2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
I saw Booker interviewed this morning and it looks like he is banking on being the gun control candidate. I liked his ideas, but I wonder if there is enough push for that to float a presidential campaign.
 
Trebuchet said:
She was raised to think homosexuality was wrong. It's hard to overcome that.
Click to expand...

I have to say, that's a very weak excuse.

I was raised to think that homosexuality wasn't just wrong, but deserving of the death penalty.

It's easy to overcome absurd bigotry if you have any desire to live & learn.
 
The Atheist said:
She was raised to think homosexuality was wrong. It's hard to overcome that.
Click to expand...
I have to say, that's a very weak excuse.

I was raised to think that homosexuality wasn't just wrong, but deserving of the death penalty.

It's easy to overcome absurd bigotry if you have any desire to live & learn.
Click to expand...
It may be easy for many/most people to overcome the bigotry if they have the desire to. Sadly though, when you're trying to pick a candidate to put forward for the presidency, you could be putting yourself at a disadvantage by picking a homosexual simply because not everyone is going to try to overcome the bigotry.

Same goes with picking a woman candidate.... a portion of the electorate is opposed (for whatever reason) to voting for a woman. (Its a minority, but when you have such tight election races, every vote counts.)

So either pick the straight white male christian (and hopefully avoid any such bigotry) or do the honorable thing, pick the best candidate (even if they are a lesbian minority atheist) and lose the election by 0.1% because a small fraction of your potential voters decided to sit out the election due to their bigotry. Its not fair, but it can happen.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-actually-know-about-electability/
 
Segnosaur said:
It may be easy for many/most people to overcome the bigotry if they have the desire to. Sadly though, when you're trying to pick a candidate to put forward for the presidency, you could be putting yourself at a disadvantage by picking a homosexual simply because not everyone is going to try to overcome the bigotry.



Same goes with picking a woman candidate.... a portion of the electorate is opposed (for whatever reason) to voting for a woman. (Its a minority, but when you have such tight election races, every vote counts.)



So either pick the straight white male christian (and hopefully avoid any such bigotry) or do the honorable thing, pick the best candidate (even if they are a lesbian minority atheist) and lose the election by 0.1% because a small fraction of your potential voters decided to sit out the election due to their bigotry. Its not fair, but it can happen.



https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-we-actually-know-about-electability/
Click to expand...
This boils down to: the target of the bigotry will have to excuse themselves, accept lesser roles, and generally make space for the bigots.

No dice.
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
Sadly though, when you're trying to pick a candidate to put forward for the presidency, you could be putting yourself at a disadvantage by picking a homosexual simply because not everyone is going to try to overcome the bigotry.
Click to expand...

Yep - I said all that a couple of hundred posts ago. Wrong as it is to stay with the bigotry, the only person who can beat Trump is another apparent alpha male.

Pragmatism beats ideals every time if you want results.
 
The Atheist said:
Yep - I said all that a couple of hundred posts ago. Wrong as it is to stay with the bigotry, the only person who can beat Trump is another apparent alpha male.

Pragmatism beats ideals every time if you want results.
Click to expand...

But when businesses argue that their segregation policies we're pragmatic business decisions, would you have also taken their side?
 
The Atheist said:
Yep - I said all that a couple of hundred posts ago. Wrong as it is to stay with the bigotry, the only person who can beat Trump is another apparent alpha male.



Pragmatism beats ideals every time if you want results.
Click to expand...

What results?

Electoral victory that materializes into overtures of mediocre proposals that are compromised over until outright regressive?

I dare say the bulk of the work done to move capital-p Progressive policy forward in this country has been through the long, hard road of the courts, driven by passionate, committed, and desperately under-resourced operations that rise from obscurity.
 
BobTheCoward said:
But when businesses argue that their segregation policies we're pragmatic business decisions, would you have also taken their side?
Click to expand...

As long as it's not employment, businesses have the certain right to deal with whom they choose.

I even argued that case at the Human Rights Commission some years ago when some thick American cried because I told him I refuse to do business with Americans.

The HRC agreed with me that as a private business, that is my right.

Delphic Oracle said:
I dare say the bulk of the work done to move capital-p Progressive policy forward in this country has been through the long, hard road of the courts, driven by passionate, committed, and desperately under-resourced operations that rise from obscurity.
Click to expand...

Given the current make-up of SCOTUS, I wouldn't be pinning my hat on that, and instead look to take power first, then enact change as time goes by.

At least that way there's some hope.
 
The Atheist said:
As long as it's not employment, businesses have the certain right to deal with whom they choose.



I even argued that case at the Human Rights Commission some years ago when some thick American cried because I told him I refuse to do business with Americans.



The HRC agreed with me that as a private business, that is my right.







