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

[holbritter]

Race-baiting crap.

Race-baiting?

 

[uptower]

So it'll be a white guy versus an orange guy.

Or maybe a tough guy like Cory Booker.

 

[uptower]

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

Me too. If someone qualified and suitable to my politics comes along, being a woman would be an added bonus because 'it's about time' that ceiling was broken. But it's just the icing on the cake, and doesn't give her an advantage over a more qualified or suitable candidate.

 

[TheRepublican]

So only other racial groups can run for the democrats spot? The democrats are committing political suicide! You know it’s just pathetic that history will never change. But, the Democrats wants to change history why? To make you feel comfortable? Let’s get this straight this is the same political party that didn’t want to end slavery!

 

[TheParser]

I respectfully disagree with Senator Gillibrand.

I do not believe in diversity just for the sake of diversity,

I just want the most honest and most competent officials possible.

I could not care less if every single elected official were of ethnicity X and gender X -- so long as they are the best and the brightest.

 

[ataraxia]

So you admit race and sex is a requirement for you before casting your presidential vote?

Charming...:doh

The diversity of a nation should be reflected in the diversity of its leadership. When it's not, it's usually a sign of power imbalances and hegemony of particular demographics over others, ie, a sick and unjust society.

 

[ataraxia]

So it'll be a white guy versus an orange guy.

Or maybe a tough guy like Cory Booker.

Cory Booker reminds me of Vin Diesel in "Fast and Furious". Separated at birth?

 

[Cardinal]

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

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

I don't take issue with only white men being at the top of the list. My only issue is that the top two are, in my opinion, total downers. I think O'Rourke or Klobuchar are two who should be directing their momentum and good reputations toward 2020, and they should be setting up the infrastructure in place for a Presidential run now.

 

[uptower]

Cory Booker reminds me of Vin Diesel in "Fast and Furious". Separated at birth?

View attachment 67246194View attachment 67246195

I think that's the look he's going for

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

Nothing if you are a typical white misogynistic male...the rest of do see a problem.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

So you are asserting that all the misandrists are A-OK with racism as well...eh?

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

I think that's the look he's going for

Maybe Vin should redo Spartacus? :lamo

C'mon, the guy is a flake, just a little less flaky than our own Senator Flake. Both have ambitions, neither is qualified for even the jobs they have already held.

 

[Roadvirus]

Here's the newly elected GOP Congressmen. I can't quite figure out what they all have in common..... Oh wait, 1 of 31 is a white WOMAN!! Affirmative action for white males? :roll:

People should be elected based on MERIT, not on what color they are or reproductive organ they have.

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

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

 

[Roadvirus]

So it'll be a white guy versus an orange guy.

Or maybe a tough guy like Cory Booker.

:lamo

Corny Groping Bonkers blew his chance during the Kavanaugh fiasco.

 

[Mr Person]

:lamo

Corny Groping Bonkers blew his chance during the Kavanaugh fiasco.

At the very least, that would require there to be a nonzero chance that someone who supported Kavanaugh so strongly as to turn on someone who said something bad about Kav would vote for a Democrat....

 

[PeteEU]

People should be elected based on MERIT, not on what color they are or reproductive organ they have.

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

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

Yes in a fair world I would agree... But the world ain't fair and it is certainly not fair in GOP land who consistently pick white males at an arming rate. By the law of averages at least some would be non white and/or female...but not so much on the right in the US, but also in Europe.

So what is it then? Ever see The Iron Lady? It does explain quite a bit...

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

 

[JasperL]

People should be elected based on MERIT, not on what color they are or reproductive organ they have.

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

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

But doesn't it seem....odd that for some reason nearly ALL the 'most qualified' people in the GOP are white men? Do women or minorities suffer from some lack of character? Looks like affirmative action for white men to me, because I just don't buy that women or minorities are almost completely unqualified to be GOP office holders.

More importantly, see my point at #24. If you're a white man, who is wealthy or at least in the top 10%, there's a good chance those guys represent your interests pretty well, and I don't blame people for voting for those guys. If not, then maybe someone else other than a white, wealthy, Christian man has a different perspective, which might change some decisions by Congress? Seems reasonable....

 

[Acadia]

Hmmm....

So, if you live in the country, do you not believe that a Congress made up entirely of inner city minorities might have a different perspective on life and the pressing problems in the country than you do? Seems reasonable to me they would because they simply HAVE a different perspective - they can't really know our perspective, because they've lived something entirely different. And my guess is if someone more like you, someone at least from the rural areas who understood the people, that you'd, all else equal, far prefer them to another inner city person.

That's rational IMO. What I don't understand is why you find it irrational or illegitimate for others to value 'diversity' for its own sake as well. It's not better or worse, because those are subjective, just different.

The Left likes to check a lot of boxes, and I find that undermines meritocracy. Diversity is great, except when merit, talent and hard work are overlooked for the sake of misguided quotas, or some insane PC cultural warriors who tell me that because a candidate has a vagina, or black skin, or brown skin, they "ought" to be elected or hired.
What matters is not the color of a candidate's skin or the arrangement of the folds of skin between their legs or who they fall in love with or who they sleep with. What matters is that they, being singularly who they are, can serve, represent, defend, support and improve the lives of everyone they serve and represent.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

I see no issue with it, and those that do take issue with it are the reason we have DJT as BLOTUS.

That doesn't really make sense as if people had a problem with white male Democrats, there wouldn't have been massive support for Bernie Sanders, to the point where the DNC had to cheat him out of the nomination.

 

[Taylor]

This MoveOn straw poll isn't reflective of the entire party, just the white, "progressive" arm. With 90% of their votes going to white candidates, they aren't nearly as inclusive as they pretend to be.

 

[slick]

So you admit race and sex is a requirement for you before casting your presidential vote?

Charming...:doh

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

 

[trixare4kids]

that's why Kamala Harris is popular with some-the Dems can pander to several different ethnic-interest groups with her

No doubt!

I can't stand her. The smug condescension drips from Kamala Harris like a Pinto gas tank.

 

[trixare4kids]

No to me race or sex does not matter. However it does matter to A LOT of people even in my own country.... but especially in certain parts of the US. Dont even try to deny this.

It might but certainly not to the degree the loony far left say it does.
IF it mattered, how come Biden and Sanders are top picks with the liberals? Note, I did not say far leftists aka wacko progressives.

 

[trixare4kids]

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

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

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

View attachment 67246182

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

Yeah, right!
Unless those minorities are elected or appointed conservatives or Republicans.

 

[trixare4kids]

Race-baiting crap.

Yep.
We must remind ourselves who it was who asked Gillibrand that question.
CNN's Van Jones.

Wasn't he one of CNN's "reporters" who called the election of DJT a WHITE-LASH?

 

[JMR]

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

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

Spoken as one who must believe the three most qualified candidates will be white guys. Hard to believe since they account for 31% of the population so why 100% of the presidential list?

Word to the awake: Everyone notices gender and color (I assume you meant color not sex). That does not preclude evaluating political beliefs.