Sorry, I don’t get that at all; most candidates for public office, at least in the US Democratic and Republican parties, are white males - why would you say they don’t run?
But if you don’t want to discuss this with me, that’s fine, I can respect that.
It just seems that you were saying that white males shouldn’t be President anymore.
Please. All but one of the candidates in the field for the Democratic presidential nomination next year are white males.
Yes. I’m just woindering why there’s so much eagerness to elevate female and minority candidates above better qualified candidates in the SAME JOB. What makes Kristen Gillibrand better than Schumer? What makes Julian Castro better than Patrick Murphy? What makes Joaquin Castro better than oh, any other HUD Secretary? Has HUD been so much better under Castro’s leadership that we must stand up and take notice?
Js666’s comments seemed to infer that white males should no longer be Presidents.
Who has elevated Gillibrand? I’ve talked about her, but that’s because I think she’s a lot more charismatic and would be more likely to win a national election (plus I agree with her more than Schumer). If John Edwards and Anthony Weiner didn’t have their scandal-meltdowns, I’d still be a fan of theirs, most likely.
Your comments seem to infer that no non-white-males can ever be chosen lest you be concerned that white males are being passed over.
Sometimes the best fit isn’t a white male. By your logic, Castro could never have been chosen without being suspected of being chosen for his ethnicity.
You’re not the only one who has talked about Gillibrand, despite the fact that her only distinguishing feature as a Senator has been to be the prettiest, by many accounts.
Not at all. And I don’t believe Castro was chosen for HUD because of his ethnicity. Obama has actually been a better President than Clinton when it comes to just choosing the best people for jobs(in his view, anyway). Clinton did things like get fixated on having a female AG, which went pretty poorly for him(lost his first two nominees due to poor vetting). Castro is a bright young prospect, no doubt. I don’t disagree with that part. What I disagree with is that the experience he has NOW enables him to be a serious Presidential contender in 2020. If he was a white former Democratic mayor of San Antonio and HUD Secretary we wouldn’t be talking about him at all.
Having female and minority candidates is awesome. They should be judged by the same standards as white male candidates. JS666 isn’t the first poster to intimate that Democrats just shouldn’t nominate white guys for President. Which is just silly. I’m not one of those guys who thinks that being female or a minority is an advantage. Racism and sexism exist. Being a white guy does still carry advantages in a general election and the Democrats would be stupid to not just nominate whoever is best for the job, rather than reaching for HUD secretaries and junior Senators who aren’t once in a lifetime candidates who make ladies in the front row burst into tears of joy.
The GOP side has minority candidates and now apparently a top-tier female. I have no interest in the female and recognize that the minority candidates are not ready(although Rubio seems very electable). The Republicans should nominate a boring white guy because the boring white guys they have are the best qualified for the job. And frankly, the boring white guys in the Democratic field are also the most qualified for the job. Especially if you include Joe Biden.
Those “many accounts” are not being fair to the Senator, then, because she’s shown (relatively speaking, anyway) intelligence, hard work, charisma/appeal, and more. It’s not like she got into politics yesterday – she’s been a Senator since '09, and was in the House for a term before that, and before that was a judge’s clerk, a HUD counsel, a leader of the Women’s Leadership Forum, and more (including defending tobacco companies, not that I find this part appealing at all). In the Senate her most prominent work has been against sexual assault (especially in the military), but she’s been involved in internet freedom, overturning DADT, and other issues.
These are distinguishing features, and there are others. The same goes for Cory Booker, and other young Democrats (including the two young Democratic governors you’ve been ignoring).
Your dismissal of ‘young’ Democrats and their ‘bench’ is just wishful thinking. It’s not reasoned or serious political analysis. Gillibrand, Booker, and others really might actually be very talented potential presidential candidates.
Are you saying Castro will do nothing between now and 2020? If he’s picked as VP and then serves as VP, that will be pretty solid experience to be a future president.
No one said the Democrats shouldn’t nominate white guys for president.
By this measure, it will pretty much always be “boring white guys”, because 20 years ago virtually all governors and Senators (e.g. potential presidential candidates) were “boring white guys”. And I see no reason to put the emphasis you do on experience – I believe that Obama has been a much, much better president than either McCain or Romney, both of whom had more experience. Many more Americans would be dead, I believe, were either one of them elected, and the country would be weaker and poorer.
I did not say anything like that, not at all
I said that being a white male is not an automatic benefit for a political candidate anymore; I stand by that.
I made fun of you for worrying about white males hitting a glass ceiling. I stand by that, too.
If I thought white males shouldn’t be President anymore, I would say that.
And campaign for Bernie Sanders. (Sorry, Jester).
Do you mean j666? If so, take that back. Now.
I did not intimate that; you inferred it, incorrectly.
Do not put words in my mouth.
And stop misusing “infer”, when you mean “imply”.
Let’s just everyone calm down, please.
From which I infer you think me agitated.
Certainly, and I apologize for disrupting the thread.