3 ms·

What's your point? Trump limited himself to young white Christian conservatives with proven far-right agendas, that's more limited than 7%. The fact we've had

What's your point? Trump limited himself to young white Christian conservatives with proven far-right agendas, that's more limited than 7%. The fact we've had 7% black women for decades and never had a single one as a supreme court judge is something Democrats obviously care to change. They'd like judges to have diverse views and life experiences, reflective of the diversity of the electorate, not just more white Christian conservatives.

tharne 5y ago
> What's your point? Trump limited himself to young white Christian conservatives with proven far-right agendas, that's more limited than 7%. My point is that I don't want Donald Trump to set the bar on what is right and appropriate conduct for an American president. I don't think citing Trump's many shortcomings makes it okay for Biden to do dumb things like automatically ruling out 93% of the population on the basis of race and gender.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Dumblydorr 5y ago
  Why is it dumb for him to select a black woman? Maybe he disagrees with your tacit assumptions that race and gender don't matter, that background and identity matter to no one. Sorry to say, meritocracy is rarely the system anywhere, research has shown diverse teams perform better. And pragmatically, this is politics, sides with teams exist in politics, different groups exist, representation matters. Would it be smart for the Dems to not please their supporters who elected them? Keep in mind, Biden beat Bernie in the primary largely due to huge wins with black democrats in the South.
  - tharne 5y ago
    Did anyone say it was dumb to select a black women? Nope, nobody did. What's dumb is automatically ruling out over 90% of potential candidates on basis of race and gender alone.
    - Dumblydorr 5y ago
      You're framing it in the negative way, that he is ruling out candidates. Instead, he and all the rest are viewing it positively: ruling in the 7% of the 300+ million are black women, That's 21 million never considered before, always ruled out by racists and sexists in history. What's the problem with giving representation to a minority? How is it different from literally every pick, which is based on politics? Politics tends to dictate everything in politics, surprise surprise. As much as purists and idealogues like yourself want quality only, you'll never define a pure and quality pick in the USA when there are 2 teams with vastly different views of quality. I guarantee you could never name a single judge who both sides would choose. Obama tried, his name was Merrick Garland, and that pick was stolen by McConnell, and Trump used it to foist a hardcore conservative on us instead of Obama's centrist moderate pick. You're complaining about a black woman being chosen when the last democratic pick was literally stolen by the party which represents the minority in electoral and popular terms.

tharne 5y ago

> What's your point? Trump limited himself to young white Christian conservatives with proven far-right agendas, that's more limited than 7%. My point is that I don't want Donald Trump to set the bar on what is right and appropriate conduct for an American president. I don't think citing Trump's many shortcomings makes it okay for Biden to do dumb things like automatically ruling out 93% of the population on the basis of race and gender.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Dumblydorr 5y ago
Why is it dumb for him to select a black woman? Maybe he disagrees with your tacit assumptions that race and gender don't matter, that background and identity matter to no one. Sorry to say, meritocracy is rarely the system anywhere, research has shown diverse teams perform better. And pragmatically, this is politics, sides with teams exist in politics, different groups exist, representation matters. Would it be smart for the Dems to not please their supporters who elected them? Keep in mind, Biden beat Bernie in the primary largely due to huge wins with black democrats in the South.
- tharne 5y ago
  Did anyone say it was dumb to select a black women? Nope, nobody did. What's dumb is automatically ruling out over 90% of potential candidates on basis of race and gender alone.
  - Dumblydorr 5y ago
    You're framing it in the negative way, that he is ruling out candidates. Instead, he and all the rest are viewing it positively: ruling in the 7% of the 300+ million are black women, That's 21 million never considered before, always ruled out by racists and sexists in history. What's the problem with giving representation to a minority? How is it different from literally every pick, which is based on politics? Politics tends to dictate everything in politics, surprise surprise. As much as purists and idealogues like yourself want quality only, you'll never define a pure and quality pick in the USA when there are 2 teams with vastly different views of quality. I guarantee you could never name a single judge who both sides would choose. Obama tried, his name was Merrick Garland, and that pick was stolen by McConnell, and Trump used it to foist a hardcore conservative on us instead of Obama's centrist moderate pick. You're complaining about a black woman being chosen when the last democratic pick was literally stolen by the party which represents the minority in electoral and popular terms.