Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 488 of 588 FirstFirst ... 388438478486487488489490498538 ... LastLast
Results 7,306 to 7,320 of 8807
  1. #7306
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,873
    Quote Originally Posted by turnaround3 View Post
    This is all nonsense to me.

    Should we not have expected Obama to know what was good for the white portion of the country?

    This narrative of intersectionality as a prerequisite for leadership is so destructive it's hard to even begin to comprehend. It ultimately arrives us at an inability to trust/believe/elect anybody, because no human checks all the boxes.

    An inclusive cabinet is nonsense too. If the person the decision maker (in this instance POTUS) believes to be the most qualified person to be Secretary Of State is a white guy I have zero interest - zero - in appointing the second most qualified person to be Secretary Of State based on their color, gender, or ethnicity. It's all fully insane.

    We've had fully capable and qualified Secretaries Of State that were women, black men, and black women. I am of the opinion they were chosen on their merit, and I'd like that we'd continue choosing based solely on that.
    While it would be great to live in a world where everyone is chosen based on their merit, I think people are incredibly, almost childishly naïve to assume that is the case.

    For instance, the President's daughter and son-in-law currently work in the White House. Does anyone here think they were the best candidates for the job or got the job on their merits?

    I guess for me personally, so long as we live in a world where people get jobs based on their last name, I don't see what is any different in getting jobs based on your race. I think it'd be better if we chose people based on neither, but so long as we're choosing them based on one, we can't complain about choosing them based on the other.

  2. #7307
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Clearwater, Fl
    Posts
    17,363
    Quote Originally Posted by GGGGG-Men View Post
    He wants to increase taxes on wealthy, add payroll taxes to big companies, hold corporations to actual tax rates (not single digit rates), cut back military spending.....yet over and over you guys spew this same question of how to pay when the answer is in plain site. You’ve been brainwashed.

    Nobody asked “how do we pay for it?” when we gutted revenue for the country with massive tax cuts for corporations or when we launch attacks around the world....


    Just more red scare tactics from a dying corporatocracy.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    So, muck up the economy? I got it now.

    He can say the tax bill will go to the rich but you know and everybody knows it always filters down to the middle class.....
    My Top 3 Rush Guitar solos

    1. La Villa Strangiato
    2. Limelight
    3. Between the Wheels

  3. #7308
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    20,863
    Quote Originally Posted by Sofnr View Post
    It's interesting that you seem sure that Bernie can't beat Trump, despite all the evidence to the contrary, but you're hoping for this scenario. If Bernie takes a big plurality to the convention and they hand the nomination to somebody like Bloomberg I guarantee the Democrats have no chance of winning the election. Bernie Sanders voters will stay home and let the DNC implode upon itself.

    If one of the other moderates was to get the plurality then maybe you could unite the party. That seems pretty unlikely though unless everybody but Biden drops out now. I could also see a
    scenario where Warren got the nomination at the convention and the party unified. Even if Bloomberg miraculously learns to speak publicly by the general election he's really got no path to a plurality, and he's not going to get votes from the large majority of the progressives if he's given a nomination.
    To your first paragraph, I guess we'll see. But your assessment is correct, I indeed do not envision any scenario where Sanders defeats Trump. None. Lots of people believed this to be true of Trump himself just a few years ago though (not me, but lots) - so what do I know?

    Second paragraph - it's hard to imagine a path to Milwaukee where anyone not named Sanders arrives with a plurality. It's not at all hard for me to imagine the DNC giving the nom to someone else whether the aforementioned plurality is a big or a small one. That is to say, I'd consider it likely. And I'd be rooting, strongly, for it.

    Disagreement is perfectly fine. You think Sanders can unite Dems, I don't, at all. Just haven't seen any buyable evidence for it whatsoever. His entire party, which he himself is on the record as "coming for," can't stand him, outside of his 35%. Hard to find a lot of unity there, for me, personally. But we'll see!


  4. #7309
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    91,959
    Quote Originally Posted by rrzubnyy View Post
    So, muck up the economy? I got it now.

    He can say the tax bill will go to the rich but you know and everybody knows it always filters down to the middle class.....
    There's been no evidence of this.
    Prior to 11/1/19: if you were on my ignore list, I was sticking to ignoring you thanks to great advise.
    From 11/1/19 on: I will no longer be responding to comments back to people on my ignore list.
    _____

    Think long and hard about why you respond to nonsense. Please!


  5. #7310
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    4,590
    Quote Originally Posted by turnaround3 View Post
    This is all nonsense to me.

    Should we not have expected Obama to know what was good for the white portion of the country?

    This narrative of intersectionality as a prerequisite for leadership is so destructive it's hard to even begin to comprehend. It ultimately arrives us at an inability to trust/believe/elect anybody, because no human checks all the boxes.

    An inclusive cabinet is nonsense too. If the person the decision maker (in this instance POTUS) believes to be the most qualified person to be Secretary Of State is a white guy I have zero interest - zero - in appointing the second most qualified person to be Secretary Of State based on their color, gender, or ethnicity. It's all fully insane.

    We've had fully capable and qualified Secretaries Of State that were women, black men, and black women. I am of the opinion they were chosen on their merit, and I'd like that we'd continue choosing based solely on that.
    Give this man a cigar.

