical under representation is an end that justifies those means? I don’t think there’s any need to be pedantic on either side about the words or their overall fit within ideology.
I’m finishing up the debate tomorrow; it’s getting late.
|
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".
Narrowing the selection of candidates based on race and gender is racist and sexist respectivly.
|
The frustrating thing about this conversation is the announcement was so transparently done to make it the only talking point of the debate so we don't focus on Biden's horrendous record, the multiple lies he told during the debate, or anything else of substance.
And judging by this thread it worked.
----
As for the debate itself, Sanders did well but his reluctance to really go in on Joe kept him from doing any sort of comeback blow I fear. I also wish he highlighted a few things more effectively:
* The implementation of emergency measures (as Joe advocates for) is inferior way to handle a pandemic compared to ALREADY having those measures in place before hand. I think Sanders highlighted how his policies are good/needed for a response, but didn't do enough to sell that we need those measures as a systemic baseline if we are ever to have a rapid response to something like a pandemic.
* Anita Hill was never brought up. One of the biggest electability arguments for Biden is he will protect the supreme court, but that relies on completely ignoring Biden's own history. I know he'll just saw sorry and move on but this really should be a vector of attack when compounded with the other horrible records Biden has
* Hammer more on the leadership aspect. Sanders did this ok, but I think it should have been woven into the entire debate. Biden's whole defense of his legislative history is that he's changed with the times, but Sanders really should have dug in that we need someone ahead of the time and forward thinking, not merely someone along for the ride.
* Draw a connection between Biden's plan for Coronavirus with Climate Change. Biden speaks a lot for Coronavirus of using the existing industries (pharma, insurance, etc.) as partners to fight the pandemic as well as piecemeal emergency measures in reaction, but not in preparation of, the pandemic. All that is a preview of what we get on Climate Change with Biden: working with the offending industries, reactionary measures, supporting "not doing enough" bills if they're an incremental improvement. It's not good enough.
|
On March 16 2020 21:22 Logo wrote:
The frustrating thing about this conversation is the announcement was so transparently done to make it the only talking point of the debate so we don't focus on Biden's horrendous record, the multiple lies he told during the debate, or anything else of substance.
And judging by this thread it worked.
I mentioned before he also floated a Republican running mate so I'm not counting out Palin yet. But yeah, it should definitely be that he is a liar (which forced him out of previous presidential runs), so folks can't even trust that he actually will pick a woman anyway.
|
On March 16 2020 21:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 21:22 Logo wrote:
The frustrating thing about this conversation is the announcement was so transparently done to make it the only talking point of the debate so we don't focus on Biden's horrendous record, the multiple lies he told during the debate, or anything else of substance.
And judging by this thread it worked. I mentioned before he also floated a Republican running mate so I'm not counting out Palin yet. But yeah, it should definitely be that he is a liar (which forced him out of previous presidential runs), so folks can't even trust that he actually will pick a woman anyway.
My guess is he wants to float the possibility of Warren to draw in her supporters (omg he endorsed her plans!), then pick Klob, Harris, or some other very moderate candidate (sure why not a repub, it's the same thing anyways) when it's too late for those people to realize he has no intention of doing anything progressive.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On March 16 2020 19:31 Silvanel 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". Narrowing the selection of candidates based on race and gender is racist and sexist respectivly.
Ok, so since we're going over the same nomentlature disagrement over and over, do you guys think it's moraly or ethicaly good or bad? And in what cases?
You're polish, I assume at least a part of you would be encline to say that the "racisims" or national exclusionism of wanting to have polish politician leaders instead of russian one, independent of their own individual merit was at somepoint at least somewhat just? What would be the mesurement by which you would compared the situation.
|
In most debates, I like when the moderators play a minimal role, but there was a lot of lying coming from Biden, and it would have been fair if moderators held him accountable. I think the moment that epitomized this was when Sanders was talking about Biden's inconsistency when it comes to Social Security, and quoting Biden on some of Biden's rhetoric... and Biden got flustered and shut down... and then the moderator stepped in and tried to challenge Sanders on Sanders's rhetoric, except Sanders's rhetoric has been super-consistent and the moderator's (mis)quote of Sanders was actually for improving SS, not freezing or cutting SS. That was a pretty huge, biased fail for CNN.
|
On March 16 2020 19:31 Silvanel 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". Narrowing the selection of candidates based on race and gender is racist and sexist respectivly.
