Author Topic: 2020 POTUS Candidates  (Read 277384 times)

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1446
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2650 on: March 16, 2020, 11:15:06 AM »
Meh, it's not like we've picked the best person for the job in the top two contenders we have left!  Also, it's not like any two (much less 2 million or 20 million) people would agree that any one person is the best person for the job, so saying we should just pick the best person for the job is empty rhetoric. 

You are right, I should have said, "the person Biden (and/or his team) think is the best person for the job regardless of their physical characteristics."

I agree we cannot objectively agree on who the best person to be VP is as a society as a whole.
And that's the key right there.  THEN selecting a female VP after that would be a much more powerful and genuine statement.

Oh, please.  Even if they did, they'd get roasted for picking a woman and people would *say* they did it for PC.  John McCain did not, as I recall, say that he'd pick only a woman, and yet not only in popular memory but *right here in this thread* he is being blamed for picking a woman for the wrong reasons, even though he defended his pick as being based on merit.  No one could win. The only way to win is to NOT PICK A WOMAN.  That's the only way not to be accused of picking a woman for the wrong reasons.
If what you say is true, then DON'T PICK A WOMAN.   The ultimate prize is to beat Trump.  Whatever it takes.

Or do Biden/Bernie just want to be the last loser who claims 2nd place under Trump???

Oh now you ARE advocating picking based on physical characteristics, so long as it's NOT picking a woman that's the option.  big surprise.  You are not open to the idea that a woman might help the ticket (after all you know *everything* and you know it's not possible for it to help!), but perhaps, you are so generously willing to admit, yes, perhaps it is true that people will never believe there's a right reason to pick a woman. Who are you to say?!?  You are so humble that you will admit that if this is true (which, perhaps it is!  You don't know!) then we shouldn't pick a woman.  There's no way to win, with your rationalizations.  It always come down to a woman being the wrong choice, somehow.  Sorry!  <shrug> 

As I said, big surprise.

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2651 on: March 16, 2020, 11:15:18 AM »

Research shows that the VP pick does not bring in additional voters, it is about solidifying your base.  I just listened to two different podcasts that talked about this last week.  So this is probably the exactly right thing to do.  The base, that is less than excited about Biden, will be happier and more energized to work for and donate to him. The fringe was never going to base their vote on the VP pick, no matter the whitest most masculine most straight male that could be picked.  It should be a good move on his part.
Does the same research show that Trump never won the presidency?  What is the research predicting about how Trump won't win again?

It's crazy to repeat the same things that lose to Trump over and over again, and claim that it will work this time.

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2652 on: March 16, 2020, 11:16:11 AM »

Oh now you ARE advocating picking based on physical characteristics, so long as it's NOT picking a woman that's the option.  big surprise.  You are not open to the idea that a woman might help the ticket (after all you know *everything* and you know it's not possible for it to help!), but perhaps, you are so generously willing to admit, yes, perhaps it is true that people will never believe there's a right reason to pick a woman. Who are you to say?!?  You are so humble that you will admit that if this is true (which, perhaps it is!  You don't know!) then we shouldn't pick a woman.  There's no way to win, with your rationalizations.  It always come down to a woman being the wrong choice, somehow.  Sorry!  <shrug> 

As I said, big surprise.
WRONG.  I was responding to YOUR statement that a woman VP would never win.

The ultimate goal should be to win the presidency.  You apparently seem to not care about that.

The only way to win is to NOT PICK A WOMAN.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 11:18:03 AM by nemesis »

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1446
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2653 on: March 16, 2020, 11:17:53 AM »

Research shows that the VP pick does not bring in additional voters, it is about solidifying your base.  I just listened to two different podcasts that talked about this last week.  So this is probably the exactly right thing to do.  The base, that is less than excited about Biden, will be happier and more energized to work for and donate to him. The fringe was never going to base their vote on the VP pick, no matter the whitest most masculine most straight male that could be picked.  It should be a good move on his part.
Does the same research show that Trump never won the presidency?  What is the research predicting about how Trump won't win again?

It's crazy to repeat the same things that lose to Trump over and over again, and claim that it will work this time.

No it's just research that you disagree with instinctively, so it's automatically wrong. Nevermind.  Thanks for informing us about how you know everything, and your unsupported assertions should just be believed and unquestioned.  Thank goodness you cleared that up for us.

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2654 on: March 16, 2020, 11:19:20 AM »

Research shows that the VP pick does not bring in additional voters, it is about solidifying your base.  I just listened to two different podcasts that talked about this last week.  So this is probably the exactly right thing to do.  The base, that is less than excited about Biden, will be happier and more energized to work for and donate to him. The fringe was never going to base their vote on the VP pick, no matter the whitest most masculine most straight male that could be picked.  It should be a good move on his part.
Does the same research show that Trump never won the presidency?  What is the research predicting about how Trump won't win again?

It's crazy to repeat the same things that lose to Trump over and over again, and claim that it will work this time.

No it's just research that you disagree with instinctively, so it's automatically wrong. Nevermind.  Thanks for informing us about how you know everything, and your unsupported assertions should just be believed and unquestioned.  Thank goodness you cleared that up for us.
Despite what you or I may think, the voters out there clearly seem to think otherwise. 

Otherwise Trump wouldn't be in power, and Warren / Harris would be future presidents.

Reality seems to have a harsh way of reminding us that we don't know best, doesn't it?

Going against the wave of reality hasn't worked out well for most people, perhaps it will change this time around?

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1446
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2655 on: March 16, 2020, 11:20:09 AM »

Oh now you ARE advocating picking based on physical characteristics, so long as it's NOT picking a woman that's the option.  big surprise.  You are not open to the idea that a woman might help the ticket (after all you know *everything* and you know it's not possible for it to help!), but perhaps, you are so generously willing to admit, yes, perhaps it is true that people will never believe there's a right reason to pick a woman. Who are you to say?!?  You are so humble that you will admit that if this is true (which, perhaps it is!  You don't know!) then we shouldn't pick a woman.  There's no way to win, with your rationalizations.  It always come down to a woman being the wrong choice, somehow.  Sorry!  <shrug> 

As I said, big surprise.
WRONG.  I was responding to YOUR statement that a woman VP would never win.

The ultimate goal should be to win the presidency.  You apparently seem to not care about that.

I care about the fact that you are making an unsupported assertion, as if *everyone knows* about what *will* win the presidency.  You have no friggin' idea better than any of the rest of us, yet you are convinced that picking a woman because she's a woman will definitely make us lose, but NOT picking a woman because she's a woman might get us to win and if so we should do it.  Why are you open to the possibility of the latter but not the former?  Just because you know everything?  You are gonna have to come up with a lot better reason than that.  Because frankly your random assertions are tiresome.

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2656 on: March 16, 2020, 11:21:03 AM »

Oh now you ARE advocating picking based on physical characteristics, so long as it's NOT picking a woman that's the option.  big surprise.  You are not open to the idea that a woman might help the ticket (after all you know *everything* and you know it's not possible for it to help!), but perhaps, you are so generously willing to admit, yes, perhaps it is true that people will never believe there's a right reason to pick a woman. Who are you to say?!?  You are so humble that you will admit that if this is true (which, perhaps it is!  You don't know!) then we shouldn't pick a woman.  There's no way to win, with your rationalizations.  It always come down to a woman being the wrong choice, somehow.  Sorry!  <shrug> 

As I said, big surprise.
WRONG.  I was responding to YOUR statement that a woman VP would never win.

The ultimate goal should be to win the presidency.  You apparently seem to not care about that.

I care about the fact that you are making an unsupported assertion, as if *everyone knows* about what *will* win the presidency.  You have no friggin' idea better than any of the rest of us, yet you are convinced that picking a woman because she's a woman will definitely make us lose, but NOT picking a woman because she's a woman might get us to win and if so we should do it.  Why are you open to the possibility of the latter but not the former?  Just because you know everything?  You are gonna have to come up with a lot better reason than that.  Because frankly your random assertions are tiresome.
You seem to be incapable of reading, or understanding, don't you?

Read my posts again and understand what I'm saying.

I'm tired of you intentionally ignoring what I said.

You seem to fail to understand we are on the same team, with the same goal.  Your obtuseness of refusing to recognize reality seems to be particularly unhelpful.

This is why Trump is going to win again.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 11:23:29 AM by nemesis »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2657 on: March 16, 2020, 11:23:07 AM »
Appealing to soccer moms has been equally useless.  Picking a female VP in this manner all but guarantees alienating some of the republican voters who are sick of Trump but now very skeptical of the democratic field.

The experts think otherwise.

What experts?  The same ones that predicted that Trump would never be president?  Or the ones that predicted that Hilary would be running for her 2nd presidency?  Or the same ones that predicted that Warren / Harris would be the finalists?

Do you know anything about 538?


Let's review:

1) There are many well qualified women that could be Biden's VP.
2) Biden said he was going to choose a woman. He never stated that he was only looking at women.
3) Regardless, you've decided that this is going to doom Biden because many of your Republican friends, who were thinking of voting for Biden, have changed their minds.

To capture these on-the-fence Republicans, I'm sure Biden is rethinking his decision right now and will soon commit to picking a straight, white, male.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1446
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2658 on: March 16, 2020, 11:24:10 AM »

Oh now you ARE advocating picking based on physical characteristics, so long as it's NOT picking a woman that's the option.  big surprise.  You are not open to the idea that a woman might help the ticket (after all you know *everything* and you know it's not possible for it to help!), but perhaps, you are so generously willing to admit, yes, perhaps it is true that people will never believe there's a right reason to pick a woman. Who are you to say?!?  You are so humble that you will admit that if this is true (which, perhaps it is!  You don't know!) then we shouldn't pick a woman.  There's no way to win, with your rationalizations.  It always come down to a woman being the wrong choice, somehow.  Sorry!  <shrug> 

As I said, big surprise.
WRONG.  I was responding to YOUR statement that a woman VP would never win.

The ultimate goal should be to win the presidency.  You apparently seem to not care about that.

