Happy Treason Day!

[Travis Price]

He was definitely doing number 2 by treating the female gender differently, in giving them preference in hiring.

Wow, it's amazing how much we agree on.

None of what you said was holding down a gender based on gender stereotypes.


ster·e·o·type
/ˈsterēəˌtīp/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

s that we choose people based on traits to combat against treating people based on those same traits.

That's not what I said at all... I said that the way that we combat sexist practices is by recruiting people of opposite sexes that are well qualified.

Without the "qualified" aspect, the recruitment itself is sexist or racist. Which is what Mark is missing as well.. recruiting a woman ONLY because she's a woman is sexist. Recruiting a well qualified person, who is also a woman, is diversity, not an -ism

If he picked a woman JUST because she was a woman, without qualification, I'd agree with all of you. However, recruiting a well qualified woman is not inheritedly sexist.

Ah the mind a leftist (and he is a leftist).

Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism"

Left-wing politics - Wikipedia

By the traditional definition of Left-wing politics, we should all be.. as it was what this country (basically, with some expections) based on..

 

[Markthebroker]

Without the "qualified" aspect, the recruitment itself is sexist or racist. Which is what Mark is missing as well.. recruiting a woman ONLY because she's a woman is sexist. , is diversity, not an -ism

This is what you are missing.

Recruiting a woman ONLY because she's a woman is not what he did.

Recruiting a well qualified person, who is also a woman is not what he did either.

He only picked from a group of women, which is sexist. He ignored and immediately disqualified men at the get go, which is sexist. It may be a type of sexism that you are ok with, which is an even bigger problem. I assume these women were qualified, but starting your decision based on a person's sex or genitalia, is sexist.

Look, you've already agree and proved my point on so many issues of him being sexist, I'm willing to let this one go.

 

[whatyouwantfinally]

You'd be right IF Kamala Harris (in this situation) was completely unqualified OR any of the women that Biden vetted were. Any argument (regardless of if she IS a good VP or not) that she isn't qualified is a fallacy.

I didn't say anything about whether or not she was qualified at all. I said the idea that giving a member of an underrepresented group a "seat at the table" is more important that picking the "best person available" is insane.

Secondly, outside of the President of the Senate and next in the line of succession, the VP has no responsibility that the President doesn't give them. In other words, the "decision" power only comes from the Presidents support.

So, in your mind, the VP of the United States isn't a very high-stakes job so it's fine to put "representation" above merit there. I disagree, strongly. For a multitude of reasons.

Communities do this already in politics. We elect people based on the people that we think best represent our opinions. It doesn't mean they're the best for the job.

And, knowing a huge portion of his prospective voters are bigoted and believe that whether or not someone represents their opinions has a racial/sexual component to it, he picked a demographic before he picked a person.

See Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton was better qualified, period. Anyone that tries to argue that is a liar. However, she's not a great campaigner, doesn't relate to people well, and generally unlikeable.

Most people who voted for Trump over her did so because of their stated intentions. I don't care how qualified a surgeon is if he tells me he's going to cut my arm off for reasons I disagree with.

So, there's a straw man argument here. Representative Democracy is not the same as "skill-based" occupations and to equate them is a bad faith argument.

Being an elected politician does not require a base level of skill in anything that they would use to perform the occupation.

For example, I can be a Garbage man and win a popular vote and get elected

Do you think a garbage man with none of the skills needed to govern a country would be a good person to put in office?

But this is all beside the point. My initial point stands; putting the balance of demographic "representation" above merit is insanity. And it's happening FAR beyond government. The fact that it's as wide-spread as it is is the REASON Biden chose who he did in the way that he did. Rather than show REAL leadership and attempt to guide the country away from this destructive way of thinking, he leaned into it for the purpose of gaining power with votes of people who endorse it. Nice.

Edited:
You're using progressive as a bad word or insult.

What are you talking about? You said white men are "obtuse" about their privilege and I said that progressives are the worst about it. And they are. No "bad word" or insult in the usage whatsoever.

Progressives can riot to no end largely with impunity, they can do things like surround city council members' cars and demand charges against their comrades be dropped, they can attack people in the street, attempt to "shut down" the capitol, attack federal buildings over and over, try to storm the White House...and our institutions of power don't bat an eye.

They have the "power" of just about every major institution, in many of which any resistance to their ideals is met with absolute scorn. I've never seen a progressive own up to any of these privileges.

Maybe you should rethink what you're really about.

LOL, right back atcha my friend. And rethink what I said about the primacy of "representation" over merit, too.

 

[rousemark]

This is what you are missing.

Recruiting a woman ONLY because she's a woman is not what he did.

Recruiting a well qualified person, who is also a woman is not what he did either.

He only picked from a group of women, which is sexist. He ignored and immediately disqualified men at the get go, which is sexist. It may be a type of sexism that you are ok with, which is an even bigger problem. I assume these women were qualified, but starting your decision based on a person's sex or genitalia, is sexist.

Look, you've already agree and proved my point on so many issues of him being sexist, I'm willing to let this one go.

And, she was chosen not only becasue she was a woman but because she was black which is racist.

 

[Markthebroker]

And, she was chosen not only becasue she was a woman but because she was black which is racist.

Agreed. I figured the sexism alone was bad enough before we even got into the racism. That's a whole 'nother can of worms right there.

 

[Travis Price]

He only picked from a group of women, which is sexist. He ignored and immediately disqualified men at the get go, which is sexist. It may be a type of sexism that you are ok with, which is an even bigger problem. I assume these women were qualified, but starting your decision based on a person's sex or genitalia, is sexist

And that's not correct. It's not a matter of if I'm okay with it or not. It's that what you THINK sexist means is incorrect.

He's not Prejudice OR Discriminatory towards Men. If he were, he wouldn't have Senior Cabinet members that were men.

Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience

There was no preconceived opinion that men are inferior or incapable.

Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex, including the person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy

No one one denied anyone a job because of their sex.

Finally, the President selects a running mate. The party nominates and selects the VP candidate. While this is a formality, there is an independent check and balance.


By your assessment, essentially every President has been sexist because they've only interviewed men.. even if they didn't expressively say "I'm picking a man."

And, she was chosen not only becasue she was a woman but because she was black which is racist.

This is also incorrect. He interviewed multiple women, and not all were black.

Secondly, the same issue as Mark.

Progressives can riot to no end largely with impunity, they can do things like surround city council members' cars and demand charges against their comrades be dropped, they can attack people in the street, attempt to "shut down" the capitol, attack federal buildings over and over, try to storm the White House...and our institutions of power don't bat an eye

Um.. Progressive haven't stormed the Capitol or the White House. Secondly, they don't loot and riot with impunity. Those people are arrested by police (when able) and held to account by the law.

It would be like saying that the people that tried to overthrow the government on January 6th aren't being held accountable.

That'd just a false narrative.

But this is all beside the point. My initial point stands; putting the balance of demographic "representation" above merit is insanity.

That's false. It's what Representative Democracy is all about. The people select their elected officials based on how they match their personal principals.

We don't elect people off of merit. Politics is not a "job" where you're promoted on merit. It's based on electability. That's not merit... that's a popularity contest.

The US political system is not Meritocracy..

Meritocracy - Wikipedia

To think otherwise... is insanity.

They have the "power" of just about every major institution, in many of which any resistance to their ideals is met with absolute scorn. I've never seen a progressive own up to any of these privileges

Oh yeah? Supreme Court is 6-3 Conservative.

The Senate can essentially stop any legislative agenda that isn't under reconciliation using the filibuster.

For all the power the Libs have they sure are shitty at getting anything of consistent substance done..

Namely because they don't have a quarter of the power you're professing.

 

[Life Hawk]

Oh yeah? Supreme Court is 6-3 Conservative.

Please define conservative. There are very few conservative justices on the court.

And to further my point, I don't care what they are, I only care that they are Constitutionalist.

 

[rousemark]

This is also incorrect. He interviewed multiple women, and not all were black.

Doesn't matter how many he interviewed if race was taken into consideration when the choice was made.

 

[Markthebroker]

And that's not correct. It's not a matter of if I'm okay with it or not. It's that what you THINK sexist means is incorrect.

He's not Prejudice OR Discriminatory towards Men. If he were, he wouldn't have Senior Cabinet members that were men.

Prejudice: preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience

There was no preconceived opinion that men are inferior or incapable.

Sex discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of that person's sex, including the person's sexual orientation, gender identity, or pregnancy

No one one denied anyone a job because of their sex.

Finally, the President selects a running mate. The party nominates and selects the VP candidate. While this is a formality, there is an independent check and balance.


By your assessment, essentially every President has been sexist because they've only interviewed men.. even if they didn't expressively say "I'm picking a man."





This is also incorrect. He interviewed multiple women, and not all were black.

Secondly, the same issue as Mark.



Um.. Progressive haven't stormed the Capitol or the White House. Secondly, they don't loot and riot with impunity. Those people are arrested by police (when able) and held to account by the law.

It would be like saying that the people that tried to overthrow the government on January 6th aren't being held accountable.

That'd just a false narrative.



That's false. It's what Representative Democracy is all about. The people select their elected officials based on how they match their personal principals.

We don't elect people off of merit. Politics is not a "job" where you're promoted on merit. It's based on electability. That's not merit... that's a popularity contest.

The US political system is not Meritocracy..

Meritocracy - Wikipedia

To think otherwise... is insanity.



Oh yeah? Supreme Court is 6-3 Conservative.

The Senate can essentially stop any legislative agenda that isn't under reconciliation using the filibuster.

For all the power the Libs have they sure are shitty at getting anything of consistent substance done..

Namely because they don't have a quarter of the power you're professing.

Wow Travis. It appears everyone is wrong but you.

You've got a very busy evening on your hands. Good luck.

 

[Travis Price]

Please define conservative. There are very few conservative justices on the court.

And to further my point, I don't care what they are, I only care that they are Constitutionalist.

Except your point has nothing to do with the argument and a Constitutionalist is a foolish architecture to base a government's entire legal system on.

The Justices are meant to interpret if laws violate the Constitution or not. Not to explicitly do ONLY what the Constitution says. Otherwise, any person could essentially say "what exactly does the Constitution say? Okay I can do it."

"a compound of ideas, attitudes, and patterns of behavior elaborating the principle that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law"

The argument was progressive essentially have all the power.