The Look of the GOP Debates

I know there are no "GOP Debates. Still it occurred to me as I watched the Democratic debates that the look of the Democratic debate stage stands in stark contrast to one that might be fielded by GOP. Last night on the Democratic stage we had --

4 - Women (one black)
1 - Gay white man
1 - Asian billionaire
2 - Senior white guys
1 - White billionaire
1 - black mayor

It came to me that we were viewing a microcosm of America.

 

Sad that it's so important what you are and not who you are. Sad the Democrats completely rejected post modernism for identity politics.

 

I was simply noting my observation. It seems to me that most of the participants exhibited great character. If that looks like "identity" politics to you then I think you are missing an important point. Think about it.

 

Well you certainly think identity politics matters.

 

Sexual orientation and race isn't character.

You listed identities. There isn't much to think about.

 

It's funny how they call others racist. Must be the preoccupation.

 

So what? I look at actual credentials when choosing a candidate not skin color and genitalia.

 

Racist... Don't you know none of that credential stuff matters as long as you have diversity but only the acceptable kind?

 

You were viewing a bunch of progressive fascists who attacked Justice Thomas for leaving the plantation to be American. You were viewing the same progressive fascists who let Hillary off the hook for exposing Top Secret Intel on an unsecured, private server in violation of the Espionage Act because she too is a progressive fascist. These same progressive fascists held Dinesh D'Sousa as a political prisoner for leaving the planation as a person of color ,,, for trying to help a friend who was running for office and, at the time, being unaware of contribution limits and ways to circumvent them. He is a felon as a result of lack of intent ,,, while Hillary knew exactly what she was doing and could well have been the last elected President if her fellow fascists had their way.

This is the short list of reasons for lack of diversity in the Republican Party. The larger reason that is slowly being corrected is that, while Democrats wanted people of color to work and not vote as slaves, Johnson set up a system that gave a large segment of the population the ability to vote and not work. As the diverse population realizes what the progressive fascists of the Democrat party did to them, and as they become successful, they are realizing who provides the opportunities and who provides the shackles.

I could broach the subject of progressive fascist FDR and his solution for Japanese Americans, but I'm sure you are aware.

 

Yep

 

A Tulsi Gabbard fan, I presume?

I can't speak for "Democrats", but I reject post-modernism because it's useless.

 

because you seem to think that virtue signaling is the highest anyone should aspire to in the U.S.

 

So do you believe in biological determinism?

 

No!

 

Can you give us a tally on shoe size and eye color.

We need to make sure we have foot diversity as well.

 

Well as I understand it that is what postmodernism means. At least in regard to social philosophy.

Basically it is anti biological determinism.

 

No what you were viewing was a bunch of far left political hacks trying to make the case that they were uniquely qualified to be president based not upon their own accomplishments and qualifications but upon their status as a member of one group or the other

 

Republicans run who they think is best for the job, not who fits whatever box one needs to check to feel good about themselves.

 

That is incorrect.

I mean, postmodernism is against... anything a postmodernist chooses to be against. That's the main problem, there is no clear definition of what postmodernism stands for. Only of the many things it's against. And for that reason it's useless.

 

Okay, so explain.

If there is no clear definition than how do you know I'm incorrect?

 

I didn't say there is no definition Read again. I said there is no definition of what it stands for. All my posts are meant to be read from beginning to end.

Definitions are a dime a dozen. Anybody can make up a definition. But what you wrote is not "basically" "what postmodernism means"

 

I apologize for misrepresenting your claim.

However, how can I be incorrect if ”there is no definition of what it stands for?"

Again, I do apologize for my misrepresentation, and now I cleared it up.

Well I went further to say it was post modern social philosophy. Just like your posts my posts are intended to be read as a whole.

 

Of course. That's what we're talking about. Obviously we're not talking about post-modern art.

No idea how your statement advances the subject.

 

So again I ask, how can I be incorrect if, "there is no definition of what it stands for?"

What statement? What subject?

 

Duplicate post