I care about the fact that you are making an unsupported assertion, as if *everyone knows* about what *will* win the presidency.  You have no friggin' idea better than any of the rest of us, yet you are convinced that picking a woman because she's a woman will definitely make us lose, but NOT picking a woman because she's a woman might get us to win and if so we should do it.  Why are you open to the possibility of the latter but not the former?  Just because you know everything?  You are gonna have to come up with a lot better reason than that.  Because frankly your random assertions are tiresome.
You seem to be incapable of reading, or understanding, don't you?

Read my posts again and understand what I'm saying.

I'm tired of you intentionally ignoring what I said.

I have read them.  I honestly don't see anywhere that you have said the former - i.e. that if there's reason to believe that choosing a woman because she's a woman could help us win, then we should definitely do it.  You have maintained from the beginning (reply #2645) that, if a woman is to be chosen, it should not be because she is a woman, but for other reasons.  You never allowed that there may be a valid reason for choosing a woman because she was a woman or that if there was we should definitely do it.  You only said it's possible choosing a woman because she's a woman would be bad, and if so we should not choose a woman.

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2659 on: March 16, 2020, 11:24:54 AM »


Do you know anything about 538?


Let's review:

1) There are many well qualified women that could be Biden's VP.
2) Biden said he was going to choose a woman. He never stated that he was only looking at women.
3) Regardless, you've decided that this is going to doom Biden because many of your Republican friends, who were thinking of voting for Biden, have changed their minds.

To capture these on-the-fence Republicans, I'm sure Biden is rethinking his decision right now and will soon commit to picking a straight, white, male.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a31666018/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-woman-running-mate-comments/

Quote
Joe Biden Confirms He Will Have a Woman as His Running Mate, Should He Get the Nomination

Wow, I thought Trump was good at denying reality.

Really????? 

The rest of your posts are rather suspect given your complete refusal to acknowledge the facts.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1446
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2660 on: March 16, 2020, 11:26:24 AM »


Do you know anything about 538?


Let's review:

1) There are many well qualified women that could be Biden's VP.
2) Biden said he was going to choose a woman. He never stated that he was only looking at women.
3) Regardless, you've decided that this is going to doom Biden because many of your Republican friends, who were thinking of voting for Biden, have changed their minds.

To capture these on-the-fence Republicans, I'm sure Biden is rethinking his decision right now and will soon commit to picking a straight, white, male.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a31666018/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-woman-running-mate-comments/

Quote
Joe Biden Confirms He Will Have a Woman as His Running Mate, Should He Get the Nomination

Wow, I thought Trump was good at denying reality.

Really?????

This is what you base your depthless knowledge of the American electorate on?  Really??????

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2661 on: March 16, 2020, 11:26:37 AM »


I have read them.  I honestly don't see anywhere that you have said the former - i.e. that if there's reason to believe that choosing a woman because she's a woman could help us win, then we should definitely do it.  You have maintained from the beginning (reply #2645) that, if a woman is to be chosen, it should not be because she is a woman, but for other reasons.  You never allowed that there may be a valid reason for choosing a woman because she was a woman or that if there was we should definitely do it.  You only said it's possible choosing a woman because she's a woman would be bad, and if so we should not choose a woman.
Incorrect.  Try again.

nemesis

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 259
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2662 on: March 16, 2020, 11:27:28 AM »


Do you know anything about 538?


Let's review:

1) There are many well qualified women that could be Biden's VP.
2) Biden said he was going to choose a woman. He never stated that he was only looking at women.
3) Regardless, you've decided that this is going to doom Biden because many of your Republican friends, who were thinking of voting for Biden, have changed their minds.

To capture these on-the-fence Republicans, I'm sure Biden is rethinking his decision right now and will soon commit to picking a straight, white, male.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a31666018/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-woman-running-mate-comments/

Quote
Joe Biden Confirms He Will Have a Woman as His Running Mate, Should He Get the Nomination

Wow, I thought Trump was good at denying reality.

Really?????

This is what you base your depthless knowledge of the American electorate on?  Really??????
Ok, you seem to be on full trolling mode.  I'm ignoring your posts from now on. 


sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1446
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2663 on: March 16, 2020, 11:27:42 AM »


I have read them.  I honestly don't see anywhere that you have said the former - i.e. that if there's reason to believe that choosing a woman because she's a woman could help us win, then we should definitely do it.  You have maintained from the beginning (reply #2645) that, if a woman is to be chosen, it should not be because she is a woman, but for other reasons.  You never allowed that there may be a valid reason for choosing a woman because she was a woman or that if there was we should definitely do it.  You only said it's possible choosing a woman because she's a woman would be bad, and if so we should not choose a woman.
Incorrect.  Try again.

I don't need to try again. You arrogance is getting you nowhere.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2664 on: March 16, 2020, 11:43:09 AM »


Do you know anything about 538?


Let's review:

1) There are many well qualified women that could be Biden's VP.
2) Biden said he was going to choose a woman. He never stated that he was only looking at women.
3) Regardless, you've decided that this is going to doom Biden because many of your Republican friends, who were thinking of voting for Biden, have changed their minds.

To capture these on-the-fence Republicans, I'm sure Biden is rethinking his decision right now and will soon commit to picking a straight, white, male.
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a31666018/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-woman-running-mate-comments/

Quote
Joe Biden Confirms He Will Have a Woman as His Running Mate, Should He Get the Nomination

Wow, I thought Trump was good at denying reality.

Really?????

Oh, it's definitely identity politics, but he never stated that he was ONLY looking at women as VP. I'm sure many fine men -- from Castro to Beto to Booker -- were in the initial list.

He might have only looked at women but you have not provided any proof. Get me an insider list from his campaign and I'll be satisfied.


Have you checked out 538 yet? Can you understand how they use statistics and how there is no "this will definitely be the winner" declaration? (They still have Bernie as a 1/100 chance of winning the primary.)

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • Location: Seattle
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2665 on: March 16, 2020, 11:49:06 AM »
I'm pretty sure Biden announced that his VP pick would be a woman because he already knows who it will be.  I disagree with comments that I have read along the lines of "you can't have two white guys on the ticket," but I also disagree that there is something wrong with stating that you want a woman on the ticket.  I don't think we really know what the lessons are from 2016.  If the black vote had turned out Hillary would be President.  What effect did the Comey letter have on the results?  What effect did the emails and the 30 year anti-Clinton animus in the Republican Party have on the election results.  Sexism?  Clinton-fatigue?  There were a lot of variables at play in that election.

Sarah Palin was not qualified to be VP.  Period.  She was wholly uninformed about national politics and was really just a populist who contributed to the Republican Party going down the path of anti-intellectualism and a distrust of experts.  I disagree that deciding to select a woman is per se pandering.  There are political realities that shouldn't be ignored.  Those realities involve national perceptions of age, race and gender.  Obama would never have selected a black or female running mate.  It didn't make him racist or sexist, it makes him an astute politician.  Had Warren won the nomination, she probably wouldn't have selected an older white female VP candidate.  There is a natural balancing that occurs on presidential tickets.  Trump chose Pence bc he was seen as a religious conservative.  He would've gone with Kasich to shore up Ohio.  Romney picked Ryan for his perceived policy acumen and because he was a young, conservative Catholic.  You may perceive it more acutely when it is a woman or POC vs. ideology, ability to raise funds, religion or geographical region, but it's all the same thing.  If that decision costs Biden votes, I have a feeling those votes would have been gone whenever a woman was selected.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4514
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2666 on: March 16, 2020, 11:55:08 AM »
We discriminate all the time (both  openly and subconsciously) on characteristics that are immaterial to the task at hand (physical or non), and *this time* people are gonna get upset about it?  Groan.

And we all* agree that discrimination on traits unrelated to ability to do the job -- whether conscious or unconscious -- is a bad thing, we should try to identify where and when it happens and figure out ways to eliminate or mitigate it.

For example, there was evidence of gender discrimination in hiring classical musicians, and so many orchestras have moved to anonymous (and hence gender blind) auditions, which lead to many more women being hired.

It took decades of hard work and sacrifice to build up the current social norm that discrimination is inherently a bad thing (both ethically and pragmatically). I think it is short sighted that some in the democratic party want to throw that away by adopting a view that discrimination happens so we might as well do it ourselves ourselves. I think it risks throwing away decades of progress at building the consensus that discrimination is inherently a bad thing regardless of who is targeted.**

And those social norms protect all of us, because, regardless of who you are and what you look like, there is someone out there would could plausibly win elections and would be happy to discriminate against you if they thought society would let them get away with it.

*Okay, not everyone but the people adhering to the broadly shared social norms in society.

**Although I acknowledge this consensus is already under a lot of attack from folks like Trump, my guess is that more than two out of three people in the USA still agree that discrimination based on race or gender is bad.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2667 on: March 16, 2020, 12:00:20 PM »
I'm pretty sure Biden announced that his VP pick would be a woman because he already knows who it will be.  I disagree with comments that I have read along the lines of "you can't have two white guys on the ticket," but I also disagree that there is something wrong with stating that you want a woman on the ticket.  I don't think we really know what the lessons are from 2016.  If the black vote had turned out Hillary would be President.  What effect did the Comey letter have on the results?  What effect did the emails and the 30 year anti-Clinton animus in the Republican Party have on the election results.  Sexism?  Clinton-fatigue?  There were a lot of variables at play in that election.

Sarah Palin was not qualified to be VP.  Period.  She was wholly uninformed about national politics and was really just a populist who contributed to the Republican Party going down the path of anti-intellectualism and a distrust of experts.  I disagree that deciding to select a woman is per se pandering.  There are political realities that shouldn't be ignored.  Those realities involve national perceptions of age, race and gender.  Obama would never have selected a black or female running mate.  It didn't make him racist or sexist, it makes him an astute politician.  Had Warren won the nomination, she probably wouldn't have selected an older white female VP candidate.  There is a natural balancing that occurs on presidential tickets.  Trump chose Pence bc he was seen as a religious conservative.  He would've gone with Kasich to shore up Ohio.  Romney picked Ryan for his perceived policy acumen and because he was a young, conservative Catholic.  You may perceive it more acutely when it is a woman or POC vs. ideology, ability to raise funds, religion or geographical region, but it's all the same thing.  If that decision costs Biden votes, I have a feeling those votes would have been gone whenever a woman was selected.

