• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

How...... dare she? Or...?

What exactly is it that we're supposed to be outraged about?

We are not supposed to notice that Obama was a black man, or that Gillibrand is a woman. Doing so makes us racist sexist fools in Trixland.
 
So you admit race and sex is a requirement for you before casting your presidential vote?

Charming...:doh

I believe "requirement" is YOUR own addition to the discussion. Understandable, since you have no argument without it.
 
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:

repubs.png

About 41 percent of the Democrats but 88 percent of the Republicans in the House are white men. In the Senate, they make up about 63 percent of the Democrats but 82 percent of the Republicans.

The 116th Congress has more women and people of color than ever ? but there's still room to improve

Diversity is improving in both the House and the Senate, but I'd like to believe intelligent people vote for representatives and senators based on what they have to offer rather than the color of their skin or gender.
 
Merit has been replaced with the misguided notion of "intersectionality". MLK's words about the content of character, ring hollow, it would appear.

Precisely my point in my above post to Jaspert.
 
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.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said during a televised interview on Friday night that she was worried about a lack of diversity among top potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidates.

Gillibrand was asked by CNN’s Van Jones about a poll from the network released this week that found that the top three candidates for the Democratic nomination were white men.

The poll showed former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) as the top three potential 2020 Democratic candidates.

"In a party as diverse as ours, does it worry you to see the top three being white guys?" Jones asked Gillibrand, herself a potential presidential candidate, in front of the live audience.

"Yes," Gillibrand responded.

“I aspire for our country to recognize the beauty of our diversity at some point in the future and I hope someday we have a woman president," she continued, when asked to elaborate.
"I love the fact that Barack Obama was our president for eight years, I hope more people of color not only aspire [but] win the presidency, because that’s what makes America so extraordinary, that we are all of that, we are everything, and I think a more inclusive America is a stronger America."

How...... dare she? Or...?

What exactly is it that we're supposed to be outraged about?


We are not supposed to notice that Obama was a black man, or that Gillibrand is a woman. Doing so makes us racist sexist fools in Trixland.

No no, noticing is fine in Trixland. But if a woman says it was nice to see a black person win and that it'd be nice if a woman won, that first woman is racist and sexist.

It's a fine distinction, I know. But she thinks about these things quite carefully...



_________________
Edit: honestly, it's no different than the huge fuss about the Pelosi quote about Obamacare. (I don't like Pelosi, btw, but whatever).

They ran with "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

But what she actually said was: You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention--it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.




It's easy to score cheap points by taking an admittedly weak line out of its context and present it as the only thing said. I really have to wonder if most people realize how they sound when they speak publicly and not from a memorized script. I don't like most politicians much at all, but I have to give them this: it's actually pretty tough to speak regularly off-the-cuff without slipping up here and there.

I really do make an effort to correct myself if I catch a slip when I'm speaking - even a little thing that might be misinterpreted - but that can be rather tough when you're simultaneously trying to say what you mean to say as efficiently as possible while also monitoring one, poise, etc. And of course, most of the time we're speaking with friends, where we don't have to be on guard for any little thing slip-up to be cut out from the surrounding sentences and used in a frontal assault.
 
Last edited:
I'd love to see a woman president. That doesn't mean I'll vote for a woman just because she's a woman.

I live in CA. and even though Hillary had my state in the bag, I would have gladly voted for her if I believed she was the right PERSON for the job and she needed my vote.
She simply wasn't as good, IMO, as what DJT was offering.
Does that mean I "adore" Trump? Hell, NO!
I simply believe his views match mine more than Obama's third term.
 
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.

Well said... very well said.
 
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.

Gillibrand was appointed to Hillary Clinton's seat when Clinton was named Sec. of State. She had to run in a special election the same year and won with 63% of the state's vote.
Many think she was a successful candidate because of her support of gun rights. Funny the usual suspects should overlook that, but any chance to bash a democrat will suffice it seems.
 
No doubt!

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

Funny how intelligent black people have that effect on some. You probably said the same about Obama.
 
About 41 percent of the Democrats but 88 percent of the Republicans in the House are white men. In the Senate, they make up about 63 percent of the Democrats but 82 percent of the Republicans.

The 116th Congress has more women and people of color than ever ? but there's still room to improve

Diversity is improving in both the House and the Senate, but I'd like to believe intelligent people vote for representatives and senators based on what they have to offer rather than the color of their skin or gender.

So it is your position that white men have more to offer?
 
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.

In order to accomplish your goal, would the implementation of quotas be okay with you then?
 
No no, noticing is fine in Trixland. But if a woman says it was nice to see a black person win and that it'd be nice if a woman won, that first woman is racist and sexist.

It's a fine distinction, I know. But she thinks about these things quite carefully...



_________________
Edit: honestly, it's no different than the huge fuss about the Pelosi quote about Obamacare. (I don't like Pelosi, btw, but whatever).

They ran with "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

But what she actually said was: You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention--it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.




It's easy to score cheap points by taking an admittedly weak line out of its context and present it as the only thing said. I really have to wonder if most people realize how they sound when they speak publicly and not from a memorized script. I don't like most politicians much at all, but I have to give them this: it's actually pretty tough to speak regularly off-the-cuff without slipping up here and there.

I really do make an effort to correct myself if I catch a slip when I'm speaking - even a little thing that might be misinterpreted - but that can be rather tough when you're simultaneously trying to say what you mean to say as efficiently as possible while also monitoring one, poise, etc. And of course, most of the time we're speaking with friends, where we don't have to be on guard for any little thing slip-up to be cut out from the surrounding sentences and used in a frontal assault.

I agree with all of your post, but must point out in the OP Trix said noticing was wrong!

Her statement: 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.

I have no problem with what you believe, and am happy to see you put aside this gender/racial nonsense.
Let the best person WIN...
 
I have no problem with what you believe, and am happy to see you put aside this gender/racial nonsense.
Let the best person WIN...

I've never prioritized race or gender. I've always only been interested in the best person for the job.
 
Depends on the reasons for being concerned. If you are worried about the the three of them being white men because white men are bad, then yeah, that is a problem. But if it is just about which ticket combination gives the best odds of electoral victory, then that is just pragmatism. Just like picking a VP from from a swing state other than the presidential candidate’s. It’s gamesmanship.
 
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.

First of all, I'll note you quoted me then completely ignored my point....

And for some reason I just don't believe that 100% of the most qualified potential office holders on the GOP side this year as freshman are white, and that 90% of them are white males. They got the backing and the money because rich white guys are most comfortable with other rich white guys representing them, and GOP voters also prefer rich white Christian men. It's no different than what you're whining about on the Democratic side, just different preferences.

I'm not saying those guys are unqualified, just that there are a MANY - thousands, 10s of thousands likely - who are qualified to be in Congress, and that includes minorities and women. For POTUS the field is smaller, but easily dozens, and in a diverse country some of those will be women and/or minorities. Nothing wrong with wanting to see them step up to give the voters a choice.

Besides the "meritocracy" argument rings hollow to me, given who the GOP just elected as POTUS... I'll leave it to that there is probably not a President in our history LESS qualified to be POTUS than Trump, and everyone the Democrats run will be on any objective measure (except ability to play the press like violins) immensely MORE qualified than the Moron in Chief.
 
Yeah, right!
Unless those minorities are elected or appointed conservatives or Republicans.

If you want to engage, I will but you just dismissed an entire argument with a version of "liberals suck." :roll:

And it proves the point anyway, that it's more than race or gender. If all Democrats cared about was race/gender they'd support right wing women/blacks, but they don't because they disagree with those women/minorities on the issues.

Why does that surprise you? Or why is that somehow bad or illegitimate?
 
I agree with all of your post, but must point out in the OP Trix said noticing was wrong!

Her statement: If people even notice gender or sex instead of concentrating only on their political belief when voting, I really have to wonder about them.


Ah, upon rereading her swill, you are correct.

That's even worse...
 
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.

I love this forum in that it is so diverse, people coming from all over our country who really know what's what with how these politicians, like Gillibrand, came into power.
An accidental senator? Lol, pretty funny.

Actually, the same sort of stuff films are made of. You're probably too young to have remembered the movie, The Accidental Tourist? *nothing to do with this thread, btw.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094606/
 
About 41 percent of the Democrats but 88 percent of the Republicans in the House are white men. In the Senate, they make up about 63 percent of the Democrats but 82 percent of the Republicans.

The 116th Congress has more women and people of color than ever ? but there's still room to improve

Diversity is improving in both the House and the Senate, but I'd like to believe intelligent people vote for representatives and senators based on what they have to offer rather than the color of their skin or gender.

I agree, and there's no more evidence Democrats only vote based on race or gender than Republicans do. In fact the party that elects about 99% white Christians (90% male) would appear more race and religion conscious than Democrats.
 
I've never prioritized race or gender. I've always only been interested in the best person for the job.

I hope you believe me when I say I always thought Trump's platform was more like my present beliefs for the direction of the country than Hillary's.

Saying this does not mean I think Trump is my savior or the best person. I really did not vote him because of his character flaws, especially when it comes to women.
And now it looks like I was right... his cheating on his wife, (wives) will be the thing that might bring him down.
This doesn't mean I think Hillary would have been a better president than him.

At heart, I am a feminist, and IMO, Hillary was being a fraud about being a feminist.
Another thread, I know...
 
If you want to engage, I will but you just dismissed an entire argument with a version of "liberals suck." :roll:

And it proves the point anyway, that it's more than race or gender. If all Democrats cared about was race/gender they'd support right wing women/blacks, but they don't because they disagree with those women/minorities on the issues.

Why does that surprise you? Or why is that somehow bad or illegitimate?

Why would I think liberals suck?
I love liberals.. it's the anti-liberal, far left progressives that have ruined the Democratic Party, IMO.
I ought to know as a lifelong Democrat what I am talking about. You don't, obviously.
 
I agree, and there's no more evidence Democrats only vote based on race or gender than Republicans do. In fact the party that elects about 99% white Christians (90% male) would appear more race and religion conscious than Democrats.

Having been a registered Democrat for most of my life, I think you are incorrect but I can't prove it anymore than you can prove what you have said above.
I know Democrats pander to minorities and women but can anyone actually prove that the Republicans care less about their needs than the Democrats?
I live in CA. I am here to tell you that it was minorities who are registered Democrats, (Blacks and Hispanics) who voted for Prop. #8; marriage should be between a man and a woman only.
Look it up if you don't believe me.

I voted against Prop #8, btw.

eta: Prop #8 source:
https://ballotpedia.org/California_..._Same-Sex_Couples_to_Marry"_Initiative_(2008)
 
Last edited:
Nothing if you are a typical white misogynistic male...the rest of do see a problem.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
Yeah, yet another nothingburger for you guys to spin out of control about. Now if your could only find a LGBTAQ female with a Hispanic surname you'd have it made.
 
I agree, and there's no more evidence Democrats only vote based on race or gender than Republicans do. In fact the party that elects about 99% white Christians (90% male) would appear more race and religion conscious than Democrats.

You make a good point, but I think you might be dealing in the realm of innumeracy here. I don't think they get that at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom