[TomC]

Why are ppl so het up by what Underscore said? It wasn’t even racist/ageist/sexist

[Denver]

Originally Posted by TomC

Why are ppl so het up by what Underscore said? It wasn’t even racist/ageist/sexist

Well it is because he is saying he wants no white older Male to stand which is all of those things

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Well it is because he is saying he wants no white older Male to stand which is all of those things

no he didn’t

[Denver]

Originally Posted by montblanc

no he didn’t

Look back dear

[montblanc]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Look back dear

all he did was groan at the idea of another old, white man as president? never did he say that one wasn’t qualified

it wasn’t as deep as it’s been made out

[Underscore]

Originally Posted by Adam.

Well it is because he is saying he wants no white older Male to stand which is all of those things

Never said that they shouldn't stand.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by TomC

Why are ppl so het up by what Underscore said? It wasn’t even racist/ageist/sexist

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by TomC

Why are ppl so het up by what Underscore said? It wasn’t even racist/ageist/sexist

Except it is, he is discounting someone, not on their credentials but on the fact that they are white, male and old.

It's a ridiculous thing to count someone out, not because of their beliefs but because of their attributes. If Underscore knew what he was talking about, he'd realise that Bernie's stances and views would likely match up to his own. Bernie became a favourite of younger voters for a reason but Underscore seemingly refuses to acknowledge that because of Bernie's race, age and gender.

It's pretty damn clear cut and indicative of why I consider myself more centre than left leaning these days. Both the right and left are becoming extreme reflections of each other.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Except it is, he is discounting someone, not on their credentials but on the fact that they are white, male and old.

It's a ridiculous thing to count someone out, not because of their beliefs but because of their attributes. If Underscore knew what he was talking about, he'd realise that Bernie's stances and views would likely match up to his own. Bernie became a favourite of younger voters for a reason but Underscore seemingly refuses to acknowledge that because of Bernie's race, age and gender.

It's pretty damn clear cut and indicative of why I consider myself more centre than left leaning these days. Both the right and left are becoming extreme reflections of each other.

He didn't 'discount' them, he just expressed preference, that the President is of more varied characteristics.

I don't agree with the logic, but it's not 'racist'.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by TomC

He didn't 'discount' them, he just expressed preference, that the President is of more varied characteristics.

I don't agree with the logic, but it's not 'racist'.

Except, he also expressed not wanting a stale, pale, male on the basis of being white, a certain age and male. That's certainly racist, ageist and sexist.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Except, he also expressed not wanting a stale, pale, male on the basis of being white, a certain age and male. That's certainly racist, ageist and sexist.

Saying you would prefer to not have another white president really isn't racist sis. In fact, wanting to see more racial variety in the presidential position (which has been filled by almost exlusively white people) is...quite the contrary.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by TomC

Saying you would prefer to not have another white president really isn't racist sis. In fact, wanting to see more racial variety in the presidential position (which has been filled by almost exlusively white people) is...quite the contrary.

When your first response to discussing an actual candidate, not a hypothetical wish of the type of President, is to say "No thanks they're old, male and white" then it is a problem... sis.

The US is in enough trouble as it is without electing their next President on the basis of skin colour and gender.

If the best candidate to succeed Trump is a white man then so be it. That shouldn't be changed just to provide "racial variety". That's called positive discrimination.

[TomC]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

That's called positive discrimination.

Exaxtly. Racism is the wrong term.