Exactly. Well written.


sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1446
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2668 on: March 16, 2020, 12:09:14 PM »
We discriminate all the time (both  openly and subconsciously) on characteristics that are immaterial to the task at hand (physical or non), and *this time* people are gonna get upset about it?  Groan.

And we all* agree that discrimination on traits unrelated to ability to do the job -- whether conscious or unconscious -- is a bad thing, we should try to identify where and when it happens and figure out ways to eliminate or mitigate it.

For example, there was evidence of gender discrimination in hiring classical musicians, and so many orchestras have moved to anonymous (and hence gender blind) auditions, which lead to many more women being hired.

It took decades of hard work and sacrifice to build up the current social norm that discrimination is inherently a bad thing (both ethically and pragmatically). I think it is short sighted that some in the democratic party want to throw that away by adopting a view that discrimination happens so we might as well do it ourselves ourselves. I think it risks throwing away decades of progress at building the consensus that discrimination is inherently a bad thing regardless of who is targeted.**

And those social norms protect all of us, because, regardless of who you are and what you look like, there is someone out there would could plausibly win elections and would be happy to discriminate against you if they thought society would let them get away with it.

*Okay, not everyone but the people adhering to the broadly shared social norms in society.

**Although I acknowledge this consensus is already under a lot of attack from folks like Trump, my guess is that more than two out of three people in the USA still agree that discrimination based on race or gender is bad.

I agree with the above, notwithstanding my frustration ("*this time* people are gonna get upset about it?").  But also, though it hasn't apparently caught on with anyone on this thread, I do wish to repeat that there is loads of evidence in the business and political world that female leaders create greater material gains in both objective and subjective measurements.  So deciding you want a woman (for other than the valid, though it feels crass, reasons redbirdfan cited) is actually a choice on merit and on relevant criteria as well. 

OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2669 on: March 16, 2020, 12:40:11 PM »
I agree he knows who it will be and I further submit she has already accepted.

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • Location: Seattle
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2670 on: March 16, 2020, 12:56:50 PM »
Quote
And we all* agree that discrimination on traits unrelated to ability to do the job -- whether conscious or unconscious -- is a bad thing, we should try to identify where and when it happens and figure out ways to eliminate or mitigate it.

I believe we may need to define some terms.  This may be a bit too nuanced (I mean that with absolutely no sarcastic intent), but I think there is a difference between the type of discrimination that is considered bad and selection based on a particular appeal or ability to relate to a particular experience.  I also believe reasonable minds can disagree as to whether it is or is not "related to the ability to do the job."  I understand your perspective, but if Biden knows that he needs increased AA turnout or increased turnout from women to win, I don't believe it is discrimination in the traditional sense for him to conclude that placing a woman and/or AA person on the ticket with him is his best path to the presidency.  That's politics - not discrimination.  Although I agree that choosing a woman to exclusion of choosing a man is technically discrimination of a sort, I do not believe that is universally considered bad. 

Now, if Biden said I would never run with a man as the VP candidate because men are "less than" or are "incapable" of doing the job, THAT would be discrimination that I would agree is bad.  If Biden said, my female VP candidate doesn't need to be paid the same amount as a male VP candidate - that would be bad.  I wholly disagree that any time race, gender, sexual orientation or age are taken into account that it is per se "bad" discrimination. There are certain experiences that you are more likely to have based on those categories.  Other people in those categories can be more receptive to people who have had those same experiences.  That is not to say that ALL people in those categories have the same experiences, but that diversity of opinion and experience should not be categorically discounted.

For example...I do a lot of volunteering.  I am a straight female.  When I was asked to help with an event for at-risk LGBT youth, I reached out to colleagues of mine in the LGBT community to learn about specific issues that affect the community and to come speak.  Was that discrimination?  Yes.  I did specifically not seek the opinions of people outside of that community.  Do I believe that "discrimination" was bad?  no. I could have said the same things, but I believe it meant more coming from people who had similar experiences.   

There are certain situations, outside of objective meritocracies, where perception plays an important role.  If a job called for simply being the tallest person or the fastest person, or the person who scores the highest on test A - I believe that should be filled by the tallest, fastest or person who scores the highest.  Period.  If the job calls for community appeal, outreach, persuasion, results within certain demographics, and certain experiences - I believe those other categories can come into play.  I don't believe that makes it bad...I believe it makes it based on reality.   

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4514
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2671 on: March 16, 2020, 01:28:48 PM »
It took decades of hard work and sacrifice to build up the current social norm that discrimination is inherently a bad thing (both ethically and pragmatically). I think it is short sighted that some in the democratic party want to throw that away by adopting a view that discrimination happens so we might as well do it ourselves ourselves. I think it risks throwing away decades of progress at building the consensus that discrimination is inherently a bad thing regardless of who is targeted.**

I agree with the above, notwithstanding my frustration ("*this time* people are gonna get upset about it?").  But also, though it hasn't apparently caught on with anyone on this thread, I do wish to repeat that there is loads of evidence in the business and political world that female leaders create greater material gains in both objective and subjective measurements.  So deciding you want a woman (for other than the valid, though it feels crass, reasons redbirdfan cited) is actually a choice on merit and on relevant criteria as well.

Huh. Okay, well first of all, glad it sounds like we're actually mostly on the same page, different sources of frustration aside.

Will have to do more reading on this. I know about the evidence that mixed teams tend to perform better than single gender teams but hadn't come across anything on female leaders showing overall better performance. (Which to be clear, is not me saying it doesn't exist!).

Thanks!

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2261
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2672 on: March 16, 2020, 02:45:41 PM »
The fringe was never going to base their vote on the VP pick, no matter the whitest most masculine most straight male that could be picked.  It should be a good move on his part.

Haha love this sentence.

If anyone is now turned off from Biden because he announced a woman for VP, then there was always going to be something that Biden would have eventually done that was going to be the excuse needed to vote for Trump. i.e. they were Trump supporters all along, just trying to be nitpicky and find something they didn't like about Biden to justify this obviously insane voting choice.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4514
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2673 on: March 16, 2020, 03:12:04 PM »
This may be a bit too nuanced (I mean that with absolutely no sarcastic intent), but I think there is a difference between the type of discrimination that is considered bad and selection based on a particular appeal or ability to relate to a particular experience.  I also believe reasonable minds can disagree as to whether it is or is not "related to the ability to do the job."  I understand your perspective, but if Biden knows that he needs increased AA turnout or increased turnout from women to win, I don't believe it is discrimination in the traditional sense for him to conclude that placing a woman and/or AA person on the ticket with him is his best path to the presidency.  That's politics - not discrimination.  Although I agree that choosing a woman to exclusion of choosing a man is technically discrimination of a sort, I do not believe that is universally considered bad. 

The problem with ethical lines in the sand is that the more nuanced and convoluted you make them, the easier it is for future people to trample all over them.

In this particular case, I can definitely see the political argument for a female VP pick, and if Biden had announced a specific woman as his pick (Biden: "I think Senator/Governor/Representative X is the best person for the job!" I wouldn't have so much as blinked.

But stating up from that he's going to pick some woman, but not a specific woman, makes that ethical line that used to be, and still is to some extent, enforced by public disapproval and rejection, that much fuzzier. And it weakens that -- from a historical perspective still quite newly won and fragile -- protection for all of us.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 05:39:06 PM by maizeman »

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2674 on: March 16, 2020, 05:34:44 PM »
I wouldn't worry too much about the VP pick.

What may beat Mr. Trump is a crashing economy.  There have been some recent signs of problems in that regard. 

If you are employed, there is 100 percent employment.  If you are unemployed, there is 100 percent unemployment.

sui generis

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1446
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2675 on: March 16, 2020, 06:18:55 PM »
Pivot in topic, but not unrelated to the "pick her because she's a woman" debate...

One of the things I wanted to focus on more than anything in the primary (but no one else really seemed to care about) is not the policy questions, but the question of procedures and the underpinnings of democracy.  Candidates have made some comments on this.  Nearly all of them (including Bernie Sanders) are against eliminating the filibuster, for instance. Even though it's hard to imagine any of them will accomplish any of their policy goals without some change to procedure and that's *assuming* Dems take the Senate.

Another thing that would be good for democracy is to be sure all American citizens are enfrachised and represented.  That we have millions of American citizens in Puerto Rico and DC that go unrepresented is just not consistent with our constitutional values. Yet, Dems are not even willing to think about making DC and PR states lest they be accused of doing of doing it for political reasons, because it's pretty clear those states would go blue.  So we just abandon our values and those voters and allow them to remain unrepresented because we don't want to waste political capital on....being true to democracy? 

These sort of reforms, like HR1, are critical to restoring faith in our system and actually making our representative democracy more fair.  But because the Rs will just accuse Dems of doing it for their own good, they can never do it.  So they can never do it and Rs will never do it...so too bad for objectively positive democratic reforms like ending gerrymandering, expanding representation of citizens and reducing the corrupting influence of money in politics.  Oh well.

Eulogy for Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren, the only candidates (iirc) that spoke of supporting these types of issues.

Vapour

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 138
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2676 on: March 16, 2020, 06:31:47 PM »
I see both sides of this.  I get it.  Discrimination is bad.  But women and people of color are very much under-represented in our government.  Maybe the only way to change this is to consciously choose to do so when making decisions about things like VP and Supreme Court Justices.  It's basically Affirmative Action.  Is it ideal?  No.  But it's also not ideal that women didn't get the right to vote until 1920.  That they still don't have equal pay.  That women currently make up ~24% of Congress (a record number) but ~51% of the population.  Considering women made up <6% of every Congress through 1993, we've made a lot of progress, but we're not there yet.  So yeah, limiting your VP choice to only HALF the population may not be ideal.  But guess what, there are a lot of qualified people left in that half.  A group of people who have generally gotten the shorter end of the stick, so maybe it's time we weight it in their favor.  I don't like it either, but I think it may be the only way to start making progress towards having more diverse groups of people leading our country.

