Democrats Debate lineup

Telstar wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

Sal wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:
You can call it bias or whatever you wish; I call it personal judgment, to which I have a perfect right.  

I also happen to trust my judgment (far more than I do yours) -- and it has nothing whatever to do with the gender of any candidate.

Well, when your only criticism is a rather subjective objection to her style, I don't know what else to call it other than bias.

I like her style.

But, then I've always been attracted to smart, opinionated women who are willing to fight for the principals they believe in.

I understand that some people find those qualities off-putting.

That's unfortunate.

OMG Sal you become more and more arrogantly patronizing as time goes on.

Look, I'm not going to waste further time on this except to say:

1.  Based on your own description of women you've "always been attracted to," you would've loved me in my pioneering career years.  I fought not only for PRINCIPLES, but for myself, for equal pay and authority, and thus for the women who came after me in a male-dominated industry.

2.  I'm not 100% with Warren on policy, but yes, the thing that bothers me the most is her demeanor (your "style"), since precisely what this nation needs is a UNITER in chief, and she simply does not come across to me as anyone who has the slightest chance of bringing this nation's people back together.   Maybe no one does, but certainly not Warren.

I don't think anyone can bring the nations people back together. Not after Trump. So if nobody can, why not give Warren, or Harris or Booker a shot? Can't hurt worse than the open wound we've suffered with since 2016. Maybe the country has had enough of tired feeble old men, let's give some new blood a shot like we did with Obama. It may just work again.

RealLindaL wrote:I used to care.  Not sure anymore.   Not that HE cares.

RealLindaL wrote:

Telstar wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

Sal wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:
You can call it bias or whatever you wish; I call it personal judgment, to which I have a perfect right.  

I also happen to trust my judgment (far more than I do yours) -- and it has nothing whatever to do with the gender of any candidate.

Well, when your only criticism is a rather subjective objection to her style, I don't know what else to call it other than bias.

I like her style.

But, then I've always been attracted to smart, opinionated women who are willing to fight for the principals they believe in.

I understand that some people find those qualities off-putting.

That's unfortunate.

OMG Sal you become more and more arrogantly patronizing as time goes on.

Look, I'm not going to waste further time on this except to say:

1.  Based on your own description of women you've "always been attracted to," you would've loved me in my pioneering career years.  I fought not only for PRINCIPLES, but for myself, for equal pay and authority, and thus for the women who came after me in a male-dominated industry.

2.  I'm not 100% with Warren on policy, but yes, the thing that bothers me the most is her demeanor (your "style"), since precisely what this nation needs is a UNITER in chief, and she simply does not come across to me as anyone who has the slightest chance of bringing this nation's people back together.   Maybe no one does, but certainly not Warren.

I don't think anyone can bring the nations people back together. Not after Trump. So if nobody can, why not give Warren, or Harris or Booker a shot? Can't hurt worse than the open wound we've suffered with since 2016. Maybe the country has had enough of tired feeble old men, let's give some new blood a shot like we did with Obama. It may just work again.

Sorry for delayed response, Tel - I had trouble going back and finding your post, which I'd not intended to ignore but things got away from me.  The problem is, unless the polls change drastically (which they could), Biden is apparently our best shot to defeat Trump, and that's because he's enough of a centrist not to scare away the multitude of independents and disaffected Republicans who will vote against Trump if the alternative is not too far left or otherwise too much of an unknown entity.  That's it in a nutshell!  It's ALL ABOUT defeating Trump at this juncture, and if a "feeble old man" (B.S., btw)  is the only one who can do it, more power to him.  Let him bring in "new blood" as his veep co-runner, as long as the two of them are able to work together effectively.

Thank you, btw, for your thoughtful post.

Again, as Sal has pointed out, this could change over time.  Stay tuned.

Sal wrote:Best news is that Sanders is fading even faster than Joe ...

bigdog wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

Telstar wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:

Sal wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:
You can call it bias or whatever you wish; I call it personal judgment, to which I have a perfect right.  

I also happen to trust my judgment (far more than I do yours) -- and it has nothing whatever to do with the gender of any candidate.

Well, when your only criticism is a rather subjective objection to her style, I don't know what else to call it other than bias.

I like her style.

But, then I've always been attracted to smart, opinionated women who are willing to fight for the principals they believe in.

I understand that some people find those qualities off-putting.

That's unfortunate.

OMG Sal you become more and more arrogantly patronizing as time goes on.

Look, I'm not going to waste further time on this except to say:

1.  Based on your own description of women you've "always been attracted to," you would've loved me in my pioneering career years.  I fought not only for PRINCIPLES, but for myself, for equal pay and authority, and thus for the women who came after me in a male-dominated industry.

2.  I'm not 100% with Warren on policy, but yes, the thing that bothers me the most is her demeanor (your "style"), since precisely what this nation needs is a UNITER in chief, and she simply does not come across to me as anyone who has the slightest chance of bringing this nation's people back together.   Maybe no one does, but certainly not Warren.

I don't think anyone can bring the nations people back together. Not after Trump. So if nobody can, why not give Warren, or Harris or Booker a shot? Can't hurt worse than the open wound we've suffered with since 2016. Maybe the country has had enough of tired feeble old men, let's give some new blood a shot like we did with Obama. It may just work again.

Sorry for delayed response, Tel - I had trouble going back and finding your post, which I'd not intended to ignore but things got away from me.  The problem is, unless the polls change drastically (which they could), Biden is apparently our best shot to defeat Trump, and that's because he's enough of a centrist not to scare away the multitude of independents and disaffected Republicans who will vote against Trump if the alternative is not too far left or otherwise too much of an unknown entity.  That's it in a nutshell!  It's ALL ABOUT defeating Trump at this juncture, and if a "feeble old man" (B.S., btw)  is the only one who can do it, more power to him.  Let him bring in "new blood" as his veep co-runner, as long as the two of them are able to work together effectively.

Thank you, btw, for your thoughtful post.

Again, as Sal has pointed out, this could change over time.  Stay tuned.

That's an excellent post and makes perfect sense to most people, I think.  I also think that though  Biden may not totally unite this country,  he will definitely drive the Trumpster roaches back underground where they belong.
I'd still like to see Booker run as his VP, and some of the other nominees who are further to the left would be fine as well. At this point, I obviously don't favor Ms Harris, but I suspect she's eliminated herself from any chance of that already.
Very logical, as you state, Biden should be the choice.

With me, it has nothing to do with Logic. I like Joe Biden, have liked Joe Biden for a very long time, and have been waiting around since 2008 for him to run again.I've always thought he was presidential material, and as a person, he has a lot of courage and character. So, I don't care about the logic, but you are spot on, he is also the logical choice.


As for Sal and Telstar, once anyone labels me a Republican it will probably not happen that I'll be trusting many of their opinions again. To me, that's the ultimate insult. 
Not that they care what I think of their opinions anyway. 
I do think it's really odd if they are progressives and love to make comments to women about "waxing down there." That was Telstar, but Sal can be extremely offensive as well. His comment about the death of forum members being caused by obesity was particularly vile and uncalled for. And these were NOT my friends that he was talking about. Exactly the opposite. But human decency used to have some limits before the Trump era, if I remember right. 
none of that stuff  sounds respectful of women to me. A lot of Southern racist men would probably whip some asses of anybody who would say that about their wives or their mothers.  Just sayin' there are some real advantages to having been born down here, all politics aside.

RealLindaL wrote:
but everyone seems to be clamoring for a woman for a woman's sake.    To me, that's just as sexist as the opposite tack.  

As for Biden, I like the man well enough and agree he's a solid good person (a rarity among politicians), but I continually worry about his putting his foot in his mouth, which naturally makes me a little concerned about his native intelligence.  

Sal wrote:You should do some soul searching.

RealLindaL wrote:
Oh, and just in case you weren't smart enough to comprehend my post, I was clearly indicating that high intelligence is NOT necessarily the top line item in my book.

Floridatexan wrote:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/16/1872163/-Daily-Kos-Democratic-presidential-primary-straw-poll-One-year-out-from-the-convention-edition?detail=emailaction

Sal wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:
Oh, and just in case you weren't smart enough to comprehend my post, I was clearly indicating that high intelligence is NOT necessarily the top line item in my book.

No shit ...

... sex obviously is.

bigdog wrote:
And it is not sexist to NOT base your choice for president on sex. Just the opposite in fact. Pure logic tells you that.
Saying it's time for a certain sex or even a certain race to be POTUS, or even a certain age, btw, so long as all the candidates are of sound mind, is an unfair, discriminatory way to pick a candidate.
I want the best candidate vs Donald Trump. That's what every Dem should want right now.

RealLindaL wrote:
As for females supposedly being a problem for me, why, then, did I vote for Hillary Clinton, pray tell?

Sal wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:
As for females supposedly being a problem for me, why, then, did I vote for Hillary Clinton, pray tell?

Because she's married to Bill?

RealLindaL wrote:

Sal wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:
As for females supposedly being a problem for me, why, then, did I vote for Hillary Clinton, pray tell?

Because she's married to Bill?

OMG, is that the best you can come up with??   It so happens that I was NOT a Bill Clinton fan in the least, but I'm sure that salient FACT will not move you one inch off your stubborn position in opposition to me, for WHATEVER reason you've decided to take that tack.

I hate to be saying this but it's become obvious you are perfectly PITIFUL in your blind, bloated arrogance.  I've now entirely lost any respect I ever had for you and your opinions.   I thought you were a thinking man, but the truth is you're nothing but a holier-than-thou jerk who only hears what he wants to hear, and what confirms his own preconceived notions, no matter how false or ill-conceived.  

If anyone needs to do any self-examination here, it's you, sir.  But it's obvious you're incapable of introspection, much less of valid consideration of anyone's position that isn't precisely your own.  

What a crying shame.

Sal wrote:

RealLindaL wrote:
As for females supposedly being a problem for me, why, then, did I vote for Hillary Clinton, pray tell?

Because she's married to Bill?

I've heard it said that a gay man will be elected POTUS before a woman will because of a very real and very deep undercurrent of sexism in this country.

I didn't think so at first, but I'm beginning to think that it's true.

A lot of it is unconscious, unwitting and the result of implicit bias, but it's there.

It's apparent in the double standard used to evaluate the qualifications of candidates of different sexes and the language used to describe them.

You've demonstrated that double standard here on several occasions, whether you care to admit it or not.

I expected it from bigdog after she blithely commented some months ago about how she can't listen to news reports delivered from a female newscaster.

All you have to do is google "sexism bias in American politics", and you'll see that I'm far from alone in this analysis.

Sal wrote:
That first line from my post was typed with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

The rest of my post, that you conveniently ignored, was not.

bigdog wrote:
First of all, what I said was that I prefer male newscasters to females because I like the sound of men's voices more than women's. It has nothing to do with intelligence. I am particularly attracted to certain men's voices, in fact, and men's voices and their eyes are the most attractive parts of their bodies to me. Matter of fact, a man can be totally unattractive in every other way, but if I like their voice and eyes, I really don't care. Voices are my thing. 
 I see no reason to apologize for being a sexual being, because all humans are.  I preferred watching the men in movies more than the women when I was 4 or 5 years old, and I actually LOOKED at little boys in a different way than little girls. Are you shocked????Don't piss me off by lying and tell me you wouldn't rather see a beautiful woman reporting the news than Brian Williams. Because unless you're gay or asexual, you'd be a liar.
All that is why I know gay people have to be born that way, BTW. Sexual preferences go way, way back in our lives.
Nevertheless, I do know the difference in a newscaster and a POTUS. I do not choose what candidate to support based on sex. I voted for Hillary, not because she had a handsome husband (which she does) but because she was the most qualified candidate to run for that office in probably 40 years.
  As for a gay man being elected POTUS before a woman, for fuck's sake, how many times do I have to say Hillary Clinton got 3 million more votes than Donald Trump?  You refuse to accept that Americans wanted her instead of Trump. That's extremely DISRESPECTFUL of you Sal.  She's a woman. She won the vote. But you and all the progressives totally ignore that fact and claim something's wrong with the party. You belittle Ms Clinton and her efforts every single time you go there.   Sexist? Huh?
Or just too "progressive" to admit a centrist actually won the last election, just like the last 4 or 5 Democratic presidents of my lifetime were also centrists.  I'll take that back, Jimmy Carter may have been more of a progressive, but he will not go down In history as a great president either. 
It suits you to say she was a failure. That's a hateful, sexist attitude.

bigdog wrote:No, I wasn't.

I like to listen to men's voices more then I like to listen to women's voices.

Do you think Bogart would have been a star without his voice? 
He had a raspy voice and soft eyes. He was incredibly unattractive in every other way. But there's no denying that women loved Bogie.
Voices are as much an attraction to an intelligent woman as big abs are to women that aren't looking for much in a man.

And the script of the newscast will always be the same, regardless of whether it's a woman or a man reading it. So intelligence really doesn't matter one way or another. All things are pretty much equal, no matter whether it's a male or female newscaster.

At 5:30 at night, when I'm tired from my day,  I enjoy watching an attractive man read the news to me. Brian Williams is my favorite. He comes on later on MSNBC. I watch Rachel Maddow too, but I couldn't tell you what color her eyes are. Brian Williams' are blue, btw. 

I don't have to be drunk to say that. And it's not like I'm a man who only watches Fox news because Roger Ailes made his women newscasters wear skirts up to their arses. Their news is not true, therefore not equal to CNN or ABC or NBC. 
 All  things are not equal, either,  in the world of politics, so I do not choose what candidate I support by their sex. I supported Hillary over Bernie and the rest of the Dems that ran in 2016 because she was by far the best candidate for president. And if a woman is nominated this time, I'll support her too.

But I won't ever tell you that Elizabeth Warren's voice doesn't bother me. It always has. It's like she's always pleading for something. I think you are not listening with the same ear as a lot of other people or you'd see it too. 
Everything matters when you're running for POTUS, whether YOU like that or not.

And yeah, I do think that you super progressives who are leaping out to name all the things that caused us NOT to get elected last election are intentionally ignoring Hillary's 3 million vote majority. It suits you to say things are so awful you need to take over the party. It doesn't suit me, not yet.