when you get permabanned for yet another ToU violation (my bet's on trolling or otherwise just bad-faith posting like this whole I Have All The Answers And By God I Will Ignore What The Data Says To Convey Them shtick) will anyone shed a tear
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Lawyer Michael Avenatti: 2020 Democratic nominee "better be a white male."
- Thread starter Autodidact
- Start date
That's the second time in this thread he posted that in reply to someone.
Dude isn't even subtle.
You gotta look at the long game. If trump wins in 2020 hes nominating 3 50 year old republican supreme court judges and then you can cry about every issue you want and it wont matter because that court is that way for 40 years at least. But the moral victory is all that matters right now the 40 year of damage
I get what he's saying, because studies do show a certain segment of America is more receptive to campaign promises made by white men.
But with that stated, yea hard pass on keeping the position of Preisdent of the United States (ironically this argument yet again proves meritocracy ain't a thing in addition to the fact Trump is your President), white male because said segment is scared. We really REALLY gotta stop coddling this segment of America who continually fucks themselves over because of their irrational fears.
While on the subject I'm REALLY tired of media, and democrats alike pushing this patently false narrative that these conservative voters have been "forgotten" by our two political parties. Shit is the biggest lie going in this damn country and it's all bullshit.
But with that stated, yea hard pass on keeping the position of Preisdent of the United States (ironically this argument yet again proves meritocracy ain't a thing in addition to the fact Trump is your President), white male because said segment is scared. We really REALLY gotta stop coddling this segment of America who continually fucks themselves over because of their irrational fears.
While on the subject I'm REALLY tired of media, and democrats alike pushing this patently false narrative that these conservative voters have been "forgotten" by our two political parties. Shit is the biggest lie going in this damn country and it's all bullshit.
"You gotta look at the long game, where Trump's absolutely gonna win and there's absolutely no way he loses under any circumstances and there's absolutely no way I'm saying this to get people riled up"
OP
OP
You could perhaps wait to see the results in MI, PA, and WI this year before making such an assertion.
But you're not really arguing.
Blah blah
There's a difference between state and local elections and the presidency. I already said if a better candidate comes and they can get people moving in on board. But right now, with how the country is polarized, that's the only way out I can see relibly. That could change with the midterms or sometime in the future, but we know that those who voted for Trump did so because of racism and sexism. All I'm saying is we have to be aware of that and turn it into a competitive advantage to get Trump out. If Kamala Harris runs and inspired record turnout, sure let's do it, but do you really believe a strong black women is going to appeal to more demographics in this country than a cool liberal white dude?
i think alot of time people forget that elections are decided largely by independent voters, 30% of the people who voted in 2016 were independents
You're saying a white man has to run or a white hispanic. Others are open to it being the best candidate and I've seen no one claim that it HAS to be a woman or person of color. That's ignorant as hell. Give it a rest.
Exactly this.
It is largely white people saying that we need a white savior.
Yeah, one party's winning the former all around the country and the other's sitting around with their thumbs up their asses thinking they're guaranteed to hold onto the latter
Yep.
Andrew Gillum about to win Florida governors race and has been running ahead of a venamint racist in a state that turn out for Trump so hard in 2016 and people here are saying just ignore that pretty much.
I think we need to watch the 2018 results first.
The guys from "Pod Save America" said as much"
PS: Tbf Jon did. Tommy said no to Avenatti
Edit: Speaking about what type of candidate we need to win. Go high or go low..
Edit 2: Regarding the OP I think Michelle would win so no
The guys from "Pod Save America" said as much"
PS: Tbf Jon did. Tommy said no to Avenatti
Edit: Speaking about what type of candidate we need to win. Go high or go low..
Edit 2: Regarding the OP I think Michelle would win so no
and to be clear, this is the same Gillum who was already running approximately 3% ahead of the Extremely White and Milquetoast Gwen Graham before winning that primary
Well, they're not wrong about Gabbard being an easy win, just not for the Democrats
Because what's important is not reducing racism and sexism. What's important is winning, even if we reinforce racism and sexism in order to do it.
Martin Luther King Jr. warned me about guys like you.
parkland has a lot to do with that. With the terrible way that guy treated the parkland kids after the shooting.
All I know is that there needs to be a large field of candidates in the democratic Primary leading up to the General. None of this fielding 2 candidates with one in mind nonsense. Let the base figure out who is best and most relateable. It will become apparent.
OP
OP
What does Ron DeSantis, the GOP nominee for governor, have explicitly to do with Parkland?
Do you mean Rick Scott, who's running for Senate?
What if he was a statistician stating that the odds of a white male becoming president was greater than a person of another gender or race becoming president. what would people think then? It would be a much less famous tweet that's for sure.
If a question someone has is "why would we give a shit what a statistician thinks or says" i would ask how much that person cares about winning an election.
People who say that Avenatti is the best chance for Dems to win by leveraging racism and sexism should consider that if the Democrats follow up Trump by nominating a self-described racist and sexist people like me will literally vote for Ralph Nader.
A Democratic Party that embraces racism is a party that isn't getting my vote.
So how many racists do you think you're going to pick up, compared to the people of color and women you're going to lose?
A Democratic Party that embraces racism is a party that isn't getting my vote.
So how many racists do you think you're going to pick up, compared to the people of color and women you're going to lose?
the entire way the republican party of florida responded to the parkland shooting. Parkland reaction is a key favor of why the dems will do well in flordia.
Yes. Exactly. Blah.
You quite literally called a woman existing as a presidential candidate identity politics
You don't get to be offended that I'm laughing at you for that.
He really doesn't. The United States has huge problems with racism and sexism, yes. But that does not necessitate, or in any way mean we should nominate a white man to run against Trump for specifically those reasons. That's neither necessary or what we absolutely should do, and in no way an appropriate response to those issues, or a necessary one in any way whatsoever. That's what he's 100% absolutely wrong about and immediately makes me raise an eyebrow that he thinks in that type of fashion.
That's just not how you deal those problems. And I especially ain't going to take it from he himself, a *shock* white man who's *shock* planning to run in 2020 as a Democratic candidate right now. Kind of have a huge conflict of interests there, don'tcha think? It specifically benefits him to think that way, and so of course it's a conclusion that he would arrive at. Why would he even ever say anything else?
It's still sexist logic at it's core. "No ladies, don't run, or at least don't win, because I don't win. I'm not saying that because I want that to be the case, but because it's for your own good, don't you see? You need me, a white man, to fight on your behalf. You could never do it by yourselves. So you'd better know your place and let be win, or else we lose." ie, so-called "benevolent sexism." And benevolent sexism, sexism argued for "women's benefit," for "their own good, even if they don't realize it" is still sexism all the same and something that's going to make me raise a huge eyebrow, as it does here.
He's right in so far that the United States does nonetheless have huge issues with racism and sexism but he's completely off-base with the conclusion he arrives it, and I'm going to be mighty skeptical of anyone touting that kind of logic or justification, and for damn good reason. Because it's nonsense, and that's all there is to it.
Makes sense to me.
There are other qualities and characteristics that matter more, but if you had 3 candidates that had similar characteristics and qualities (Well spoken, qualified, charismatic, etc...) and one was a white man, one was a women, and one was a PoC, the white dude stands the best chance to win a federal election.
What he said to me sounds like recognition of white male privilege.
However, if those qualities aren't equal, then none of the rest should factor.
There are other qualities and characteristics that matter more, but if you had 3 candidates that had similar characteristics and qualities (Well spoken, qualified, charismatic, etc...) and one was a white man, one was a women, and one was a PoC, the white dude stands the best chance to win a federal election.
What he said to me sounds like recognition of white male privilege.
However, if those qualities aren't equal, then none of the rest should factor.
OP
OP
So when Republicans win, it's the natural order of things. They know how to appeal to ~~~real Americans~~~. They never need last-minute assists from FBI directors or collaborations with hostile foreign powers.
When Democrats win, they had to have help from some external event or source. It can't be that they ran good, inspiring, issue-focused campaigns.
and Georgia? A black female candidate might win despite everything stacked against her including extreme voter suppression?
A statistician would never make that claim because it would be comically ridiculous. There have only been 45 presidents and for most of them the president legally had to be a white male!
In the general case, sure, if he was disinterested, that would change things. But he's not disinterested. They're literally interviewing him about his presidential candidacy and he's offering a rationale. There is no reason to pretend that he is disinterested and read his comment in the most positive possible light.
Thought experiment. Let's say a white male comes out infront of all the other candidates and becomes the Dem canidate. A PoC/woman splits off as an independant, but has a much less chance of winning. Who do you vote for? Are we going to bernie or bust ourselves again?
Is the white male one of the good ones, or is he no angel
Also, there is still no evidence that Busters mattered relative to baseline!
That what's it sounding like. The rest of us don't deal with "real Americans". Hell, I can't remember the last time I saw a person from my lonely tower.
Or Whitmer, a woman who leading the Michigan governors race +9 and higher who looks to not only win the state but if high enough will get a dem trifecta.
In this racist as fuck country he might not be wrong that white male voices carry more weight. At least among the majority of currently active voters. Republicans still haven't untwisted their panties about Obama's term.
I wouldn't vote for Avenatti though. He comes off as a little too slick.
I wouldn't vote for Avenatti though. He comes off as a little too slick.
Yikes.
I know who I will NOT be supporting in the 2020 primary and he's a white male named Michael Avenatti.
I know who I will NOT be supporting in the 2020 primary and he's a white male named Michael Avenatti.