It is. What is not clear is the motivation for such a decision, although it's most likely that it was motivated by pragmatism and not prejudice. Biden probably thinks certain demographics are more likely to vote for him if his running mate is a woman, and he's probably right. It doesn't change the fact that the motivation of those demographics is sexist. Excluding men from even being considered for the role is sexist.
Somehow people here were put off by Hilary Clinton playing the "vote for me because I'm a woman" card, yet don't have the same issue with Biden using the same logic in his VP selection process.
I didn't watch the whole debate, but my impression is that Biden seems to be much better at debating. They both mostly talked past each other, but Bernie often looked like a broken record. When he was asked what he thinks about the measures taken by the Fed, he just kept talking about universal healthcare. He really struggled to articulate his points and how his approach differed from Biden's.
E.g. when discussing the response to the coronavirus, Biden looked very decisive in applying what's effectively an emergency band-aid solution and attacked Bernie's M4A position for the lack of urgency. Bernie should've stressed that he didn't disagree with taking decisive action right now and explained how M4A makes the American public better equipped to deal with such crises on a fundamental level. He also fumbled when trying to reply to Biden's remark that Italy has universal healthcare and yet it didn't help. Same goes for the "who's going to pay for all of this" question. Bernie failed to stress that the US healthcare system is one of the least efficient among the developed countries. Whenever he had to interact with Biden, he failed.
Lastly, what I found very annoying was Bernie's mention of the wage gap. Pure demagogy...
|
On March 16 2020 22:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
In most debates, I like when the moderators play a minimal role, but there was a lot of lying coming from Biden, and it would have been fair if moderators held him accountable. I think the moment that epitomized this was when Sanders was talking about Biden's inconsistency when it comes to Social Security, and quoting Biden on some of Biden's rhetoric... and Biden got flustered and shut down... and then the moderator stepped in and tried to challenge Sanders on Sanders's rhetoric, except Sanders's rhetoric has been super-consistent and the moderator's (mis)quote of Sanders was actually for improving SS, not freezing or cutting SS. That was a pretty huge, biased fail for CNN.
Can't be surprised after how they did Bernie with the sexism attack from Warren.
|
I like the dredging up of the old "it's sexism to give representation to under-represented people" line of thought. Also the assumption that because Biden didn't outright say who his VP is going to be, he therefore doesn't have one in mind, and is just going to throw a dart at a board of women. And it's obviously sexist to have a dartboard with women on it, so...
His motives for choosing so aside, could it not be he has a well-qualified woman in mind already? I think even the default assumption that [hiring woman]>>[woman is obviously not qualified]>>[sexism] is pretty damn sexist in and of itself. You're not even waiting to judge his selection on its merits. And if his choice of VP is well-qualified, then no, that's not sexist. That's finally choosing a qualified candidate that isn't a man. He may be pandering in doing so, but that does not disqualify it from being meritorious.
For the record, I think it's thoroughly ridiculous that when this boogeyman gets brought up about "reverse sexism", we still have to spend pages debunking a very low-effort argument.
|
On March 16 2020 22:16 NewSunshine wrote:
I like the dredging up of the old "it's sexism to give representation to under-represented people" line of thought. Also the assumption that because Biden didn't outright say who his VP is going to be, he therefore doesn't have one in mind, and is just going to throw a dart at a board of women. And it's obviously sexist to have a dartboard with women on it, so...
His motives for choosing so aside, could it not be he has a well-qualified woman in mind already? I think even the default assumption that [hiring woman]>>[woman is obviously not qualified]>>[sexism] is pretty damn sexist in and of itself. You're not even waiting to judge his selection on its merits. And if his choice of VP is well-qualified, then no, that's not sexist. That's finally choosing a qualified candidate that isn't a man. He may be pandering in doing so, but that does not disqualify it from being meritorious.
For the record, I think it's thoroughly ridiculous that when this boogeyman gets brought up about "reverse sexism", we still have to spend pages debunking a very low-effort argument.
The first sentence he made about this topic - seconds before he officially announced his runningmate will be a woman - is that he already believes that there are a number of women who are qualified to be vice president, so yes. The idea that some people have, that he will sacrifice the quality of the candidate just to push through the sex of the candidate, is currently unjustified, and certainly disagrees with what Biden (and most people) think: that a woman is capable of being a reasonable vice president.
|
VP is supposed to be a voter magnet, I don't think it's (overly) sexist to select a magnet most desirable by your potential voters. Declaring you'll have a female running mate is a sign women's issues are important to you. It's the president's gender that should be irrelevant, as that's about who they are and not about what choices they make.
|
On March 16 2020 22:16 NewSunshine wrote:
I like the dredging up of the old "it's sexism to give representation to under-represented people" line of thought. Also the assumption that because Biden didn't outright say who his VP is going to be, he therefore doesn't have one in mind, and is just going to throw a dart at a board of women. And it's obviously sexist to have a dartboard with women on it, so...
His motives for choosing so aside, could it not be he has a well-qualified woman in mind already? I think even the default assumption that [hiring woman]>>[woman is obviously not qualified]>>[sexism] is pretty damn sexist in and of itself. You're not even waiting to judge his selection on its merits. And if his choice of VP is well-qualified, then no, that's not sexist. That's finally choosing a qualified candidate that isn't a man. He may be pandering in doing so, but that does not disqualify it from being meritorious.
For the record, I think it's thoroughly ridiculous that when this boogeyman gets brought up about "reverse sexism", we still have to spend pages debunking a very low-effort argument.
Nice straw man. Nobody is saying that being a woman is, in Biden's eyes, a sufficient qualification to become a VP. It is clear from the way he worded that announcement that he excluded men from being considered simply due to their gender. That is sexist no matter how you spin it. It's a filtering process and if one of the filters is gender, that's sexism.
I don't see any inherent value in having proportional representation in terms of demographics either.
It's peculiar how the left often brings up interwar Poland as an example of rampant antisemitism when the policies were mostly aimed just at that - proportional ethnic representation at the universities and in various professions. Somehow the same type of policy can be both discriminatory and not discriminatory at the same time.
On March 16 2020 22:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 22:16 NewSunshine wrote:
I like the dredging up of the old "it's sexism to give representation to under-represented people" line of thought. Also the assumption that because Biden didn't outright say who his VP is going to be, he therefore doesn't have one in mind, and is just going to throw a dart at a board of women. And it's obviously sexist to have a dartboard with women on it, so...
His motives for choosing so aside, could it not be he has a well-qualified woman in mind already? I think even the default assumption that [hiring woman]>>[woman is obviously not qualified]>>[sexism] is pretty damn sexist in and of itself. You're not even waiting to judge his selection on its merits. And if his choice of VP is well-qualified, then no, that's not sexist. That's finally choosing a qualified candidate that isn't a man. He may be pandering in doing so, but that does not disqualify it from being meritorious.
For the record, I think it's thoroughly ridiculous that when this boogeyman gets brought up about "reverse sexism", we still have to spend pages debunking a very low-effort argument. The first sentence he made about this topic - seconds before he officially announced his runningmate will be a woman - is that he already believes that there are a number of women who are qualified to be vice president, so yes. The idea that some people have, that he will sacrifice the quality of the candidate just to push through the sex of the candidate, is currently unjustified, and certainly disagrees with what Biden (and most people) think: that a woman is capable of being a reasonable vice president.
Literally nobody here is saying that...
|
On March 16 2020 22:47 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 22:16 NewSunshine wrote:
I like the dredging up of the old "it's sexism to give representation to under-represented people" line of thought. Also the assumption that because Biden didn't outright say who his VP is going to be, he therefore doesn't have one in mind, and is just going to throw a dart at a board of women. And it's obviously sexist to have a dartboard with women on it, so...
His motives for choosing so aside, could it not be he has a well-qualified woman in mind already? I think even the default assumption that [hiring woman]>>[woman is obviously not qualified]>>[sexism] is pretty damn sexist in and of itself. You're not even waiting to judge his selection on its merits. And if his choice of VP is well-qualified, then no, that's not sexist. That's finally choosing a qualified candidate that isn't a man. He may be pandering in doing so, but that does not disqualify it from being meritorious.
For the record, I think it's thoroughly ridiculous that when this boogeyman gets brought up about "reverse sexism", we still have to spend pages debunking a very low-effort argument. Nice straw man. Nobody is saying that being a woman is, in Biden's eyes, a sufficient qualification to become a VP. It is clear from the way he worded that announcement that he excluded men from being considered simply due to their gender. That is sexist no matter how you spin it. It's a filtering process and if one of the filters is gender, that's sexism. I don't see any inherent value in having proportional representation in terms of demographics either. It's peculiar how the left often brings up interwar Poland as an example of rampant antisemitism when the policies were mostly aimed just at that - proportional ethnic representation at the universities and in various professions. Somehow the same type of policy can be both discriminatory and not discriminatory at the same time. Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 22:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 16 2020 22:16 NewSunshine wrote:
I like the dredging up of the old "it's sexism to give representation to under-represented people" line of thought. Also the assumption that because Biden didn't outright say who his VP is going to be, he therefore doesn't have one in mind, and is just going to throw a dart at a board of women. And it's obviously sexist to have a dartboard with women on it, so...
His motives for choosing so aside, could it not be he has a well-qualified woman in mind already? I think even the default assumption that [hiring woman]>>[woman is obviously not qualified]>>[sexism] is pretty damn sexist in and of itself. You're not even waiting to judge his selection on its merits. And if his choice of VP is well-qualified, then no, that's not sexist. That's finally choosing a qualified candidate that isn't a man. He may be pandering in doing so, but that does not disqualify it from being meritorious.
For the record, I think it's thoroughly ridiculous that when this boogeyman gets brought up about "reverse sexism", we still have to spend pages debunking a very low-effort argument. The first sentence he made about this topic - seconds before he officially announced his runningmate will be a woman - is that he already believes that there are a number of women who are qualified to be vice president, so yes. The idea that some people have, that he will sacrifice the quality of the candidate just to push through the sex of the candidate, is currently unjustified, and certainly disagrees with what Biden (and most people) think: that a woman is capable of being a reasonable vice president. Literally nobody here is saying that...
All of this is a response to this:
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.
Which is utter nonsense based on 0 facts or details. So no, not "literally nobody" is saying these things. Also I don't remember responding to you, or saying anything about Poland or antisemitism, so if you could avoid attributing those things to me that would be aces, thanks.
|
I'm quite impressed with Biden's campaign team. He's not particularly charismatic, but he's really good at saying the right things at the right time, which I think is a result of good preparation done by his team. The timing of announcing a female running mate was brilliant.
|
I think CNN softballed the hell out of Biden, and went out of its way to make Bernie justify himself and his positions, and that Bernie still did extremely well despite that. He was aggressive and on point, and made sure to question Joe directly, hold his feet to the fire, and demonstrate who really has what it takes to lead us into the future. I think Biden has it undeservedly easy, on multiple occasions was able to literally stare at the camera, give a one word answer, and no one had a problem with it. It was awkward AF.
|
Considering we have like a pool of like 150 million people who could be VP in this country (the only requirement is that you be over 35), have any of you thought about what it even means to be “qualified” for VP? Can you imagine having access to even the top 0.001% and having a thousand resumes to look at? Or does that not seem “realistic”? If not, why not? Could it be that “qualifications” for VP are basically unlike any other job? That its representative role is perhaps the most important “job duty”?
Fucking Biden is going to be one of two candidates for most powerful person in the world. The other is Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
