It's interesting what people will say about others, when truth and accuracy isn't a concern.
I've never criticized the DFL for trotting out 2 old white guys as their final two candidates, while bypassing multiple younger, less white, but still rich options.
What I've been critical of is that the DFL has criticized the GOP for being the party of "old, white, men", while positioning themselves as the opposite. Well they tried the P-BO experiment, and now they're back to old, rich, white, men. It's pointing out hypocrisy, nothing else.
I've never, and would never, criticize a presidential candidate for choosing a running mate of any ethnicity if that person was the best, most qualified, choice.
What I will criticize is choosing a running mate solely based on the color of their skin or their gender. When the process excludes people based on skin color and gender, it's really hard to argue that it's not racist and sexist?
It's almost like people just like to make shit up, regardless of the truth.
9 comments:
Exactly what I told the Bobbsey Twins at Dan's blog, which he'll no doubt delete rather than discuss.
But it's true. With all the younger options, with all the non-white options, to end up with an "old white guy" seems contradictory to what they always say. But then, we're talking about leftists. It's how they roll.
Craig... " what I will criticize is choosing a running mate based solely on the color of their skin..."
Of course, the reality is that this suggestion is b*******. No one is saying, let's pick just any black man, let's pick just any woman, let's pick just any gay Latino. We are, of course, saying there is a whole nation of talented qualified distinguished intelligent people of color and women and lgbtq people. Why not choose one of those talented people who've been left out and under-represented in our political process?
That is what we are saying.
Of course.
And I will criticize a party that steadfastly refuses that opportunity to traditional minority groups or under-represented groups.
Of course, the Vice President should be from the talent pool of under-represented people. Why wouldn't we do that? It is unjust and irrational to NOT do that.
It's almost like you make s*** up, regardless of the truth.
Craig... "What I've been critical of is that the DFL has criticized the GOP for being the party of "old, white, men", while positioning themselves as the opposite."
This complaint from Democrats and others - including the GOP itself - is a legitimate complaint.
Democrats, of course, are not where they need to be, but they are way more diverse than the GOP which, at the federal level anyway, is primarily the party of older wealthy white men. So anyone criticizing democrats for not being diverse enough who identifies with a Republicans it's not doing so out of concern for diversity. Clearly.
In the case of Biden, he was nominated largely because of the votes of black people. The same is not true for Trump or conservative politicians, in general. Both parties need to do better, but the Democrats are clearly, objectively, demonstrably way out in front on this topic.
Of course.
It's almost like you don't care about the truth, just criticizing progressives and Democrats.
"It's almost like you make s*** up, regardless of the truth."
You should know, it's how you roll.
The point isn't that there aren't numerous qualified POC available to be chosen. Your party chose not to nominate a number of those people for POTUS. The issue is that Biden has been very clear that skin color and gender are the primary things he's looking for in a VP candidate. It's almost like he's decided to exclude hundreds of qualified VP candidates based entirely on their skin color and gender.
"It's almost like you don't care about the truth, just criticizing progressives and Democrats."
Is it not true that the DFL chose NOT to nominate any of the women and POC that ran for POTUS, instead choosing two old, rich, white, men instead?
It's almost like pointing out the truth is a problem.
But, please continue to lie about me and what I've said.
"Democrats, of course, are not where they need to be, but they are way more diverse than the GOP which, at the federal level anyway, is primarily the party of older wealthy white men."
Thanks for making my point. Y'all are going to complain about the GOP, then nominate exactly what you bitch about.
"So anyone criticizing democrats for not being diverse enough who identifies with a Republicans it's not doing so out of concern for diversity. Clearly."
I guess it's a good thing I don't identify as a republican. It's interesting that y'all see to only embrace diversity when it comes to skin color.
I have and will continue to point out hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle, when I come across anything that motivates me to write about it.
Of course this post, isn't so much about the DFL hypocrisy, as about folks who just don't seem to be bothered by lying about others.
Art,
Of course that is a valid point.
First, who's running?
Second, do any of those running have a track record that can be reviewed? (It's why Obama was such a bad option!)
Third, for those who are new and have no track record, what about them, if anything, makes them a better choice than those with a good track record?
There's no "selecting" according to race or gender if there is no one of a different race or gender running. One can only select from among those running. If the party is aware of a person of color or a woman who is truly rock solid on those principles that define a Republican (better yet, a conservative), then it's up to the party to encourage such a person to run and then that person will be judged according to the criteria listed above.
There is NO justification for promoting ANYONE on the basis of sex or race, unless one wants to be confused with a lefty. Merit alone is the basis for choosing.
Merit SHOULD be the basis, it isn't always.
It's equally problematic to include or exclude people based on skin color. Gender is another issue entirely.
In what way do you see gender as another issue?
Back in the olden days, I'd agree that gender wouldn't be grounds for exclusion/inclusion. At this point gender is a wide open, undefinable, canvas to paint whatever anyone wants. Essentially, there is no way to use gender/sex to define protected class because gender/sex is "fluid" and has no meaning.
For example, there was a (fake) news story about a man who give birth recently. Except is was a "man" with ovaries and a uterus who'd been undergoing surgeries and taking drugs/hormones to "transition".
You can't have a protected class, if you can't define the class.
In this case, Biden could pick a biological male who was choosing to live as a female as his VP and the left would give him credit for picking a woman.
Post a Comment