That would go hand-in-hand with the chicken shits Dems have behaved like historically.
"You did a bad thing, here's a procedural finger wag in your direction. Carry On."
That would go hand-in-hand with the chicken shits Dems have behaved like historically.
Booker may be a whiner, but I think it is a little crazy for people to completely negate the impact of sexism/racsim in the Democratic or any other political race. Democrats (politicians and voters) are not some saints that are immune to implicit biases present in our society just because Obama and Hillary are the last two candidates. That's like "look I have a black friend I can't be racist" sort of arguments.The Democrats voted for Obama and then Hillary so I think we can put to bed the sexism/racism explanations. Booker is a whiner.
While yes there are implicit biases among all voters, sexism/racism are not the driving forces for these candidates that aren’t making it. There are other more pressing factors (policies and etc.) that contributed to their downfall.Booker may be a whiner, but I think it is a little crazy for people to completely negate the impact of sexism/racsim in the Democratic or any other political race. Democrats (politicians and voters) are not some saints that are immune to implicit biases present in our society just because Obama and Hillary are the last two candidates. That's like "look I have a black friend I can't be racist" sort of arguments.The Democrats voted for Obama and then Hillary so I think we can put to bed the sexism/racism explanations. Booker is a whiner.
Gender or race are not the only reasons for women and POC candidates not being as successful in this race; however it is ridiculous to negate those factors.
I can't believe I'm doing this butWhile yes there are implicit biases among all voters, sexism/racism are not the driving forces for these candidates that aren’t making it. There are other more pressing factors (policies and etc.) that contributed to their downfall.Booker may be a whiner, but I think it is a little crazy for people to completely negate the impact of sexism/racsim in the Democratic or any other political race. Democrats (politicians and voters) are not some saints that are immune to implicit biases present in our society just because Obama and Hillary are the last two candidates. That's like "look I have a black friend I can't be racist" sort of arguments.The Democrats voted for Obama and then Hillary so I think we can put to bed the sexism/racism explanations. Booker is a whiner.
Gender or race are not the only reasons for women and POC candidates not being as successful in this race; however it is ridiculous to negate those factors.
Sure, I also said it's not the only factor. But optics are always skewed by those biases, the standards POC and women are held to, etc. So while it may not seem like they were a major factor, I think it I hard to disentangle them completely from even those policy discussions. Those biases are woven in everywhere. So, yes, it's not the only reason, but an ever present issue.I can't believe I'm doing this butWhile yes there are implicit biases among all voters, sexism/racism are not the driving forces for these candidates that aren’t making it. There are other more pressing factors (policies and etc.) that contributed to their downfall.Booker may be a whiner, but I think it is a little crazy for people to completely negate the impact of sexism/racsim in the Democratic or any other political race. Democrats (politicians and voters) are not some saints that are immune to implicit biases present in our society just because Obama and Hillary are the last two candidates. That's like "look I have a black friend I can't be racist" sort of arguments.The Democrats voted for Obama and then Hillary so I think we can put to bed the sexism/racism explanations. Booker is a whiner.
Gender or race are not the only reasons for women and POC candidates not being as successful in this race; however it is ridiculous to negate those factors.
Sure the biases would make you look at two candidates that have similar policies and make you lean toward one of the candidates that you don’t have a bias against. The problem with applying that to this primary is that when comparing Warren to Biden or Warren to Sanders, she has taken her policies even further left than sanders. So while yes she might lose votes because she is a woman, her stances on the things like healthcare and such are driving away more moderate or left leaning voters.Sure, I also said it's not the only factor. But optics are always skewed by those biases, the standards POC and women are held to, etc. So while it may not seem like they were a major factor, I think it I hard to disentangle them completely from even those policy discussions. Those biases are woven in everywhere. So, yes, it's not the only reason, but an ever present issue.I can't believe I'm doing this butWhile yes there are implicit biases among all voters, sexism/racism are not the driving forces for these candidates that aren’t making it. There are other more pressing factors (policies and etc.) that contributed to their downfall.Booker may be a whiner, but I think it is a little crazy for people to completely negate the impact of sexism/racsim in the Democratic or any other political race. Democrats (politicians and voters) are not some saints that are immune to implicit biases present in our society just because Obama and Hillary are the last two candidates. That's like "look I have a black friend I can't be racist" sort of arguments.
Gender or race are not the only reasons for women and POC candidates not being as successful in this race; however it is ridiculous to negate those factors.
You're right, he hit with that too. A bunch of them are too old including Trump.Agree, but the push up thing wasn't about Hunter, it was the guy telling Joe he was too old to be President.
Among the documents sought by the subpoena are records related to transfers among N.R.A.-controlled entities, including the N.R.A. Foundation, an affiliated charity. Recent tax filings show that the N.R.A. diverted $36 million last year from the foundation in various ways, far more than ever before, raising concerns among tax experts. The transfers came as the N.R.A. experienced financial strains and challenges from gun-control groups, which outspent the organization in the 2018 midterm elections. An earlier analysis by The Times found that the foundation had transferred more than $200 million to the N.R.A. between 2010 and 2017.
While both the N.R.A. and its foundation are tax-exempt, only donations to the foundation are tax-deductible. Tax experts say the foundation has become a back door for tax-deductible donations to the N.R.A. itself. Karl Racine, the attorney general of the District of Columbia, where the N.R.A. Foundation is chartered, is also investigating.
this is a very serious problem he's addressing here
If what is alleged is true then that shouldn’t happen but Britt isn’t a great person either.
Yep that’s what I said."She deserved it because she did this thing once."
BTW didn’t realize this at first, c-c-c-crossover. Somebody better call the Funkasaurus’ momma because he’s gonna need a lawyer.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 332 guests