Home

Nominating someone who can't win the general election
1, 2, 3  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics


View latest: 24h 48h 72h


chanatron1000




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 1:57 pm
iyar wrote:
I was wondering America can elect someone like Buttiggieg (without spelling it out exactly, and with apologies for not knowing how to spell his name).

If Democrats know that a candidate can't win in the general election, but for a reason that they consider bigoted, do they allow themselves to discriminate against him?
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 2:51 pm
chanatron1000 wrote:
If Democrats know that a candidate can't win in the general election, but for a reason that they consider bigoted, do they allow themselves to discriminate against him?


I’m not clear on what you’re trying to say. Perhaps try rephrasing.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 2:56 pm
I dont think that is why butigeig cant win. he has no black support. Without black support he cant win.

I dont think americans vote based on groups. I don't think Americans are bigoted.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 3:02 pm
And to answer your question, yes. The reason there are only white people besides yang still running.

They are not bigoted or racist for choosing the candidate they like best. Although of course it will be played that way.
Back to top

Sebastian




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 3:04 pm
Ppl said trump wasn't electable

Just saying
Back to top

chanatron1000




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 3:09 pm
Sebastian wrote:
Ppl said trump wasn't electable

Just saying

"Electable" in that sense means "similar to previous winners", not "having the qualities current voters care about".
Back to top

chanatron1000




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 3:13 pm
Cheiny wrote:
I’m not clear on what you’re trying to say. Perhaps try rephrasing.

Even more moderate Republicans who would normally consider voting Democrat rather than a Republican whom they like less would not vote for Buttigieg because they discriminate against people like him. Democrats oppose such discrimination. Would Democrats nominate someone like him anyway in order not to be discriminating themselves, even though by doing so, they are only reflecting the reality of the general election?
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 3:14 pm
chanatron1000 wrote:
Even more moderate Republicans who would normally consider voting Democrat rather than a Republican whom they like less would not vote for Buttigieg because they discriminate against people like him. Democrats oppose such discrimination. Would Democrats nominate someone like him anyway in order not to be discriminating themselves, even though by doing so, they are only reflecting the reality of the general election?


Republicans do not discriminate against gay people.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 3:16 pm
Historically, the Democrats used superdelegates to ensure that the Party's leadership had more say over who got the nomination. The bylaws were changed in 2018 to allow superdelegates votes to count only on the 2nd and subsequent ballots. This was largely interpreted as a grassroots response by the hard left wing of the Party to evidence that Bernie Sanders had been unfairly treated in the primary process.

At this point in time, the Democratic Party is seriously fractured. Moderate Democrats are on the defensive from actors like "the squad" and unelected figures like Stacey Abrams. There is currently no clear popular candidate emerging among Democrats, and the desire to placate the hard left has resulted in positions that can't easily be walked back.

At this point, I suspect the primary goal of the DNC is to keep Sanders from winning the nomination.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 3:43 pm
small bean wrote:
Republicans do not discriminate against gay people.


The official Republican platform in 2016 condemned the legalization of gay marriage.

The official Republican platform in 2016 supported the right to discriminate against gays in adoption and in provision of services and goods.

The official Republican platform in 2016 supported parents' ability to force their children to undergo "conversion therapy."

So no, not all Republicans discriminate. But the official Republican position is discriminatory.
Back to top

chanatron1000




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 3:50 pm
small bean wrote:
Republicans do not discriminate against gay people.

Not all Republicans do, but it is true of a lot of them.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 3:52 pm
chanatron1000 wrote:
Not all Republicans do, but it is true of a lot of them.


It is not any more true for republicans then democrats
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 3:59 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
The official Republican platform in 2016 condemned the legalization of gay marriage.

The official Republican platform in 2016 supported the right to discriminate against gays in adoption and in provision of services and goods.

The official Republican platform in 2016 supported parents' ability to force their children to undergo "conversion therapy."

So no, not all Republicans discriminate. But the official Republican position is discriminatory.


That has nothing to do with discrimination against gay.

You are completley uninformed on the basis of the republican agenda. You again are lacking context and understanding on issues.

Speak to any gay republican and I know many and there is no discrimination.

There is no rule that a gay anything can not run for office. If there was a good candidiate that was gay every republican would support him.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 4:41 pm
small bean wrote:
That has nothing to do with discrimination against gay.

You are completley uninformed on the basis of the republican agenda. You again are lacking context and understanding on issues.

Speak to any gay republican and I know many and there is no discrimination.

There is no rule that a gay anything can not run for office. If there was a good candidiate that was gay every republican would support him.


Telling people that its OK for people to refuse to serve you simply because of your z3xual orientation isn't discrimination?

Telling people that they don't have the same rights as others with respect to government and private benefits that come with marriage isn't discrimination?

So you'd be OK with signs at your local pharmacy saying "no Jews allowed."

You'd be OK not receiving social security benefits if your spouse should (chas v'shalom) pass away because you had a Jewish wedding.

