And, as Ravenman already said, if she mentions it she’s “bragging” and obviously trying to be elected via “identity politics” rather than her qualifications. If she doesn’t mention it, she must be ashamed of it. It’s a win-win for Urban Redneck in that there is nothing the candidate can do that will get him to admit she’s actually qualified to run for office.
And…she won.
I have little doubt it was the Star endorsement that made the difference.
She has my vote in November. Then again, after the events of the last two years I wouldn’t even vote for a close relative if they ran as a Republican. :mad:
My question for YOU: How do YOU know that is why they gave the endorsement? Are you a member of these organization(s)? Were you a part of the committee that decided who got endorsements?
Because if you AREN’T, then you are just projecting your bias onto others. Not exactly a valid argument.
Oh. and congrats to Sharice Davids for her victory. Wish I could have lived in Kansas so I could have voted for her (but I DO have a few friends who DID vote for her! 
)
I have nothing but respect for somebody that can work on Pine Ridge Reservation and come out of it motivated to make a difference, rather than succumbing to despair. It is not a happy part of the country.
Grats to her for the win, I hope she is able to carry it into November!
Because that’s what they say in their endorsement. They didn’t endorse her because of her positions, which are the same as every other liberal Democrat in the field. They endorsed her because she is gay, and a Native American, and was raised by a single mother but still got a law degree and the rest of it. We can disagree if those are valid reasons or not, but those are the reasons they cited.
Regards,
Shodan
Huh.
Regards!
This thread has turned into the Republican version of Affirmative Action: if you have several candidates all of equal qualifications, you MUST choose the white guy or else you’re being racist!
I assume you read the next paragraph -
As I said, they didn’t pick her out based on her positions. All the Democrats have the same positions, and so they picked her because she is brown, gay, was raised by a single mother, and has a law degree. That’s why they endorsed her above the other candidates in the Democratic primary.
Regards,
Shodan
So you’re saying that the newspaper is lying when it wrote: “The Star’s endorsement is based in part on Davids’ policy positions.” Because, you got inside the head of the editorial board, with the typical superpowers that conservatives have to know liberals better than they know themselves? Is that how it works?
Which of her positions distinguished her from the rest of the Democratic candidates? IOW
“Here are five red buttons. Pick one.”
“I pick number 3, in part because it’s red”.
Regards,
Shodan
Correct me if I’m wrong, but “similar” does not mean “the same”.
Are you saying that the newspaper is lying with respect to what it wrote?
What the newspaper said didn’t make sense. How do you choose something based on characteristics that don’t distinguish it?
“Pick a number from 1 to 10.”
“I picked 4, in part because it’s a number.”
Maybe that makes sense to you. It doesn’t to me. Of course I am not a gay Native American with a law degree who was raised by a single mother. Or a Democrat.
Regards,
Shodan
You disagree with any and all policy positions that she takes, so to you, all the policy positions that a democrat takes are the same, they are all things that you disagree with.
For people who do agree with these policy positions, there is quite a bit of daylight between the different candidates and their positions on the policies, where their priorities are, specific perspectives on policy.
Essentially, you are committing the fallacy of argument from ignorance, it doesn’t make sense to you, with your very limited knowledge and persevere on this, so it must not make any sense at all.
You have a choice here, learn something new, or double down on your ignorance. Which you do is entirely up to you.
They endorsed her because they agree with her commonly held policy positions AND believed her experience was judged to be better than her contenders.
If she had the same experience, but crazy policy positions, it’s reasonable to assume she would not have been endorsed. The newspaper’s way of describing this is totally clear.
The way you state it, the newspaper would have endorsed her if she were a minority and ran on a platform of nonsense, like maybe mandatory genital mutilation for everyone.
Person 1: Let’s go to a restaurant.
Person 2: OK, I want Italian.
Person 1: Of the three Italian restaurants, Sergio’s has the best pasta, so let’s go to that one.
Pop Quiz: did you pick Sergio’s in part because it was Italian?
We aren’t talking about my failure to distinguish her positions from any of the other Democrats in the race. We are talking about the failure of the editorial board to distinguish any difference, and saying they were using that to decide to endorse her.
“We picked her out because she is the same.”
Which would you rather have - an apple, or an apple?
Regards,
Shodan
And you have a choice only of apples because we’ve decided not to pick an orange.
Person 1: Let’s go to a restaurant. Every restaurant in town is Italian.
Person 2: Let’s go to Sergio’s.
Person 1: Why Sergio’s?
Person 2: Because it’s Italian.
Regards,
Shodan