Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The dems have been pushing this notion for years, that only a woman should be elected to represent women. As if when writing tax laws and such, only a woman can possibly write laws to govern other women. They do the same with race. It's racist and sexist to think only a, black woman can write laws for other black women. It's a destructive idea and it splits people into different groups, as it eats away at the fabric of American society.
They think it's a winning platform to Bulkanize the nation into disparate groups, setting people up as either a victim or an oppressor. With the democrat politicians setting themselves up as the only people on earth who can protect us all, and keep the barbarians at the gate.
Both parties have run on a platform, since the beginning of both parties, that only white guys who owned land and were wealthy should be in office.
Show me where I'm wrong about that, historically. Nobody complained about it much until recently and I have never seen any white guys upset about it because.... wait.... people like them run the country.
LOL. It's funny that so many people do not see this.
I have no issue with white guys in office. I have voted for a lot of them. But, white guys often (not always, but often) do not see what's wrong with them expecting people who are not white and male to be PROPORTIONATELY better than a white guy to get elected.
It works the same way in business, btw.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
and because of that, Kirsten g's head is assploding
Based on her comments she prefers more diversity, not removal of the white men. But then again, that is her take on it, and you are free to disagree. I think they need to put forth the best possible candidate. Beto and Gillum might be a good pair.
This paragraph illustrates exactly my thoughts on the subject.
I did tell someone a while back, and I stick to that, that the only way the Dems would likely take down Trump was with another white guy with a lot of name recognition.
Sad it works that way, because there are likely plenty of candidates who are qualified who are not both white and male.
Unfortunately Americans like to be entertained, which gave us Trump, while disqualifying better candidates like Rand Paul, and Marco Rubio.
Is it “worried,” or is it simply interested in having more diverse representation?
She was asked if she was worried that the diverse Democratic party has three white guys as leading contenders right now, and answered Yes. Though she then gave the obligatory diversity, inclusive, people of color spiel, she's worried that the D's won't win without a not-white male on the ticket. She has to be frustrated over upstart white guy Beno polling better than not-white guys whose names have been out there for a while, like her, Booker, Harris, Warren.
Which means nothing to this conversation. The dems are now, and have always been obsessed with race, skin color, and gender. Any woman Democrat who runs for office will insert into her campaign, that she's a woman, and infer how her gender makes her uniquely qualified for the job.
all you need to do is remember Sonia Sotomayor, and her "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Or just revisit the Hilary presidential campaign, where she made it all about her being a woman.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.