Which woman should represent as VP with Biden?

[Orbitus]

Sure, man.

Guess you have never clicked on the link in my signature. Everything is fucking sourced, Sygmar.

[Ihavewaffles]

It will be - Biden committee to picking a woman as his running mate during the last debate.

So he promised to be sexist.

[d00mGuArD]

So he promised to be sexist.

Pretty much yes. Even if he has better candidates (or not) he will pick based on gender first.

[Zan15]

He also lies exactly like the current POTUS.

Sure he lies, but no one lies like the orange one..no...one...is even close

[Elegiac]

Pretty much yes. Even if he has better candidates (or not) he will pick based on gender first.

Y'all haven't had a problem with picking unqualified candidates because white men are "more electable", so spare us the crocodile tears.

And you're assuming part of the draw isn't that said VP pick is smarter than Biden. That was part of the Clinton/Gore selling point.

[d00mGuArD]

Y'all haven't had a problem with picking unqualified candidates because white men are "more electable", so spare us the crocodile tears.

And you're assuming part of the draw isn't that said VP pick is smarter than Biden. That was part of the Clinton/Gore selling point.

Anyone that voted candidates because of their gender is also sexist. By definition.
But it is much worse for the president to be so! Wouldn't you say?

[Elegiac]

Anyone that voted candidates because of their gender is also sexist.
But it is much worse for the president to be so! Wouldn't you say?

Not really. I'd say...I'm not the sort of cretin who pretends we live in a colorblind and post-sexism society and that these things don't exist within a larger context.

There's a lot of nuance to it about representation and social dynamics that Republicans honestly don't get, and it's kinda hard to communicate that to them effectively. Hell, it's apparently quite difficult to communicate that to white progressives given how the Bernie Bots are carrying on.

[tankbug]

Pretty much yes. Even if he has better candidates (or not) he will pick based on gender first.

Politicians aren't measured in a way that you can exactly know who's the better candidate. It's not like he would pick any women over any man either. He has a few candidates that would like that role, and from those equal people, he will pick a woman. Maybe that sounds sexist to you, but for a lot of women, that is as close as fair you can get, since the president would be a man (as always).

[Adam Jensen]

Kim Kardashian

[Elegiac]

Politicians aren't measured in a way that you can exactly know who's the better candidate. It's not like he would pick any women over any man either. He has a few candidates that would like that role, and from those equal people, he will pick a woman. Maybe that sounds sexist to you, but for a lot of women, that is as close as fair you can get, since the president would be a man (as always).

And again, it's assuming the woman isn't the more qualified partner in this arrangement.

Biden remains what he was when Obama picked him; a nice, safe figure the voters could turn to when they weren't feeling comfortable about the other half of the ticket.

[tankbug]

Anyone that voted candidates because of their gender is also sexist. By definition.
But it is much worse for the president to be so! Wouldn't you say?

Minorities and women have been oppressed, and are still oppressed in society. They're not well represented in power. Affirmative action has been found to be necessary to break that cycle. When you have some guidelines favoring these underrepresented groups, it's the lesser of two evils to make society better. This doesn't mean that a person who agrees with it is a sexist. Trump is sexist, because he's proven that he doesn't respect them through private action and social conservative policies.

[d00mGuArD]

Minorities and women have been oppressed, and are still oppressed in society. They're not well represented in power. Affirmative action has been found to be necessary to break that cycle. When you have some guidelines favoring these underrepresented groups, it's the lesser of two evils to make society better. This doesn't mean that a person who agrees with it is a sexist. Trump is sexist, because he's proven that he doesn't respect them through private action and social conservative policies.

You are trying to justify an action that is the definition of sexism. Choosing someone based on gender.

Here in Europe we have many women that are prime ministers or presidents without affirmative action. They were just better candidates.
The "cycle" as you call it, does not need sexism to brake. Using sexism creates.... sexism.

I understand he means well. But "meaning well" should not allow for such things.

[Ivanstone]

I can't say I agree with you but I know my words will never reach you either.

A life fueled by hatred is a fragile thing.

Of course you don't agree with me. You don't pay attention to the world around you but you feel the need to put on your tinfoil halo and spout empty platitudes.

[Kasierith]

You are trying to justify an action that is the definition of sexism. Choosing someone based on gender.

With a definition of sexism that broad, the vast vast majority of people are sexist. Anyone who has ever remotely thought about romantic relationships.

At the end of the day, having a woman VP is an incredibly popular goal, especially among his core audiences. It would spurn the sentiment that the upper echelons of politics are a man's world. It isn't about "meaning well." It's what his base wants and supports, and he strengthens his position by providing that for them. That is the core of representative democracy.

[The Butt Witch]

You are trying to justify an action that is the definition of sexism. Choosing someone based on gender.

Here in Europe we have many women that are prime ministers or presidents without affirmative action. They were just better candidates.
The "cycle" as you call it, does not need sexism to brake. Using sexism creates.... sexism.

I understand he means well. But "meaning well" should not allow for such things.

Leftists aren't interested in equality, they want Equity. That means that current order must be torn down in order to make room for the so-called oppressed parties. Men have to be fired or not hired in the first place, in order to replace them with women until the percentages can be made equal.

They want that if a man and a woman apply for the same job at a company, the woman has priority strictly because of her gender, so the company can virtue signal that it's "diverse and inclusive", or if a man, a woman, and a gay person apply for the same job, the gay person has priority over both the man and the woman because it's higher on the scale of oppression.

The latter is what brings feminists into conflict with the alphabet people. While united in their crusade against the...Evil Straight White Man, it all falls apart when they are pitted against one another for the same piece of the pie, and in THEIR own battle, the alphabet people will always win because they rate higher on the oppression scale.

Such is the way of Leftism in America and some parts of Europe. And their motto is "Rules for thee, but not for me", because from their point of view, sexism and racism is OK as long as it's being directed at the villainous straight white man who controls the world.
[Infraction]

[tankbug]

You are trying to justify an action that is the definition of sexism. Choosing someone based on gender.

Here in Europe we have many women that are prime ministers or presidents without affirmative action. They were just better candidates.
The "cycle" as you call it, does not need sexism to brake. Using sexism creates.... sexism.

I understand he means well. But "meaning well" should not allow for such things.

I'm also here in Europe, and we have very aggressive affirmative action policies. They seem to be effective, even though some people are bitter about it. People need role models, people need hope, and they need to see that they can also be represented in the powerful positions in society. Us white guys take that for granted, and we think it's unfair when we give a minority-person or women a little help to get up there. That doesn't mean it will go on forever. Just even it out a little first, so people can start out equally. At any rate, politicians getting ahead doesn't say much about qualifications, though. Some people are popular, either by policy or charisma, and some people are chosen by the party they're a part of.

[Levelfive]

Trump supporters / conservatives clutching their faux pearls over sexism and lack of "merit"--will we never reach peak inadvertent irony.

[Xirrohon]

Guess you have never clicked on the link in my signature. Everything is fucking sourced, Sygmar.

Lol. Sourced? Its all garbage. I decided to take a look. Looked at the Trump is racist. Its filled with mainly that Trump doesnt like Blacks. Which is very weird considering he dated a Black Super Model in late 80s early 90s. As POTUS he has made things way better for Historical Black Colleges. Something Obama never did. He changed the fucking racist laws that Bill Clinton implemented and Obama refused to change. I could go on, but why? You have TDS. Youre beyond help.
[Infraction]

[zenkai]

As the title says. I'm very curious.

I rather him pick who he thinks is best not pick someone based on their gender, that's just sexist.

[Elegiac]

I rather him pick who he thinks is best not pick someone based on their gender, that's just sexist.

Biden was picked for this reason, so.