Am getting fed up with MSM and Democratic diversity criticism

[DonaldsRump]

Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2020, 07:59 PM - Edit history (1)

We are the party who nominated the first female VP candidate in 1984, the first Jewish VP candidate in 2000, the first African-American P candidate in 2008 and 2012, and the first female P candidate in 2016. We will likely have a female VP candidate with a good chance of winning.

What exactly have the Republicans done? MSM: do your homework that any grade school kid could do checking Wikipedia. I just listened to a 10 min piece on CNN full of the "diversity issue" for the D's. What nonsense!

This is a red-herring to divide us more. Don't fall for it.

[HarlanPepper]

1. Don't be mad at only the MSM

I’ve seen people post here that none of that stuff you mention matters at all and everything is awful.

(You forgot time mention Speaker Pelosi, the most powerful Democrat in America.)

[DonaldsRump]

6. Indeed, Speaker Pelosi

The many women and PoCs in Congress.

There is no comparison, and this is ridiculous.

Speaking as a PoC...

[LAS14]

2. Then we had SIX women running in the primaries. As someone last night pointed out...

... this allowed them to run in their own right. Not as "the female".

[StarfishSaver]

5. Wow

"We let you coming into the yard. So what if you still can't get in the house. Quit your complaining and be grateful we let you stand on the porch while the white men hang out inside."

[DonaldsRump]

9. Did you read my OP

And the comments?

Am a PoC myself...and I love my party and how it's welcomed me and the candidates I support.

[StarfishSaver]

3. It's too bad that the concerns of women and people of color are getting on your nerves

But you might want to work on getting over it, since we're not going to shut up in order to make you feel more comfortable.

[DonaldsRump]

4. ????

Whoosh...went right over our collective heads.

This election is about electability.

No one is asking you to shut up.

[StarfishSaver]

7. "This election is about electability"

Speaking of a point whooshing overhead.

[DonaldsRump]

10. What do you think it is about?

Last edited Sat Mar 7, 2020, 08:00 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie Sanders' revolution, keeping Trump in power, or a return to some semblance of normalcy so we can continue the great changes our party has made, does make, and will continue to make?

[TwilightZone]

8. I don't see anything like that in the OP.

The point would seem to be that the media harps on Democrats for lack of diversity now that the field has narrowed, but ignores that Democrats have fielded many firsts in the past 30 years and are inherently diverse, while simultaneously ignoring that the GOP has next to no diversity.

I have no idea how you're interpreting the OP the way you seem to be.

[LakeArenal]

11. That makes two of us.

Thank you for your point of view

[PatSeg]

13. Okay

That's what I read. I don't what other people read.

[StarfishSaver]

14. Claiming that women and minorites are "allowed" to run run

while it is still extraordinarily more difficult for them to actually get past a certain point in the race completely ignores the entire problem being identified.

That's like saying an employer who never hires any women or people of color shouldn't be questioned about their hiring practices because some women and minorities made it through the first round of interviews. If they can never get past the last hurdle, the fact that some of the earlier hurdles have been removed doesn't mean much.

[DonaldsRump]

16. And exactly how were the people mentioned in my OP "allowed"

It's called "getting the most votes."

Much like Joe is doing over BS.

If that's what you mean by "allowed" , that's a very interesting view of democracy.

[TwilightZone]

18. And none of that is in the OP.

Seriously, you need to read it again. Your misinterpretation of what it's saying is, frankly, astonishing.

The OP is simply - and quite clearly, seemingly to the rest of us - questioning the double standard of the media insisting that the Democratic Party doesn't have any diversity because of the narrowed field, while ignoring that the GOP doesn't have any at all and never has.

That's the entire OP. You're seeing stuff that is not only not there, it's not even hinted at in any way.

[beachbumbob]

12. segments of the democratic party want to make this stuff an issue, I understand when "your"

candidate does not get traction and to point at and say its sexism, racism or any other "ism" is a slap in the face of those who have run campaigns and won, slap in the "our faces" for all of us you support some other candidate.

I find it insulting when "isms" are used. Sometimes the candidates are not "winning candidates"

[StarfishSaver]

15. To which specific "segments" are you referring?

[Sloumeau]

17. I suspect that they are saying that the level of diversity can be improved.

In fact, as various oppressed groups grow in both the U.S. and the Democratic Party, it is even more important that the level of diverstiy should be improved. I understand that sometimes we get frustrated when people talk about the need for diversity in the Democratic Party but don't even mention how bad things are in the Republican Party. I find that ridiculous. Yet, it does not mean that there is still not a lot of work to be done in the Democratic Party.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

19. You are SO right! You could not be any righter! We have

to recognize that there are people who have a sole purpose and that is to cause discord.

People who never declared support for any candidate now acting like they were 100% for a particular candidate but they never were.

Time to let good Dems who rightfully so are in mourning because their candidate is gone mourn. And disrupters are ignored.

[LakeArenal]

20. Always seems the pot is stirred by the same characters.

Also people don’t declare who they support only candidates they don’t support suddenly support one they spent months dismissing.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

21. Funny how such a simple thing speaks volumes