And sure, a lot of republicans do not want a more diverse group of people leading our country and will complain that this is discrimination and how terrible it is.  But I think really all they want is more white men who agree with them leading the country.  I'm not saying those are the arguments being made on this thread, because I do think the arguments have mostly been valid.  But probably 90% of the people upset that Biden announced his VP will be a woman are upset because his VP will not be a man and not some other reason.

It's reality, Warren / Harris / Hilary lost.  I want Biden to win, but these recent moves to mimic earlier losers only guarantee Trump will win again.
Except as far as I'm aware, Biden didn't name his VP.  He did not say that it will be Warren/Harris/Hillary.  And guess what?  There are more than 3 women in the world!  It's quite possible that they're not all equivalent and that where one failed, a different one might succeed.  You know, kind of like how Buttigieg, Bloomberg, Steyer, Yang, Booker, Castro, Beto (and on and on) didn't win the nomination, but Biden likely will.  Because not all men are the same, just like not all women are the same.  Not to mention Biden has failed many times in the past and seems likely to succeed this time.  Just because a woman wasn't elected the first time we had a woman candidate doesn't mean every woman is unelectable until the end of time.

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4514
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2677 on: March 16, 2020, 07:02:23 PM »
That women currently make up ~24% of Congress (a record number) but ~51% of the population.  Considering women made up <6% of every Congress through 1993, we've made a lot of progress, but we're not there yet. ... So yeah, limiting your VP choice to only HALF the population may not be ideal.  ... I don't like it either, but I think it may be the only way to start making progress towards having more diverse groups of people leading our country.

To me the first part of your (excerpted, but hopefully I haven't changed the meaning) comment seems to contradict the second.

We are making progress and we're making it faster and faster. You can certainly argue that we should employ other tactics to go even faster, but I don't see how one can look at all the progress we've made and say that publicly ruling out people for positions based solely on their gender (VP) or gender and race (supreme court justice) is the only way to make progress.

Consider that in 58 presidential elections, all three woman who were presidential or vice presidential candidates have occurred in the the past 9 elections and two in the last three elections.Openly normalizing race/gender as an position requirement for filling leadership positions may be a way to make more progress, but it is clearly not the only one and it does come with costs and risks to all of us.

Quote
I'm not saying those are the arguments being made on this thread, because I do think the arguments have mostly been valid.  But probably 90% of the people upset that Biden announced his VP will be a woman are upset because his VP will not be a man and not some other reason.

I really do appreciate you including that disclaimer. This isn't a comfortable position for me to argue and I don't like feeling at risk of being branded one of them rather than us. Thank you.

To the second part, I don't think I've run into anyone in person, and extremely rarely even online, who openly admits to themselves or others that they don't want women in political leadership positions. That's not to say bias doesn't exist. But once you rule out a couple of percent of fringe craziness, most of the barriers to women in politics at this point seem to be in the form of unconscious bias and double standards (men and women who act in exactly the same way may be perceived as take charge and "bitchy" respectively, that sort of thing). For voters with that bias what Biden announced is in some ways the best possible case for avoiding the triggering those voters' bias. The idea of a hypothetical woman in a leadership position without an actual individual cannot be perceived as "shrill" or "hectoring" or all the other words often used to describe individual female candidates.

I haven't heard a lot of people outside this thread bring up having a problem with the way Biden stated he was using sex and gender as explicit and absolute criteria for filling positions. So I'm not sure how upset people actually are. I certainly don't think it's going to convince many people to change which party they are supporting one way or another. But to the extent people are upset I really do think it is mostly about the slippery slope openly stating things like this creates, and the erosion to social norms that protect all of us from discrimination,* not opposition to the idea of women in leadership positions.

*To the extent those norms still exist, and they certainly are not as strong as they were four to five years ago.

Davnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2445
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2678 on: March 16, 2020, 07:54:30 PM »
I felt that Biden stating that he would choose a woman was a poor decision. However I see nothing wrong with giving a woman preference in his choice, he just shouldn't have said it.

I used to feel differently and I still think there are a number of fair and logical arguments on both sides. As with most decisions there are pros and cons.

But one argument alone is enough for me to accept* this kind of discrimination: Women and especially young girls don't get to see people who look like them running the world. It's a matter of representation. I don't think someone who has never lived in a world like that can fully appreciate how different it would be.


*In politics. It gets more complicated in business.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5281
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2679 on: March 16, 2020, 08:33:40 PM »
Do we actually know that Biden hasn't chosen a specific person, who happens to be a woman, to be his VP?

If he said "I will chose a woman" he might have already chosen that woman, it's just too early for him to say which.

(I've heard it said that he would chose someone who had experience of being in the debates, which suggests that he has pretty much made his choice.)

Vapour

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 138
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2680 on: March 16, 2020, 08:42:46 PM »
That women currently make up ~24% of Congress (a record number) but ~51% of the population.  Considering women made up <6% of every Congress through 1993, we've made a lot of progress, but we're not there yet. ... So yeah, limiting your VP choice to only HALF the population may not be ideal.  ... I don't like it either, but I think it may be the only way to start making progress towards having more diverse groups of people leading our country.
To me the first part of your (excerpted, but hopefully I haven't changed the meaning) comment seems to contradict the second.

We are making progress and we're making it faster and faster. You can certainly argue that we should employ other tactics to go even faster, but I don't see how one can look at all the progress we've made and say that publicly ruling out people for positions based solely on their gender (VP) or gender and race (supreme court justice) is the only way to make progress.
Ok, fair enough.  I should not have used the word "only" in that instance.  It's obviously not the only way to make progress.  I mean, it only took women 130 years after the first election in this country to have the right to vote.  It's only taken 100 years since then to get up to 24% representation in Congress.  I mean, how much longer are women supposed to wait until they have equal representation?  An economist, Torsten Sløk, plotted out the trend of women running for and being elected to Congress and estimated gender equality will be reached in 2108.  Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-women-will-achieve-full-equality-in-congress-about-the-time-theyll-ride-jet-packs-to-capitol-hill-2018-11-21

So I guess only 88 more years to go.  Almost there.  In my opinion, trying to reach that date sooner is something we should all strive for.  Consciously choosing to bring more women into positions of power is one way that might get us there sooner.  It's not like anyone is saying they're ok with an unqualified woman just because she's a woman.  But there are a lot of qualified women out there, and I don't think specifically choosing one of them is wrong.

I really do appreciate you including that disclaimer. This isn't a comfortable position for me to argue and I don't like feeling at risk of being branded one of them rather than us. Thank you.
Like I said, I do see both sides of this and completely understand and in some ways agree with what you're saying.  I know most here, and you especially, are arguing in good faith and not because you're against all women in positions of power.  It's an uncomfortable situation for all of us to be in, but it's the one we're in.  There is no good answer and I think that's the problem.  We leave things as they are and make ridiculously slow progress for another 90 years.  Or we do something "wrong" and maybe get there faster.  Which "wrong" is worse?  Women waiting another 90 years or men being actively discriminated against?  Is it because one is "active" and one is "passive" that it's ok?

To the second part, I don't think I've run into anyone in person, and extremely rarely even online, who openly admits to themselves or others that they don't want women in political leadership positions. That's not to say bias doesn't exist.
People may not admit that to anyone else OR themselves, but I think there are a lot more people out there than you may think that actually do not want women in leadership positions.  Again, not saying people here, but go check out MGTOW (which I unfortunately learned about from this forum) and tell me there aren't way too many men out there who will never vote for or advocate for a women in a leadership position no matter what.

Women and especially young girls don't get to see people who look like them running the world. It's a matter of representation. I don't think someone who has never lived in a world like that can fully appreciate how different it would be.
This.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2681 on: March 16, 2020, 09:23:54 PM »
That women currently make up ~24% of Congress (a record number) but ~51% of the population.  Considering women made up <6% of every Congress through 1993, we've made a lot of progress, but we're not there yet. ... So yeah, limiting your VP choice to only HALF the population may not be ideal.  ... I don't like it either, but I think it may be the only way to start making progress towards having more diverse groups of people leading our country.
To me the first part of your (excerpted, but hopefully I haven't changed the meaning) comment seems to contradict the second.

We are making progress and we're making it faster and faster. You can certainly argue that we should employ other tactics to go even faster, but I don't see how one can look at all the progress we've made and say that publicly ruling out people for positions based solely on their gender (VP) or gender and race (supreme court justice) is the only way to make progress.
Ok, fair enough.  I should not have used the word "only" in that instance.  It's obviously not the only way to make progress.  I mean, it only took women 130 years after the first election in this country to have the right to vote.  It's only taken 100 years since then to get up to 24% representation in Congress.  I mean, how much longer are women supposed to wait until they have equal representation?  An economist, Torsten Sløk, plotted out the trend of women running for and being elected to Congress and estimated gender equality will be reached in 2108.  Source: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yes-women-will-achieve-full-equality-in-congress-about-the-time-theyll-ride-jet-packs-to-capitol-hill-2018-11-21

So I guess only 88 more years to go.  Almost there.  In my opinion, trying to reach that date sooner is something we should all strive for.  Consciously choosing to bring more women into positions of power is one way that might get us there sooner.  It's not like anyone is saying they're ok with an unqualified woman just because she's a woman.  But there are a lot of qualified women out there, and I don't think specifically choosing one of them is wrong.

I really do appreciate you including that disclaimer. This isn't a comfortable position for me to argue and I don't like feeling at risk of being branded one of them rather than us. Thank you.
Like I said, I do see both sides of this and completely understand and in some ways agree with what you're saying.  I know most here, and you especially, are arguing in good faith and not because you're against all women in positions of power.  It's an uncomfortable situation for all of us to be in, but it's the one we're in.  There is no good answer and I think that's the problem.  We leave things as they are and make ridiculously slow progress for another 90 years.  Or we do something "wrong" and maybe get there faster.  Which "wrong" is worse?  Women waiting another 90 years or men being actively discriminated against?  Is it because one is "active" and one is "passive" that it's ok?

To the second part, I don't think I've run into anyone in person, and extremely rarely even online, who openly admits to themselves or others that they don't want women in political leadership positions. That's not to say bias doesn't exist.
People may not admit that to anyone else OR themselves, but I think there are a lot more people out there than you may think that actually do not want women in leadership positions.  Again, not saying people here, but go check out MGTOW (which I unfortunately learned about from this forum) and tell me there aren't way too many men out there who will never vote for or advocate for a women in a leadership position no matter what.

Women and especially young girls don't get to see people who look like them running the world. It's a matter of representation. I don't think someone who has never lived in a world like that can fully appreciate how different it would be.
This.

I agree. And IMO yes, the only way to have representative leadership, is to PUT IN representative leadership. Like, what other way is there?

How is someone choosing who they want to work with based on similar socioeconomic circles, or where they went to school, or who they know....any more valid or honorable then choosing a qualified person because they represent a class with low representation?

Politics has been a good ole boys club for hundreds of years, but we are going to act like they only choose each other because they are the most qualified? You’ve got to be kidding me.


maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4514
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2682 on: March 16, 2020, 09:34:47 PM »
How is someone choosing who they want to work with based on similar socioeconomic circles, or where they went to school, or who they know....any more valid or honorable then choosing a qualified person because they represent a class with low representation?

Politics has been a good ole boys club for hundreds of years, but we are going to act like they only choose each other because they are the most qualified? You’ve got to be kidding me.

I would argue against picking VPs based on what college they are an alumni of as well. And not just picking them based on that but ANNOUNCING we're going to pick them based on that criteria. "I am committing today that whoever I select for a vice president will have graduated from Dartmouth."

Okay. I give up.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2020, 09:39:29 PM by maizeman »

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2683 on: March 17, 2020, 05:19:09 AM »
How is someone choosing who they want to work with based on similar socioeconomic circles, or where they went to school, or who they know....any more valid or honorable then choosing a qualified person because they represent a class with low representation?

Politics has been a good ole boys club for hundreds of years, but we are going to act like they only choose each other because they are the most qualified? You’ve got to be kidding me.

I would argue against picking VPs based on what college they are an alumni of as well. And not just picking them based on that but ANNOUNCING we're going to pick them based on that criteria. "I am committing today that whoever I select for a vice president will have graduated from Dartmouth."

Okay. I give up.

 But that selection process is so ingrained in our political culture, that it doesn’t NEED to be announced. It is ignored, or worse, assumed, and yet worse, accepted. But one mention of selecting someone because they represent a good portion of the country that has been invisible in politics and positions of power until recently, and we clutch our pearls at the bold unsavoryness of it.

Even just your comment that the announcement of it, is what irked you. Well it’s the quiet insidiousness of the last hundreds of years, that irks myself and other under represented classes. The powershift has to be purposeful and the intentions must be clear. Since intentions is what has kept power from the very groups that it has worked against since the beginning of this country’s history.

A group of people who have been at the front of the line since the line formed, turning around to tell everyone behind to be patient and fair, it’s just hilarious to me. In a country where there are probably over 50,000,000 people who meet the qualifications to be president, we should not be having multiple members of the same family in high politics, we shouldn’t be having people in high positions who all graduated from the same 3 to 5 schools (especially as legacies), or whose families know each other. Where is the face-scrunching over that?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2020, 05:33:47 AM by Lmoot »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15590
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2684 on: March 17, 2020, 07:44:15 AM »
How is someone choosing who they want to work with based on similar socioeconomic circles, or where they went to school, or who they know....any more valid or honorable then choosing a qualified person because they represent a class with low representation?

Politics has been a good ole boys club for hundreds of years, but we are going to act like they only choose each other because they are the most qualified? You’ve got to be kidding me.

I would argue against picking VPs based on what college they are an alumni of as well. And not just picking them based on that but ANNOUNCING we're going to pick them based on that criteria. "I am committing today that whoever I select for a vice president will have graduated from Dartmouth."

Okay. I give up.

I get what you're saying here.  At the same time, there's only really reason to announce that you're picking a VP who is gay/minority/female because it's so unusual.  If Biden picked a straight white old Christian dude there would be no reason for him to make any announcement at all . . . because it's so ingrained in our minds that this overt discrimination in politics is somehow the acceptable norm.

It's kinda a double standard.  Because of these norms we would never ever have a scenario where a politician picks a straight white old Christian dude and mentions that that was why the guy got the job.  But even though Trump never directly mentioned it, is there any doubt in anybody's mind that Mike Pence was picked because of his race, sexual orientation, sex, and religious affiliation?  And yet we're having a big conversation about Biden mentioning that he's picking a woman, while there was nary a peep about Trump's selection.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5281
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2685 on: March 17, 2020, 08:09:24 AM »
How is someone choosing who they want to work with based on similar socioeconomic circles, or where they went to school, or who they know....any more valid or honorable then choosing a qualified person because they represent a class with low representation?

Politics has been a good ole boys club for hundreds of years, but we are going to act like they only choose each other because they are the most qualified? You’ve got to be kidding me.

I would argue against picking VPs based on what college they are an alumni of as well. And not just picking them based on that but ANNOUNCING we're going to pick them based on that criteria. "I am committing today that whoever I select for a vice president will have graduated from Dartmouth."

Okay. I give up.

I get what you're saying here.  At the same time, there's only really reason to announce that you're picking a VP who is gay/minority/female because it's so unusual.  If Biden picked a straight white old Christian dude there would be no reason for him to make any announcement at all . . . because it's so ingrained in our minds that this overt discrimination in politics is somehow the acceptable norm.

It's kinda a double standard.  Because of these norms we would never ever have a scenario where a politician picks a straight white old Christian dude and mentions that that was why the guy got the job.  But even though Trump never directly mentioned it, is there any doubt in anybody's mind that Mike Pence was picked because of his race, sexual orientation, sex, and religious affiliation?  And yet we're having a big conversation about Biden mentioning that he's picking a woman, while there was nary a peep about Trump's selection.
Arguably Trump wasn't a silent "straight old white dude" selection but an overt one: "we've had a black President now let's get back not only to "normal" but to "he's one of us" (ie racist) normal.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2686 on: March 17, 2020, 01:38:26 PM »
How is someone choosing who they want to work with based on similar socioeconomic circles, or where they went to school, or who they know....any more valid or honorable then choosing a qualified person because they represent a class with low representation?

Politics has been a good ole boys club for hundreds of years, but we are going to act like they only choose each other because they are the most qualified? You’ve got to be kidding me.

I would argue against picking VPs based on what college they are an alumni of as well. And not just picking them based on that but ANNOUNCING we're going to pick them based on that criteria. "I am committing today that whoever I select for a vice president will have graduated from Dartmouth."

Okay. I give up.

 But that selection process is so ingrained in our political culture, that it doesn’t NEED to be announced. It is ignored, or worse, assumed, and yet worse, accepted. But one mention of selecting someone because they represent a good portion of the country that has been invisible in politics and positions of power until recently, and we clutch our pearls at the bold unsavoryness of it.

Even just your comment that the announcement of it, is what irked you. Well it’s the quiet insidiousness of the last hundreds of years, that irks myself and other under represented classes. The powershift has to be purposeful and the intentions must be clear. Since intentions is what has kept power from the very groups that it has worked against since the beginning of this country’s history.

A group of people who have been at the front of the line since the line formed, turning around to tell everyone behind to be patient and fair, it’s just hilarious to me. In a country where there are probably over 50,000,000 people who meet the qualifications to be president, we should not be having multiple members of the same family in high politics, we shouldn’t be having people in high positions who all graduated from the same 3 to 5 schools (especially as legacies), or whose families know each other. Where is the face-scrunching over that?

Just my 2 cents. It may not need to be announced, but the announcement of it is a different animal from everyone just assuming it will be the case. It's different in the way that there's a difference from unconscious bias and overt racism/sexism. Both of course need to be addressed, but there's definitely a difference between the two and a definite reason why one is called specifically unconscious bias - as to not make people who have it feel like they're awful...it's just kind of part of nature that can be worked on but doesn't mean you're trying to be a jerk.

To state that you are for sure going to pick a woman as VP is an overt statement of bias that is different and would be fair to say is more extreme in at least some form or fashion to a general I'm going to pick people I know/feel comfortable with which tends to be guys from these colleges. It is fair for it to merit its own unique "irkingness" in someone because it is different and has implications for future situations, which I believe Maizeman is pointing towards.

I'm not making an ethical statement that it's good or bad for him to say it. Just that it is unique and at least a little more extreme than a general "good ole boy" situation.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2687 on: March 17, 2020, 02:56:18 PM »
How is someone choosing who they want to work with based on similar socioeconomic circles, or where they went to school, or who they know....any more valid or honorable then choosing a qualified person because they represent a class with low representation?

Politics has been a good ole boys club for hundreds of years, but we are going to act like they only choose each other because they are the most qualified? You’ve got to be kidding me.

I would argue against picking VPs based on what college they are an alumni of as well. And not just picking them based on that but ANNOUNCING we're going to pick them based on that criteria. "I am committing today that whoever I select for a vice president will have graduated from Dartmouth."

Okay. I give up.

 But that selection process is so ingrained in our political culture, that it doesn’t NEED to be announced. It is ignored, or worse, assumed, and yet worse, accepted. But one mention of selecting someone because they represent a good portion of the country that has been invisible in politics and positions of power until recently, and we clutch our pearls at the bold unsavoryness of it.

Even just your comment that the announcement of it, is what irked you. Well it’s the quiet insidiousness of the last hundreds of years, that irks myself and other under represented classes. The powershift has to be purposeful and the intentions must be clear. Since intentions is what has kept power from the very groups that it has worked against since the beginning of this country’s history.

A group of people who have been at the front of the line since the line formed, turning around to tell everyone behind to be patient and fair, it’s just hilarious to me. In a country where there are probably over 50,000,000 people who meet the qualifications to be president, we should not be having multiple members of the same family in high politics, we shouldn’t be having people in high positions who all graduated from the same 3 to 5 schools (especially as legacies), or whose families know each other. Where is the face-scrunching over that?

Just my 2 cents. It may not need to be announced, but the announcement of it is a different animal from everyone just assuming it will be the case. It's different in the way that there's a difference from unconscious bias and overt racism/sexism. Both of course need to be addressed, but there's definitely a difference between the two and a definite reason why one is called specifically unconscious bias - as to not make people who have it feel like they're awful...it's just kind of part of nature that can be worked on but doesn't mean you're trying to be a jerk.

To state that you are for sure going to pick a woman as VP is an overt statement of bias that is different and would be fair to say is more extreme in at least some form or fashion to a general I'm going to pick people I know/feel comfortable with which tends to be guys from these colleges. It is fair for it to merit its own unique "irkingness" in someone because it is different and has implications for future situations, which I believe Maizeman is pointing towards.

I'm not making an ethical statement that it's good or bad for him to say it. Just that it is unique and at least a little more extreme than a general "good ole boy" situation.

It needed to be announced because this is a primary. If he intends to choose a woman for VP, now is the time to announce it; and to be very clear and specific about that. I haven’t seen anywhere that indicates he doesn’t already have somebody in mind (or several people in mind), And they happen to be a woman. And yes perhaps what went into his decision.

But even if he is targeting that position to a woman, I see nothing distasteful in saying that. It needs to be said by someone in the power class because it sends a signal that change is needed and desired. Power does not just passively transition or become equitable by osmosis. It typically needs to be given, or forcibly taken.  In this case Biden is offering it, and I think the clarity with which he is offering it, is very important. So I would argue not only is it appropriate for him to present it as a nonnegotiable, but it is important that he does so.

People who have not been represented by the highest office, are sick and tired of witnessing hand-wringing over candid conversations of gender and racial and religious under representation in this country’s history. We need to be honest about where we’ve been and how much further we have to go. We don’t need subtle modification (we’ve had hundreds of years of that). It’s time for a fucking catalyst.

So, yeah. I guess anyone had the right to be “irked” by Biden’s bluntness. Just like anyone can be irked at the cries of a sick infant. But I would challenge anyone for whom that is their first instinct, to delve deeper and search for empathy and understanding.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2020, 03:08:31 PM by Lmoot »

pecunia

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1565
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2688 on: March 17, 2020, 04:19:07 PM »
This Biden fella has been known to lie.  Here's the deal - You can check that out yourself.  So, he may not be picking a woman as his running mate.  Just another lie. 

He is not as good a liar as Mr. Trump.  Trump is a very good liar.

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2689 on: March 17, 2020, 04:34:46 PM »
From a strategy perspective I'm not sure I see what Biden gains by breaking with tradition and explicitly promising a female VP nominee at this point. He's (barring a health issue) got this primary sewn up. Why not just announce a female VP in a few months (like everyone expects him to anyways) when the general election campaign is launched and when those announcements are normally made? If anything he's subtly undercutting the expected boost of the eventual VP announcement by making it a certainty now, while also unnecessarily feeding the perception on the right that Liberals are too wrapped up in "identity politics" and demographic box checking. Seems like an unnecessary move.

Is there an upside I'm missing?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2020, 04:38:18 PM by Samuel »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2690 on: March 17, 2020, 07:59:55 PM »
How is someone choosing who they want to work with based on similar socioeconomic circles, or where they went to school, or who they know....any more valid or honorable then choosing a qualified person because they represent a class with low representation?

Politics has been a good ole boys club for hundreds of years, but we are going to act like they only choose each other because they are the most qualified? You’ve got to be kidding me.

I would argue against picking VPs based on what college they are an alumni of as well. And not just picking them based on that but ANNOUNCING we're going to pick them based on that criteria. "I am committing today that whoever I select for a vice president will have graduated from Dartmouth."

Okay. I give up.

 But that selection process is so ingrained in our political culture, that it doesn’t NEED to be announced. It is ignored, or worse, assumed, and yet worse, accepted. But one mention of selecting someone because they represent a good portion of the country that has been invisible in politics and positions of power until recently, and we clutch our pearls at the bold unsavoryness of it.

Even just your comment that the announcement of it, is what irked you. Well it’s the quiet insidiousness of the last hundreds of years, that irks myself and other under represented classes. The powershift has to be purposeful and the intentions must be clear. Since intentions is what has kept power from the very groups that it has worked against since the beginning of this country’s history.

A group of people who have been at the front of the line since the line formed, turning around to tell everyone behind to be patient and fair, it’s just hilarious to me. In a country where there are probably over 50,000,000 people who meet the qualifications to be president, we should not be having multiple members of the same family in high politics, we shouldn’t be having people in high positions who all graduated from the same 3 to 5 schools (especially as legacies), or whose families know each other. Where is the face-scrunching over that?

Just my 2 cents. It may not need to be announced, but the announcement of it is a different animal from everyone just assuming it will be the case. It's different in the way that there's a difference from unconscious bias and overt racism/sexism. Both of course need to be addressed, but there's definitely a difference between the two and a definite reason why one is called specifically unconscious bias - as to not make people who have it feel like they're awful...it's just kind of part of nature that can be worked on but doesn't mean you're trying to be a jerk.

To state that you are for sure going to pick a woman as VP is an overt statement of bias that is different and would be fair to say is more extreme in at least some form or fashion to a general I'm going to pick people I know/feel comfortable with which tends to be guys from these colleges. It is fair for it to merit its own unique "irkingness" in someone because it is different and has implications for future situations, which I believe Maizeman is pointing towards.

I'm not making an ethical statement that it's good or bad for him to say it. Just that it is unique and at least a little more extreme than a general "good ole boy" situation.

It needed to be announced because this is a primary. If he intends to choose a woman for VP, now is the time to announce it; and to be very clear and specific about that. I haven’t seen anywhere that indicates he doesn’t already have somebody in mind (or several people in mind), And they happen to be a woman. And yes perhaps what went into his decision.

But even if he is targeting that position to a woman, I see nothing distasteful in saying that. It needs to be said by someone in the power class because it sends a signal that change is needed and desired. Power does not just passively transition or become equitable by osmosis. It typically needs to be given, or forcibly taken.  In this case Biden is offering it, and I think the clarity with which he is offering it, is very important. So I would argue not only is it appropriate for him to present it as a nonnegotiable, but it is important that he does so.

People who have not been represented by the highest office, are sick and tired of witnessing hand-wringing over candid conversations of gender and racial and religious under representation in this country’s history. We need to be honest about where we’ve been and how much further we have to go. We don’t need subtle modification (we’ve had hundreds of years of that). It’s time for a fucking catalyst.

So, yeah. I guess anyone had the right to be “irked” by Biden’s bluntness. Just like anyone can be irked at the cries of a sick infant. But I would challenge anyone for whom that is their first instinct, to delve deeper and search for empathy and understanding.

Ok, so let's be clear. He didn't need to announce it. It didn't need to be announced because this is a primary. He could have answered the question - I will pick the best candidate. He could have answered the question - I will pick the best candidate, but I'm going to be frank, I'm going to look especially hard at women for the candidate to avoid unconscious bias or just picking a guy because I know him better or whatever...pivot the whole thing to a talk on how people in general pick people they unconsciously feel are better etc. etc. etc. Instead, he chose to answer that he committed to picking a woman. That is a choice, and no matter what you say or try to deflect, he has a responsibility to own that choice. You seem to think it's a good thing, and that's fine. It is a more overt statement of bias than it being the pick just ending up being a man because you pick people you're comfortable with or whatever. It's a stronger, more emphatic statement. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not, but it is what it is. Again, just own it as a choice. You seem to go back and forth on how to take the statement such as with your other bolded statement "And they happen to be a woman. And yes perhaps what went into his decision." That may be true, but you're making a big stretch to say that. If we go just by what he said, the most logical and rational explanation is he picked a woman because he specifically was picking out of women candidates. That's a bit of an assumption, but you seem to be saying on the one hand that it might be just happenstance (a bigger assumption, imo) and on the other hand, he should have deliberately picked a women, only looking at women candidates to right wrongs (a completely fine moral argument, but again, just own it).

In terms of whether or not people should be irked, I mean, again, Maizeman seems pretty reasonable and empathetic from what I've posted and not a hand wringer of any sort. I don't think he lacks empathy that women haven't been considered until recently and still have to fight an uphill battle. Speaking for myself, I understand that and empathize. However, I also understand what he's saying that there are implications of a statement like this. You admit they are, but seem to only see the positive. There are also negative ones. Which outweighs which? Good question :-).

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5281
  • Location: Avalon
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2691 on: March 17, 2020, 08:09:14 PM »
Biden said "my cabinet, my administration will look like the country".  Is that a statement of bias?

redbirdfan

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • Location: Seattle
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2692 on: March 17, 2020, 09:38:00 PM »
Quote
Biden said "my cabinet, my administration will look like the country".  Is that a statement of bias?

Or if it's obvious that the cabinet does NOT look like the country as a whole, are we allowed to infer bias?  What if the President says he would never consider a Secretary of X who isn't rich.  Are we allowed to infer bias?  I find it odd that the same people who claim that you can't accuse Trump of being X-ist by looking at the makeup of his administration, listening to his statements and observing his policies are very quick to use the appointment of underrepresented groups as proof of bias.  What exactly is the accusation?  Is it that Joe Biden is sexist against men?  Is it that he is guilty of something for stating that he was going to choose a woman (51% of the population) -and that's assuming she isn't already lined up and on board?  Pandering to his supporters?  I think he absolutely should have made the announcement during the primaries.  Elizabeth Warren's voters are still out there.  She hasn't endorsed Biden or Sanders.  Biden stating that he's selecting a woman as his VP could sway Warren voters to Biden.  It was a politically smart move.   

Given the safety issues involved in holding these primaries during a deadly viral outbreak and the overwhelming wins for Biden tonight, I'm going full "bye, Felicia" on Bernie Sanders.  He should drop out of the race and use his influence to mold the D platform.  If he stays in the race after tonight it's about his ego more than a realistic shot at the nomination. 

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2693 on: March 18, 2020, 02:29:40 AM »
How is someone choosing who they want to work with based on similar socioeconomic circles, or where they went to school, or who they know....any more valid or honorable then choosing a qualified person because they represent a class with low representation?

Politics has been a good ole boys club for hundreds of years, but we are going to act like they only choose each other because they are the most qualified? You’ve got to be kidding me.

I would argue against picking VPs based on what college they are an alumni of as well. And not just picking them based on that but ANNOUNCING we're going to pick them based on that criteria. "I am committing today that whoever I select for a vice president will have graduated from Dartmouth."

Okay. I give up.

 But that selection process is so ingrained in our political culture, that it doesn’t NEED to be announced. It is ignored, or worse, assumed, and yet worse, accepted. But one mention of selecting someone because they represent a good portion of the country that has been invisible in politics and positions of power until recently, and we clutch our pearls at the bold unsavoryness of it.

Even just your comment that the announcement of it, is what irked you. Well it’s the quiet insidiousness of the last hundreds of years, that irks myself and other under represented classes. The powershift has to be purposeful and the intentions must be clear. Since intentions is what has kept power from the very groups that it has worked against since the beginning of this country’s history.

A group of people who have been at the front of the line since the line formed, turning around to tell everyone behind to be patient and fair, it’s just hilarious to me. In a country where there are probably over 50,000,000 people who meet the qualifications to be president, we should not be having multiple members of the same family in high politics, we shouldn’t be having people in high positions who all graduated from the same 3 to 5 schools (especially as legacies), or whose families know each other. Where is the face-scrunching over that?

Just my 2 cents. It may not need to be announced, but the announcement of it is a different animal from everyone just assuming it will be the case. It's different in the way that there's a difference from unconscious bias and overt racism/sexism. Both of course need to be addressed, but there's definitely a difference between the two and a definite reason why one is called specifically unconscious bias - as to not make people who have it feel like they're awful...it's just kind of part of nature that can be worked on but doesn't mean you're trying to be a jerk.

To state that you are for sure going to pick a woman as VP is an overt statement of bias that is different and would be fair to say is more extreme in at least some form or fashion to a general I'm going to pick people I know/feel comfortable with which tends to be guys from these colleges. It is fair for it to merit its own unique "irkingness" in someone because it is different and has implications for future situations, which I believe Maizeman is pointing towards.

I'm not making an ethical statement that it's good or bad for him to say it. Just that it is unique and at least a little more extreme than a general "good ole boy" situation.

It needed to be announced because this is a primary. If he intends to choose a woman for VP, now is the time to announce it; and to be very clear and specific about that. I haven’t seen anywhere that indicates he doesn’t already have somebody in mind (or several people in mind), And they happen to be a woman. And yes perhaps what went into his decision.

But even if he is targeting that position to a woman, I see nothing distasteful in saying that. It needs to be said by someone in the power class because it sends a signal that change is needed and desired. Power does not just passively transition or become equitable by osmosis. It typically needs to be given, or forcibly taken.  In this case Biden is offering it, and I think the clarity with which he is offering it, is very important. So I would argue not only is it appropriate for him to present it as a nonnegotiable, but it is important that he does so.

People who have not been represented by the highest office, are sick and tired of witnessing hand-wringing over candid conversations of gender and racial and religious under representation in this country’s history. We need to be honest about where we’ve been and how much further we have to go. We don’t need subtle modification (we’ve had hundreds of years of that). It’s time for a fucking catalyst.

So, yeah. I guess anyone had the right to be “irked” by Biden’s bluntness. Just like anyone can be irked at the cries of a sick infant. But I would challenge anyone for whom that is their first instinct, to delve deeper and search for empathy and understanding.

Ok, so let's be clear. He didn't need to announce it. It didn't need to be announced because this is a primary. He could have answered the question - I will pick the best candidate. He could have answered the question - I will pick the best candidate, but I'm going to be frank, I'm going to look especially hard at women for the candidate to avoid unconscious bias or just picking a guy because I know him better or whatever...pivot the whole thing to a talk on how people in general pick people they unconsciously feel are better etc. etc. etc. Instead, he chose to answer that he committed to picking a woman. That is a choice, and no matter what you say or try to deflect, he has a responsibility to own that choice. You seem to think it's a good thing, and that's fine. It is a more overt statement of bias than it being the pick just ending up being a man because you pick people you're comfortable with or whatever. It's a stronger, more emphatic statement. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not, but it is what it is. Again, just own it as a choice. You seem to go back and forth on how to take the statement such as with your other bolded statement "And they happen to be a woman. And yes perhaps what went into his decision." That may be true, but you're making a big stretch to say that. If we go just by what he said, the most logical and rational explanation is he picked a woman because he specifically was picking out of women candidates. That's a bit of an assumption, but you seem to be saying on the one hand that it might be just happenstance (a bigger assumption, imo) and on the other hand, he should have deliberately picked a women, only looking at women candidates to right wrongs (a completely fine moral argument, but again, just own it).

In terms of whether or not people should be irked, I mean, again, Maizeman seems pretty reasonable and empathetic from what I've posted and not a hand wringer of any sort. I don't think he lacks empathy that women haven't been considered until recently and still have to fight an uphill battle. Speaking for myself, I understand that and empathize. However, I also understand what he's saying that there are implications of a statement like this. You admit they are, but seem to only see the positive. There are also negative ones. Which outweighs which? Good question :-).

How is someone choosing who they want to work with based on similar socioeconomic circles, or where they went to school, or who they know....any more valid or honorable then choosing a qualified person because they represent a class with low representation?

Politics has been a good ole boys club for hundreds of years, but we are going to act like they only choose each other because they are the most qualified? You’ve got to be kidding me.

I would argue against picking VPs based on what college they are an alumni of as well. And not just picking them based on that but ANNOUNCING we're going to pick them based on that criteria. "I am committing today that whoever I select for a vice president will have graduated from Dartmouth."

Okay. I give up.

 But that selection process is so ingrained in our political culture, that it doesn’t NEED to be announced. It is ignored, or worse, assumed, and yet worse, accepted. But one mention of selecting someone because they represent a good portion of the country that has been invisible in politics and positions of power until recently, and we clutch our pearls at the bold unsavoryness of it.

Even just your comment that the announcement of it, is what irked you. Well it’s the quiet insidiousness of the last hundreds of years, that irks myself and other under represented classes. The powershift has to be purposeful and the intentions must be clear. Since intentions is what has kept power from the very groups that it has worked against since the beginning of this country’s history.

A group of people who have been at the front of the line since the line formed, turning around to tell everyone behind to be patient and fair, it’s just hilarious to me. In a country where there are probably over 50,000,000 people who meet the qualifications to be president, we should not be having multiple members of the same family in high politics, we shouldn’t be having people in high positions who all graduated from the same 3 to 5 schools (especially as legacies), or whose families know each other. Where is the face-scrunching over that?

Just my 2 cents. It may not need to be announced, but the announcement of it is a different animal from everyone just assuming it will be the case. It's different in the way that there's a difference from unconscious bias and overt racism/sexism. Both of course need to be addressed, but there's definitely a difference between the two and a definite reason why one is called specifically unconscious bias - as to not make people who have it feel like they're awful...it's just kind of part of nature that can be worked on but doesn't mean you're trying to be a jerk.

To state that you are for sure going to pick a woman as VP is an overt statement of bias that is different and would be fair to say is more extreme in at least some form or fashion to a general I'm going to pick people I know/feel comfortable with which tends to be guys from these colleges. It is fair for it to merit its own unique "irkingness" in someone because it is different and has implications for future situations, which I believe Maizeman is pointing towards.

I'm not making an ethical statement that it's good or bad for him to say it. Just that it is unique and at least a little more extreme than a general "good ole boy" situation.

It needed to be announced because this is a primary. If he intends to choose a woman for VP, now is the time to announce it; and to be very clear and specific about that. I haven’t seen anywhere that indicates he doesn’t already have somebody in mind (or several people in mind), And they happen to be a woman. And yes perhaps what went into his decision.

But even if he is targeting that position to a woman, I see nothing distasteful in saying that. It needs to be said by someone in the power class because it sends a signal that change is needed and desired. Power does not just passively transition or become equitable by osmosis. It typically needs to be given, or forcibly taken.  In this case Biden is offering it, and I think the clarity with which he is offering it, is very important. So I would argue not only is it appropriate for him to present it as a nonnegotiable, but it is important that he does so.

People who have not been represented by the highest office, are sick and tired of witnessing hand-wringing over candid conversations of gender and racial and religious under representation in this country’s history. We need to be honest about where we’ve been and how much further we have to go. We don’t need subtle modification (we’ve had hundreds of years of that). It’s time for a fucking catalyst.

So, yeah. I guess anyone had the right to be “irked” by Biden’s bluntness. Just like anyone can be irked at the cries of a sick infant. But I would challenge anyone for whom that is their first instinct, to delve deeper and search for empathy and understanding.

Ok, so let's be clear. He didn't need to announce it. It didn't need to be announced because this is a primary. He could have answered the question - I will pick the best candidate. He could have answered the question - I will pick the best candidate, but I'm going to be frank, I'm going to look especially hard at women for the candidate to avoid unconscious bias or just picking a guy because I know him better or whatever...pivot the whole thing to a talk on how people in general pick people they unconsciously feel are better etc. etc. etc. Instead, he chose to answer that he committed to picking a woman. That is a choice, and no matter what you say or try to deflect, he has a responsibility to own that choice. You seem to think it's a good thing, and that's fine. It is a more overt statement of bias than it being the pick just ending up being a man because you pick people you're comfortable with or whatever. It's a stronger, more emphatic statement. Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not, but it is what it is. Again, just own it as a choice. You seem to go back and forth on how to take the statement such as with your other bolded statement "And they happen to be a woman. And yes perhaps what went into his decision." That may be true, but you're making a big stretch to say that. If we go just by what he said, the most logical and rational explanation is he picked a woman because he specifically was picking out of women candidates. That's a bit of an assumption, but you seem to be saying on the one hand that it might be just happenstance (a bigger assumption, imo) and on the other hand, he should have deliberately picked a women, only looking at women candidates to right wrongs (a completely fine moral argument, but again, just own it).