You'd be OK with your MIL making medical decisions for your spouse, because you're not "really" married.

Because none of those things are discriminatory, according to you.

Of course, things are getting better. In 2015, CPAC wouldn’t even let the Log Cabin Republicans set up a booth at the conference. Now they do. Even if 173 Republicans voted against a bill to ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity and z3xual orientation in housing, employment, education, federal programs, jury service, public accommodations, and credit and lending. T

Well, maybe your many gay republican friends feel none of that is discriminatory. But that would be a minority opinion.
Back to top

allthingsblue




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 5:00 pm
Personally, as a mostly conservative person, Mayor Pete's gayness wouldn't prevent me from voting for him (for comparison's sake, Trump's Trumpiness prevented me from voting for him in 2016 but I'm leaning towards voting for him in 2020). His overly prepared words do scare me; he comes across as very fake. Sanders is almost less scary to me because at least he is honest.

In 2020, I don't think anyone can be considered unelectable.
Back to top

chanatron1000




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 5:26 pm
I think most Republicans on this forum are still more progressive than the typical red state Christian.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 5:39 pm
chanatron1000 wrote:
I think most Republicans on this forum are still more progressive than the typical red state Christian.


How much time do you spend with these people? I spend a lot of time with them and you are wrong.
Back to top

small bean




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 5:43 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Telling people that its OK for people to refuse to serve you simply because of your z3xual orientation isn't discrimination?

Telling people that they don't have the same rights as others with respect to government and private benefits that come with marriage isn't discrimination?

So you'd be OK with signs at your local pharmacy saying "no Jews allowed."

You'd be OK not receiving social security benefits if your spouse should (chas v'shalom) pass away because you had a Jewish wedding.

You'd be OK with your MIL making medical decisions for your spouse, because you're not "really" married.

Because none of those things are discriminatory, according to you.

Of course, things are getting better. In 2015, CPAC wouldn’t even let the Log Cabin Republicans set up a booth at the conference. Now they do. Even if 173 Republicans voted against a bill to ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity and z3xual orientation in housing, employment, education, federal programs, jury service, public accommodations, and credit and lending. T

Well, maybe your many gay republican friends feel none of that is discriminatory. But that would be a minority opinion.


There is a difference between equality and discrimination.

Im not going to address the details of your post because you seem to misunderstand a lot of nuance.

I have no issue with a store in 2020 not serving jews. Jews will take their business elsewhwere and the loser is the guy that chose not to serve jews. I dont think anyone should be forced to do free trade with anyone they dont want. Now you can throw eggshells at me.
Back to top

chanatron1000




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 5:52 pm
small bean wrote:
How much time do you spend with these people? I spend a lot of time with them and you are wrong.

Do you spend time with all of them, or only some?
Back to top

lavenderchimes




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 15 2020, 7:29 pm
I can't speak for all the Democrats, but for myself and my close Democrat friends and Democrat family: we will not vote for someone who does not stand a chance of winning the general election, because that would be stupid and counterproductive. If the goal is to beat Trump, then we need to choose a candidate who can potentially win against Trump. And yes, that means taking eeeeeeveryone else biases into consideration - that's politics.

I know (from social media) that MANY Democrats would only vote for the candidate that they like the best, and won't vote for any other candidate in the general election - I see this as counterproductive, and firmly believe that if all the Bernie supporters would have voted for Hilary, she would have won. Not that I was so in love with Hillary - I just preferred her leaps and bounds over Trump. Life frequently comes down to choosing the best of bad options, and we need to be realistic about that.

I also know that many Democrats are quite in denial about the electability of some of the candidates. They lack a realistic world view, because they live in an echo chamber. I see the same thing among many Republicans, to be completely fair. Too many people surround themselves with people who agree with them, and conveniently (sometimes disastrously) forget that at least half the population vehemently disagrees.

But does not voting for someone who isn't electable because too many people discriminate make me discriminatory? I don't think so.

To make a comparison: I hate that we live in such a male dominated world. But when my therapist suggested that I might want to take my husband to some Dr. appointments, because the world still often takes men more seriously than they take women ... I had to admit that it was a good idea. Does that mean that I am supporting chauvanism? No, it means that I am recognizing the unpleasant realities of the world that I live in, and using good sense and whatever assets I have to help me get what I want/need.
Back to top
1, 2, 3  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 1 of 3 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Women at risk and being married to someone at risk
by amother
0 Sun, Jul 12 2020, 1:13 pm View last post
Baby gift for someone in Israel - today 10 Wed, Jul 01 2020, 2:27 pm View last post
General Michael Flynn: "Bleed 'Em 'til You Plead 'Em"
by Fox
20 Wed, Jun 24 2020, 5:00 pm View last post
Can someone please explain this to me
by amother
0 Mon, Jun 22 2020, 7:16 am View last post
Do you know someone living named Elazar?
by amother
33 Sun, Jun 21 2020, 9:58 am View last post
by ROFL

Jump to: