The Look of the GOP Debates

Deconstruction is useful for pulling ideas apart. Consider examining a piece of art, ten people might have a different interpretation, but there may be recurring themes that carry throughout. If the artist says they had a specific intention, does that negate all other interpretations?

No. When the artist decides to share their work it becomes everybody’s, and there may be ideas there that the artist never considered.

Post-modernism is abstract, and often not tangible, but that doesn’t make it useless. There’s purpose to mental masturbation.

PS: Right, the OP. Diversity of thought is the only thing that matters; don’t care if someone is black, white, asian, latino, or some other generic way to describe an individual, if they’re a corporate tool they won’t get my vote.

 

My God. You are off the deep end friend.

 

You listed these political candidates by their identities and tried to compare them to a non-existent field of GOP candidates while implying how different the GOP field might be.....how is that not about identity politics?

 

Well actually he pretty much nailed it.

 

Absurd. No republican I know gives a damn what color you are.

 

Right on target or you have contested my statement as opposed to the fascist tendency to attack the person whose thoughts they don't embrace. Meet an American, Benito.

 

who's the asian billionaire?
Has yang been investing in cattle futures?

 

sarcasm:
why would you do that you racist xenophobic misogynist!
end sarcasm.

 

Like the bankrupt adulterous ***** grabber?

 

Not in art. But it does negate facts when you try to apply it to reality. And it negates morality when you try to apply it to Ethics.

Again, that is true for the arts. But post modernists would attempt to equate the validity of scientific fact to the validity of scientific mental masturbation. Saying that that's "useless" is putting it mildly. Actually it's very counter-productive.

Yes. And that's a universal and objective moral fact. The idea that what you said is "morally equivalent" to holding that the though of whites is more valuable than thought of blacks is nonsensical.

 

Or which gender. All of the conservatives I know only care about the positions a candidate holds. Race and gender don't matter one way or the other.

 

I very much doubt that's true. I even know Democrats who do that. So either you are not being straightforward, or you don't know many people. But, back to my point, "color" is one aspect. Defending the human rights of people regardless of where they were born is also one of the things that the Republicans I'm referring to consider "identity politics"

 

You don't think it's an important time that so many more Americans than ever before can see someone 'like them' running for POTUS?

 

Well, only apparently if they run on the dem ticket. Otherwise they are just crazy women or uncle toms according to dems.

 

So you now claim you know everyone I do? Interesting. Creepy but interesting....

 

I think if that sort of crap is important to you you're part of the problem not part of the solution.

 

Deconstuctionism is the single worst thing to come out of post modern thinking. Selfishness as a tool of critique is indeed little more than a species of mental masturbation and lies at the heart of the cancel culture movement. It is in fact little more than theft once removed.

 

Lol. That's ludacris.
None of them are qualified to be president and all ofvthem have great ideas, for destroying America...

Diversity of stupidity is not a virtue.

 

It's evidence that our society has changed, and I'm fine with that. But it should not determine how you vote. I'm an old white guy, but I would vote for Ben Carson over Joe Biden in a heartbeat.

 

I agree that the way someone looks or their sexual orientation or their gender should not be the deciding factor for a vote. But I think it is about damn time the folks on the stage represent ALL of the country.

 

No.

 

It is nonsensical how you choose to frame everything in terms of identity, without touching upon one iota of substance. To make matters worse, you have decided to frame this against a Republican field that does not even exist. I am left to wonder what made you feel as if this thread was a good idea. Sincerely, it reveals a mindset that I simply do not understand. It is bizarre.

 

Well then we still need a native American, a transgender person, and someone who speaks only Spanish to round out the field.

Our society has evolved to where we really don't care about color or gender. I couldn't stand Hillary, but not because she was a woman. I like Tulsi Gabbard. (I happen to think she is the best of the Democrats by a long shot.) I like Nikki Haley. I like Ben Carson and former Rep. Allen West, both black men. I like Candace Owens, a black woman, and her message. I think she should run for office.

Being a white man, I didn't care that Obama was black. I didn't vote for him, but I was proud of America for electing a black man to be our president.

I suppose if I were black, female, hispanic, gay or whatever, it would feel good to see someone "like me" on that stage, but it wouldn't determine whether or not I voted for them.

I'm an independent, but most of my friends are conservatives and probably Republicans. They feel the same way as I do. Honestly, it is the liberals who are obsessed with identity politics and race.

It's time to take the next step and move past this. Candidates for office who are female or racial minorities ought to be thought of as perfectly ordinary - the new normal, if you will. My mostly conservative friends are already there.

 

On this we are in agreement. Unfortunately, that's not where we're at...yet. But I believe we'll get there. In the meantime, no harm in celebrating the fact that we are taking one more step in that direction.