In terms of whether or not people should be irked, I mean, again, Maizeman seems pretty reasonable and empathetic from what I've posted and not a hand wringer of any sort. I don't think he lacks empathy that women haven't been considered until recently and still have to fight an uphill battle. Speaking for myself, I understand that and empathize. However, I also understand what he's saying that there are implications of a statement like this. You admit they are, but seem to only see the positive. There are also negative ones. Which outweighs which? Good question :-).

He seems to be owning his choice. And I think it is a positive thing for him to indicate his purposefulness in choosing a woman. I have no problem with bias if the intent is to create a foothold for a group of people that have been systematically shut out. I didn’t go back and forth, or contradict anything. I just acknowledge that I am not a mind reader and have no idea what he has or hasn’t done, or why.

Your giving benefit of a doubt to a selection process that is historically biased against anyone not white, male, Christian (someone the person in power is “comfortable with” LOL! Aka someone JUST LIKE THEMSELVES), shows a willing naivety meant to gaslight the masses into thinking its perfectly reasonable and normal for half the population to consistently be under represented in the highest offices.

It is not about the comfort of the President or the power class, it is what is believed to be best for the country, and there are many people that think that just the action of selecting a qualified woman for a Vice President, provides a needed message of righting wrongs, and changing with the times. Of course it is also important that there’s a mutual respect and desire to work together, as it would be with any working relationship. You seem to imply that both cannot be true: a commitment to choose a woman who is qualified and well-matched. All that is still important, or else you end up with John McCain and Sarah Palin. So Biden announcing that he intends to select a woman, is only a first step, but it’s an important step if the goal is to have a female VP.

If the negative of such a statement, is that it chafes those individuals who aren’t comfortable with an intentional roll back of their political monopoly, and the positive is that instead of simply acknowledging that women have an uphill battle, and patting oneself on the back for being “empathetic” enough just to recognize it, someone in position at the top of the hill has dropped a rope to make it a little easier for her to go up that hill, then I say bring on the bias. But as someone mentioned just above, I don’t think this is true bias on Biden’s part. Over 40 years in politics, and clearly he has no problem working with men, and like many in that scene, seems “unconsciously biased” towards working with men. If not for the recent social demand for a shift away from the status quo (Status Quo Joe), selecting a man would be natural and on-brand for him. So if anything this decision probably actively works AGAINST his bias; which should be an example for all of us.

Lmoot

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 843
    • Journal
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2694 on: March 18, 2020, 06:45:03 AM »
^ Replying to my post instead of editing, to make sure my additional point is seen.  Perhaps it is the stress of current events, or I just simply need to step away from the Internet, but I cannot believe that you take more issue with what someone says (or how they said it or whatever), than what is done. You take issue with someone saying they want a woman to be vice president, but you don’t seem to take issue with men shutting women out, because they weren’t Obvious with it. How can you not see how much worse that is?! Cancer is quieter than a whack on the head, But it is more dangerous, long-lasting, and invasive. And harder to recover from. And takes drastic action. Something drastic like simply saying a woman should hold one of the highest positions in office for the first time in history 🙄

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 15590
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2695 on: March 18, 2020, 07:45:37 AM »
^ Replying to my post instead of editing, to make sure my additional point is seen.  Perhaps it is the stress of current events, or I just simply need to step away from the Internet, but I cannot believe that you take more issue with what someone says (or how they said it or whatever), than what is done. You take issue with someone saying they want a woman to be vice president, but you don’t seem to take issue with men shutting women out, because they weren’t Obvious with it. How can you not see how much worse that is?! Cancer is quieter than a whack on the head, But it is more dangerous, long-lasting, and invasive. And harder to recover from. And takes drastic action. Something drastic like simply saying a woman should hold one of the highest positions in office for the first time in history 🙄

+1

This is kinda my point of view.  It's OK to be sexist/racist/homophobic while keeping the status quo just as long as we're quiet about it?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2696 on: March 18, 2020, 08:07:30 AM »
He seems to be owning his choice. And I think it is a positive thing for him to indicate his purposefulness in choosing a woman. I have no problem with bias if the intent is to create a foothold for a group of people that have been systematically shut out. I didn’t go back and forth, or contradict anything. I just acknowledge that I am not a mind reader and have no idea what he has or hasn’t done, or why.

Your giving benefit of a doubt to a selection process that is historically biased against anyone not white, male, Christian (someone the person in power is “comfortable with” LOL! Aka someone JUST LIKE THEMSELVES), shows a willing naivety meant to gaslight the masses into thinking its perfectly reasonable and normal for half the population to consistently be under represented in the highest offices.

It is not about the comfort of the President or the power class, it is what is believed to be best for the country, and there are many people that think that just the action of selecting a qualified woman for a Vice President, provides a needed message of righting wrongs, and changing with the times. Of course it is also important that there’s a mutual respect and desire to work together, as it would be with any working relationship. You seem to imply that both cannot be true: a commitment to choose a woman who is qualified and well-matched. All that is still important, or else you end up with John McCain and Sarah Palin. So Biden announcing that he intends to select a woman, is only a first step, but it’s an important step if the goal is to have a female VP.

If the negative of such a statement, is that it chafes those individuals who aren’t comfortable with an intentional roll back of their political monopoly, and the positive is that instead of simply acknowledging that women have an uphill battle, and patting oneself on the back for being “empathetic” enough just to recognize it, someone in position at the top of the hill has dropped a rope to make it a little easier for her to go up that hill, then I say bring on the bias. But as someone mentioned just above, I don’t think this is true bias on Biden’s part. Over 40 years in politics, and clearly he has no problem working with men, and like many in that scene, seems “unconsciously biased” towards working with men. If not for the recent social demand for a shift away from the status quo (Status Quo Joe), selecting a man would be natural and on-brand for him. So if anything this decision probably actively works AGAINST his bias; which should be an example for all of us.

First of all, glad that Biden is owning the choice. I haven't paid much attention to his responses after the fact.

For my statement that you were going back and forth, that wasn't worded correctly. All I'm saying is you keep saying things like perhaps he limited his choice to women when it seems given what he said that him deliberately choosing a woman is a fairly logical inference.

Now, for a lot of discussion we're having here about assuming motivations, you seem to be assuming a lot of motivations on my part (all in the negative), which is really not very nice :-).

Take your bolded statement. You say I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and am gaslighting and so on and so forth. That's factually innacurate. I never gave any benefit of the doubt to the process. I never said it was unbiased. I specifically talked about how Biden could have talked about the unconscious bias in it and that's why he was leaning towards a female VP to avoid that. If that's not enough for you, I'll say it explicitly - there is unconscious bias pretty much all the time for these things. My points also don't preclude that their could be other biases. Without someone coming out and saying it, though, that's much harder to know and requires, again, an assumption of intent. So no, I'm not gaslighting or giving anyone the benefit of the doubt and haven't, so please don't make assumptions.

Furthermore, you keep conflating arguments, talking about "it's not about the comfort of the president or whatnot." I never implied that we should consider the comfort of the president as in we should say, "oh it's ok that it happens." It's not OK. It's a problem, and we should acknowledge it as something that happens so we can address it, not to agree with it. You say "You seem to imply that both cannot be true: a commitment to choose a woman who is qualified and well-matched," but again, you're making significant assumptions on something I never said, so please don't make assumptions.

You are obviously for this bias. That's fine. Be for it. You don't seem to acknowledge any negative implications of this down. That's fine, but people can reasonable disagree with you on this without being this villain you seem so intent on painting people who disagree with you of being.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2697 on: March 18, 2020, 08:11:20 AM »
^ Replying to my post instead of editing, to make sure my additional point is seen.  Perhaps it is the stress of current events, or I just simply need to step away from the Internet, but I cannot believe that you take more issue with what someone says (or how they said it or whatever), than what is done. You take issue with someone saying they want a woman to be vice president, but you don’t seem to take issue with men shutting women out, because they weren’t Obvious with it. How can you not see how much worse that is?! Cancer is quieter than a whack on the head, But it is more dangerous, long-lasting, and invasive. And harder to recover from. And takes drastic action. Something drastic like simply saying a woman should hold one of the highest positions in office for the first time in history 🙄

I dunno, perhaps you should step away, because you seem to be getting very upset and again seem to be intent on painting anyone who tries to discuss the issue with the villain paint brush. I'm just discussing an issue. I've said up thread that I supported Biden. I will most likely vote for him. This statement is not going to make me not vote for him, so I don't see where all the anger is coming from. I'm not hand wringing or using this as an excuse to not vote for him. I'm simply trying to look at the implications of what he's said. If we can't have discussion on implications of political statements, what's the point of having an off topic political thread :-)?

ETA: Basically, it seemed if there was any possible way to interpret anything I said in the negative or with negative intent that was how it was interpreted. That's what I meant by "painting as a villain."
« Last Edit: March 18, 2020, 08:29:40 AM by Wolfpack Mustachian »

fuzzy math

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 983
  • Age: 38
  • Location: PNW ---> Midwest (for now)
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2698 on: March 18, 2020, 08:27:21 AM »
Whomever Biden picks would likely inherit the presidency. So on one hand I find that kind of exciting.

On the other hand I feel Biden did it to try to "outprogressive" Bernie. And that's a battle he will always lose and always look foolish while losing.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4528
Re: 2020 POTUS Candidates
« Reply #2699 on: March 18, 2020, 08:42:01 AM »
Whomever Biden picks would likely inherit the presidency. So on one hand I find that kind of exciting.

On the other hand I feel Biden did it to try to "outprogressive" Bernie. And that's a battle he will always lose and always look foolish while losing.

Eh, we're discussing it here, and I'm sure it's on thedonald, but no one else cares. Nary a peep on CNN or 538 or Foxnews. It's much ado about nothing.