    Just be sure to smoke it outdoors.

  6. #7311
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    20,863
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    While it would be great to live in a world where everyone is chosen based on their merit, I think people are incredibly, almost childishly naïve to assume that is the case.

    For instance, the President's daughter and son-in-law currently work in the White House. Does anyone here think they were the best candidates for the job or got the job on their merits?
    No of course not but nepotism isn't an endorsement for racism. This is what's all so crazy to me. "Here's a bad way of doing something, ya know, as long as we're at it, might as well try a different bad way of doing the same thing."

    Like, what.


  7. #7312
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    4,590
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    While it would be great to live in a world where everyone is chosen based on their merit, I think people are incredibly, almost childishly naïve to assume that is the case.

    For instance, the President's daughter and son-in-law currently work in the White House. Does anyone here think they were the best candidates for the job or got the job on their merits?

    I guess for me personally, so long as we live in a world where people get jobs based on their last name, I don't see what is any different in getting jobs based on your race. I think it'd be better if we chose people based on neither, but so long as we're choosing them based on one, we can't complain about choosing them based on the other.
    And Chelsea is a millionaire. With several great jobs.

    And Biden's kid is…well we all know the story.

    This kind of stuff will always go on.

  8. #7313
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,873
    Quote Originally Posted by turnaround3 View Post
    No of course not but nepotism isn't an endorsement for racism. This is what's all so crazy to me. "Here's a bad way of doing something, ya know, as long as we're at it, might as well try a different bad way of doing the same thing."

    Like, what.
    Who is endorsing racism? I think it's funny when people blow a gasket about someone who gets hired in part because of their race and is then completely indifferent when someone gets hired for some other trait that has nothing to do with ones qualifications for a job. Sluggo is a perfect example. He just spent how many posts talking about how bad it is to select someone based on their race and when I mentioned someone getting a job based on their family:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    And Chelsea is a millionaire. With several great jobs.

    And Biden's kid is…well we all know the story.

    This kind of stuff will always go on.

    complete indifference. Like, he doesn't care a single bit that people are unfairly getting jobs based on their last name but he gets himself into a lather at the mere suggestion someone could get a job based on their race.

    I guess what I'm saying is, if you don't care about people getting jobs for unqualified reasons outside of race but you go ballistic when it's race, you are a giant hypocrite.

  9. #7314
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    20,863
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Who is endorsing racism?
    Those who endorse race as a credential for any job.

    To the rest, we agree. Nepotism's bad. Racism's bad. Two things can be true at once.

    I can't agree that because Trump practices nepotism we should all just say **** it and practice racism.


  10. #7315
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,873
    Quote Originally Posted by turnaround3 View Post
    Those who endorse race as a credential for any job.

    To the rest, we agree. Nepotism's bad. Racism's bad. Two things can be true at once.

    I can't agree that because Trump practices nepotism we should all just say **** it and practice racism.
    If that's the case, at the very least you should stop complaining about racism in hiring practices unless you are also complaining about nepotism in hiring practices.

  11. #7316
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    45,798
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Mayor Pete would have that answer on lock.

    "there's no scraps in my scrapbook"

  12. #7317
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    45,798
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    I agree with Sluggo. Biden was pandering. I did not find it attractive
    Yup.

    "there's no scraps in my scrapbook"

  13. #7318
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    20,863
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    If that's the case, at the very least you should stop complaining about racism in hiring practices unless you are also complaining about nepotism in hiring practices.
    Well, no.

    Nobody has time to complain about everything. I just said nepotism's bad. That's enough for me, if it's not enough for you, that's a you problem.

    It's a sports forum, here's a sports analogy. I'm a Bears guy and I don't care very much for the Packers. Some other teams I don't like include the Vikings, Lions, and Ravens. I'm not going to take the time to condemn three other teams every time I talk about my distaste for Green Bay, because I don't have time to, and realistically, nobody has time to.

    This is a common political pratfall, more often from the left (though either side can be guilty of it), that nothing is ever enough. It's another of the many, many ways we wound up with Trump.


  14. #7319
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    73,344
    Wow. A bipartisan consensus! Maybe there is hope for us after all!

    Quote Originally Posted by ManRam View Post
    God tier pandering from Biden with the black female SCOTUS thing.
    I think the line between pandering and, well, not pandering is pretty obvious and it's fine to call a spade a spade when it clearly is pandering. Electing a black President didn't save us from racism no less than electing a woman will save us from sexism (as Amy said last week). I think it is hugely important to have more diversity in our government (in every which way) but just coming outright and bluntly saying it in the way Biden did...well...it of course comes across as pandering.

    Joe is a good panderer. I think he does it less than Pete, who really is nothing but a panderer.
    PSD'S RESIDENT BERNIE BROTHER

  15. #7320
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    20,863
    Quote Originally Posted by ManRam View Post
    I think it is hugely important to have more diversity in our government (in every which way) but just coming outright and bluntly saying it in the way Biden did...well...it of course comes across as pandering.
    So to be clear.

    Diversity for the sake of diversity - good.

    Saying it out loud - bad.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •