|
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 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...
That's *exactly* what some people are saying. And you may not be a fan of proportional representation, but I'd argue we're not yet at the luxury of playing the semantics game of just-how-proportional-is-acceptable when current representation of certain demographics is still at 0%. It's not like we're looking for a race quota or sex quota or mandatory proportions that always reflect the exact percentages of different demographics. Half the country has had 0 people of their sex as president or vice president; they're not asking for the moon here. It may not be an important issue to you, and perhaps Biden and Sanders are ultimately doing it only as a political strategy and not because they actually care about feminism and supporting equity among sexes, but this is a very important issue for a large number of Americans, especially Democrats, and having a qualified runningmate - who also happens to be female - is a good place to start.
I'm not sure if I'd be able to contribute anything else to this conversation, and I think a lot of the different perspectives on this subject have been clarified, so I'm going to bow out of this particular discussion. Have a good day 
|
Canada11506 Posts
On March 16 2020 11:30 DarkPlasmaBall 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? 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.
Not necessarily with Biden's announcement- it may be that he found exactly the right qualified person and she just so happened to be a woman. (Although I will note that even before we knew who Palin was, McCain wasn't not given that benefit of the doubt- there was a collective groan at the announcement, myself included as the motivation seemed rather plain.) Rather I see the issue when they turn to Bernie- how about you? What are you going to do? Will your VP be a woman? That's where it seems quite apparent that the gender is the main qualifier, not one's qualifications. That's a game that can be played endlessly. This position will be X, Y, Z identity, what are you going to do? It's blatant one upmanship.
|
it's Clinton. he's waiting for Bernie to concede before announcing her; else, he might screw himself out of a win.
|
There is no way its Clinton. She does nothing for him and hurts him greatly in every battleground state. If I had to bet anything its warren or other then her maybe klob or harris, but I think Warren is the most likely.
The VP is a largely meaningless pick and only matters during elections. If the president dies or is removed from office the VP is an automatic lame duck and is only holding the seat until the next election. Its always going to be about identity and electoral viability.
|
On March 16 2020 23:06 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 22:47 maybenexttime 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. 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: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: 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. 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.
Perhaps you should read what Xxio said more carefully. "Discounting viable candidates solely due to their sex or race" is not the same as "sacrificing the quality of the candidate just to push through the sex of the candidate". In fact, Xxio said nothing about the quality of the candidates. So, no, nobody here is saying what you claimed.
Now let's have a look at what he actually said. From the horse's mouth:
Number one, I agree with the question and the underlying premise of Amy’s question. Number one, I committed that if I’m elected president and have an opportunity to appoint someone to the courts, I’ll appoint the first black woman of the courts. It’s required that they have representation now. It’s long overdue.
Secondly, if I’m elected president, my cabinet, my administration will look like the country and I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a — I’d pick a woman to be vice president. There are a number of women who are qualified to be president tomorrow. I would pick a woman to be my vice president is. Number three, I’m the guy that wrote the domestic violence law. I’m the guy that put in the prohibitions that no one who abuses someone else should be able to own a gun. Period. They should not be able to own a gun.
1. Biden says that he's committed to appointing a black woman to the courts. The way he stated that, being a black woman will be a necessary condition. That is both sexist and racist as it excludes all other qualified candidates purely based on sex and race.
2. He reemphasizes that his cabinet "will look like the country". That necessitates racial/gender bias if the demographics of the potential appointees are not representative of the general population.
3. Finally, he states that he will pick a woman for his VP. Nowhere does he imply that he decided on whom his VP would be and it happens to be a woman. In his two previous commitments he doesn't shy away from using sex and race as a qualification.
You're saying that excluding men from being considered for the role is not sexist. What if we reverse the situation? Would not considering qualified women for the role not be sexist? Of course it would...
On March 17 2020 00:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2020 22:47 maybenexttime 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. 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: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... That's *exactly* what some people are saying. And you may not be a fan of proportional representation, but I'd argue we're not yet at the luxury of playing the semantics game of just-how-proportional-is-acceptable when current representation of certain demographics is still at 0%. It's not like we're looking for a race quota or sex quota or mandatory proportions that always reflect the exact percentages of different demographics. Half the country has had 0 people of their sex as president or vice president; they're not asking for the moon here. It may not be an important issue to you, and perhaps Biden and Sanders are ultimately doing it only as a political strategy and not because they actually care about feminism and supporting equity among sexes, but this is a very important issue for a large number of Americans, especially Democrats, and having a qualified runningmate - who also happens to be female - is a good place to start. I'm not sure if I'd be able to contribute anything else to this conversation, and I think a lot of the different perspectives on this subject have been clarified, so I'm going to bow out of this particular discussion. Have a good day
Who's saying that? In this thread or in general? And he is clearly looking for race and sex quotas in his cabinet (as is Bernie).
|
On March 17 2020 07:47 Sermokala wrote:
There is no way its Clinton. She does nothing for him and hurts him greatly in every battleground state. If I had to bet anything its warren or other then her maybe klob or harris, but I think Warren is the most likely.
The VP is a largely meaningless pick and only matters during elections. If the president dies or is removed from office the VP is an automatic lame duck and is only holding the seat until the next election. Its always going to be about identity and electoral viability. 'cause you're assuming rational actors.
i'm thinking pettiness, deservedness, avenge and Biden as a puppet, a front-man.
|
On March 17 2020 08:51 maybenexttime wrote:
You're saying that excluding men from being considered for the role is not sexist. What if we reverse the situation? Would not considering qualified women for the role not be sexist? Of course it would...
Because that's how sexism works. And racism. They're problems that are systemic in nature, and as such don't just look at an individual case but across society, and how they've trended historically. It is not racist to overlook a white person, who is currently overrepresented, in favor of a black person, who is underrepresented. That's just not how it works. You're not the first one to say "but that's also racism", nor do I think it's a particularly clever take.
It's similar to the alleged "paradox of tolerance". Being intolerant of intolerance doesn't suddenly make you intolerant, and it's insipid to suggest so. It's an argument whose only function is to downplay the injustices that have already been committed.
|
With all the quarantine already happening, Bernie needs to drop. He was already super screwed and now it's just weird. Makes him appear desperate. Writing on the wall, but letting people gather? Not good.
My preference would have been a quick transition to mail in, but it's likely not possible at this point with how many people aren't even in offices.
Ideally he drops before voting today.
|
On March 17 2020 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
With all the quarantine already happening, Bernie needs to drop. He was already super screwed and now it's just weird. Makes him appear desperate. Writing on the wall, but letting people gather? Not good.
My preference would have been a quick transition to mail in, but it's likely not possible at this point with how many people aren't even in offices.
Ideally he drops before voting today.
You know he told the DNC he didn't think voting was a good idea and they and the states (other than Ohio) are the ones pushing this right?
Neera Tanden of CAP basically tried to get Bernie's comms person banned from twitter for mentioning the CDC said it isn't safe to gather in what we can predict will happen at the polls?
Him dropping is a terrible idea, not only because Biden will lose to Trump, but Biden can't correct the problems Trump exacerbated by simply trying (and failing Dems caved on this emergency package and it still got rejected out of hand by Republicans for not doing enough to help people) to bring them back to where they were under Obama.
|
It feels like these primaries could be where several states lose control of the fragile situation that is containing the spread of this virus. I don't see how this ends well when the only precaution taken seems to be, "we'll be super careful."
|
Arizona, Florida, and Illinois primaries are supposedly still scheduled for today; Ohio pushed theirs back to accommodate for our current health crisis.
|
On March 18 2020 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Arizona, Florida, and Illinois primaries are supposedly still scheduled for today; Ohio pushed theirs back to accommodate for our current health crisis.
Arizona and Florida are looking at the state share of medicare costs and thinking "2 birds" is the best I can attribute them. It will be poor and working class people primarily stuck in the virus factories they're calling polling locations.
|
On March 17 2020 23:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2020 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
With all the quarantine already happening, Bernie needs to drop. He was already super screwed and now it's just weird. Makes him appear desperate. Writing on the wall, but letting people gather? Not good.
My preference would have been a quick transition to mail in, but it's likely not possible at this point with how many people aren't even in offices.
Ideally he drops before voting today. You know he told the DNC he didn't think voting was a good idea and they and the states (other than Ohio) are the ones pushing this right? Neera Tanden of CAP basically tried to get Bernie's comms person banned from twitter for mentioning the CDC said it isn't safe to gather in what we can predict will happen at the polls? Him dropping is a terrible idea, not only because Biden will lose to Trump, but Biden can't correct the problems Trump exacerbated by simply trying (and failing Dems caved on this emergency package and it still got rejected out of hand by Republicans for not doing enough to help people) to bring them back to where they were under Obama.
What Bernie said or recommended isn't particularly relevant in my eyes. I agree with your prediction of BIden's run and perhaps presidency, but I don't see a path to Bernie getting a plurality of delegates at this point.
Is it that you see a path to Bernie getting a plurality, or do you think he has a path without plurality?
|
On March 18 2020 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2020 23:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2020 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
With all the quarantine already happening, Bernie needs to drop. He was already super screwed and now it's just weird. Makes him appear desperate. Writing on the wall, but letting people gather? Not good.
My preference would have been a quick transition to mail in, but it's likely not possible at this point with how many people aren't even in offices.
Ideally he drops before voting today. You know he told the DNC he didn't think voting was a good idea and they and the states (other than Ohio) are the ones pushing this right? Neera Tanden of CAP basically tried to get Bernie's comms person banned from twitter for mentioning the CDC said it isn't safe to gather in what we can predict will happen at the polls? Him dropping is a terrible idea, not only because Biden will lose to Trump, but Biden can't correct the problems Trump exacerbated by simply trying (and failing Dems caved on this emergency package and it still got rejected out of hand by Republicans for not doing enough to help people) to bring them back to where they were under Obama. What Bernie said or recommended isn't particularly relevant in my eyes. I agree with your prediction of BIden's run and perhaps presidency, but I don't see a path to Bernie getting a plurality of delegates at this point. Is it that you see a path to Bernie getting a plurality, or do you think he has a path without plurality?
Frankly, replacing Trump with someone like Bernie (ideally better but he's who we got) is too important for the survival of our society (in a recognizable form) to think like that imo.
Biden and anyone even thinking about voting for him has to do the right thing (and support Bernie in the context of them being Democrats) and they can't use 'the rules' as a crutch or justification for not doing it imo.
Saying Bernie should drop out and people should support Biden is a threat to my, and my families future putting all of us in existential danger imo.
EDIT: Should note that Bernie and Biden aren't the only race on some of these ballots, so Bernie dropping out doesn't mean voting would stop anyway.
|
On March 18 2020 00:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2020 00:29 Mohdoo wrote:On March 17 2020 23:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 17 2020 22:56 Mohdoo wrote:
With all the quarantine already happening, Bernie needs to drop. He was already super screwed and now it's just weird. Makes him appear desperate. Writing on the wall, but letting people gather? Not good.
My preference would have been a quick transition to mail in, but it's likely not possible at this point with how many people aren't even in offices.
Ideally he drops before voting today. You know he told the DNC he didn't think voting was a good idea and they and the states (other than Ohio) are the ones pushing this right? Neera Tanden of CAP basically tried to get Bernie's comms person banned from twitter for mentioning the CDC said it isn't safe to gather in what we can predict will happen at the polls? Him dropping is a terrible idea, not only because Biden will lose to Trump, but Biden can't correct the problems Trump exacerbated by simply trying (and failing Dems caved on this emergency package and it still got rejected out of hand by Republicans for not doing enough to help people) to bring them back to where they were under Obama. What Bernie said or recommended isn't particularly relevant in my eyes. I agree with your prediction of BIden's run and perhaps presidency, but I don't see a path to Bernie getting a plurality of delegates at this point. Is it that you see a path to Bernie getting a plurality, or do you think he has a path without plurality? Frankly, replacing Trump with someone like Bernie (ideally better but he's who we got) is too important for the survival of our society (in a recognizable form) to think like that imo. Biden and anyone even thinking about voting for him has to do the right thing (and support Bernie in the context of them being Democrats) and they can't use 'the rules' as a crutch or justification for not doing it imo. Saying Bernie should drop out and people should support Biden is a threat to my, and my families future putting all of us in existential danger imo.
I suppose that's fair and I agree. If we assume climate change models are accurate, it makes sense to basically do anything and everything to prevent Biden or Trump being president.
The only case in which Biden or Trump are ok is if we assume climate models aren't accurate. I don't doubt the world will eventually come together and properly fund science etc to solve climate change impact after it happens, but it will be after some really dicey shit and we should be trying to prevent that.
|
On March 18 2020 00:34 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Should note that Bernie and Biden aren't the only race on some of these ballots, so Bernie dropping out doesn't mean voting would stop anyway.
I also don't think that even if Bernie dropped out, people would stop voting. For a lot of people, it's sort of a tradition.
|
I expect Bernie to drop without going on too long, but the correct play if you believe in left/progressive values (esp. Climate Change) is to just push until it breaks. The moment Bernie drops out there's a huge loss of leverage. The DNC needs to know that as many as possible left voters are willing to walk and abandon the party. There's absolutely nothing else that's going to matter to the DNC and absolutely nothing else they will listen to.
Just look at it now, they're willing to let the Republicans attack them *from the left*.
|
On March 17 2020 20:55 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2020 08:51 maybenexttime wrote:
You're saying that excluding men from being considered for the role is not sexist. What if we reverse the situation? Would not considering qualified women for the role not be sexist? Of course it would... Because that's how sexism works. And racism. They're problems that are systemic in nature, and as such don't just look at an individual case but across society, and how they've trended historically. It is not racist to overlook a white person, who is currently overrepresented, in favor of a black person, who is underrepresented. That's just not how it works. You're not the first one to say "but that's also racism", nor do I think it's a particularly clever take. It's similar to the alleged "paradox of tolerance". Being intolerant of intolerance doesn't suddenly make you intolerant, and it's insipid to suggest so. It's an argument whose only function is to downplay the injustices that have already been committed.
It's not supposed to be a "clever take". You're in favor of systemic sexism and racism. I find that detestable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