Given the current make-up of SCOTUS, I wouldn't be pinning my hat on that, and instead look to take power first, then enact change as time goes by.



At least that way there's some hope.
Click to expand...

The Human Rights Commission says you are just fine denying equal treatment to a human being for their place of origin? This is satisfying to you?

If this is your idea of "results", count me out.

Count me diametrically opposed to that.

Count me as hostile to that strategy in the extreme.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
As long as it's not employment, businesses have the certain right to deal with whom they choose.

I even argued that case at the Human Rights Commission some years ago when some thick American cried because I told him I refuse to do business with Americans.

The HRC agreed with me that as a private business, that is my right.



Given the current make-up of SCOTUS, I wouldn't be pinning my hat on that, and instead look to take power first, then enact change as time goes by.

At least that way there's some hope.
Click to expand...

But would you defend employment based racial discrimination if done for practical reasons?
 
Delphic Oracle said:
The Human Rights Commission says you are just fine denying equal treatment to a human being for their place of origin. This is satisfying to you?

If this is your idea of "results", count me out.

Count me diametrically opposed to that.

Count me as hostile to that strategy in the extreme.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be place of origin. It sounds like current allegiance. If that person went through the process to give up US citizenship, I don't think this person would continue to refuse business.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It wouldn't be place of origin. It sounds like current allegiance. If that person went through the process to give up US citizenship, I don't think this person would continue to refuse business.
Click to expand...

Let me be clear: I consider anything outside of "because of behaviors the person denied engaged in while at said business or in the course of interactions in direct connection to the business purposes" not to meet any definition of "just cause" in my view.

ETA: As every business that exists must be licensed in order to conduct lawful commercial activity, if they get to discriminate, the government is tacitly violating Equal Protection (or whatever statutory equivalent in that country).

Changing the objection from "place of origin" to "currently residing in" or "is a citizen of" does not change my disdain for it. They are all variations of bigotry and indicative of superficial, simplistic, and ignorant views.

Disclaimer: this reply should not be taken to indicate I want to explain any other edge cases you want to dream up.
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
The Human Rights Commission says you are just fine denying equal treatment to a human being for their place of origin? This is satisfying to you?
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

The right to invite people into one's home or business is sacrosanct. If you don't want a roommate who's Asian/black/gay/a Brony, then it's fine, and the same applies in business - if I don't want to deal with anyone, for any reason, that's perfectly ok.

How could it not be otherwise?

A man's house is still pretty much his castle, and a business is an extension of that.

Delphic Oracle said:
Count me diametrically opposed to that.

Count me as hostile to that strategy in the extreme.
Click to expand...

That's fine.

I'm very happy to be able to avoid having anyone tell me how I run my business. I pay an enormous amount of tax for the privilege of working 6-70 hours a week and make my own rules. If any government tried to tell me what I can do with my assets & intellectual property I would be highly pissed off.

BobTheCoward said:
But would you defend employment based racial discrimination if done for practical reasons?
Click to expand...

Practicality is irrelevant. My personal view is that employers should be able to hire people that they want to hire, and that includes if they want to exclude people on race/religion/age/gender or any other reason.

Government and public enterprises can have all the equality they like, but I'm full Republican on this one - employers are the people who create jobs and wealth. Why the hell should any government tell them who they should hire and what they should pay them?

Anyway, as a recruiter, I can assure you that the rules mean absolutely nothing. If an employer doesn't want to hire people of a certain sector, they pay me to make sure they don't get any black/green/purple candidates. I love the laws that forbid discrimination, because I make a significant percentage of my money from people paying me to avoid the legislation.

Market forces will - and should - always rule.
 
Actually, I've just realised that's a massive derail, so if you want to discuss it further, start a new thread and I'll be right in.
 
The Atheist said:
Actually, I've just realised that's a massive derail, so if you want to discuss it further, start a new thread and I'll be right in.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Full disclosure, however. After seeing this:

If you don't want a roommate who's Asian/black/gay/a Brony, then it's fine
Click to expand...

I lost interest in discussing this with you further.
 
alfaniner said:
Every time I see Elizabeth Warren come on, she reminds me of a mean second-grade teacher.
Click to expand...

I hate to wonder what Hillary Clinton must remind you of, then.

Warren, to me, seems more like a kindly grandma.
 
kellyb said:
I hate to wonder what Hillary Clinton must remind you of, then.

Warren, to me, seems more like a kindly grandma.
Click to expand...

To me Warren seems like a fiery phoenix, wreathed in flame and radiating transcendent beams of glory while shining gems drop from her beak.

Which goes to show that impressions are subjective and no reason to vote for or against someone. Even if they are a rabbit-eyed sleazeweasel like Biden, who would be scorched by the divine radiance of Warren should he dare to smell her hair, which doubtlessly is imbued with aromatic spices and incenses.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom