2020 Presidential Race

#41,451
#41,451
hUTch2002 said:
Where is that in the definition?
Click to expand...
Racism: The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to another.

The above definition is a reflection of animosity or hostility towards one race. Discriminating on the basis of advancing the cause of cultural diversity is not the belief that one race is superior to another, or that one race is inferior to others. It is not an example of racism to limit a hiring search to a pool of black candidates, if that is being done in effort to promote diversity among a work environment. There is no belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. There is only a desire to have a racially diverse workforce, hence, there is not an element of animus.
 
Last edited:
#41,454
#41,454
BowlBrother85 said:
Racism: The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to another.

The above definition is a reflection of animosity or hostility towards one race. Discriminating on the basis of advancing the cause of cultural diversity is not the belief that one race is superior to another, or that one race is inferior to others. It is not an example of racism to limit a hiring search to a pool of black candidates, if that is being done in effort to promote diversity among a work environment. There is no belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. There is only a desire to have a racially diverse workforce, hence, there is not an element of animus.
Click to expand...
So you changed the definition you are using? Interesting tactic. I can tell you’re going to die on this hill so I’ll leave you to it but you quoted the definition of racism previously and it says nothing about animus. Society added the animus. The strict definition is simply discrimination based on race. It’s that simple. Excluding a group simply because of the color of their skin meets that very definition. You’re making it more complicated than it needs to be. KISS
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.checkerboards
#41,455
#41,455
The racism/discrimination debate is not relevant. What should be discussed is a POTUS candidate publicly stating they have no interest in insuring they have the best people around them. Could a minority female candidate be the best choice? Of course. But his approach is terrible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.checkerboards and hog88
#41,456
#41,456
hUTch2002 said:
So you changed the definition you are using? Interesting tactic. I can tell you’re going to die on this hill so I’ll leave you to it but you quoted the definition of racism previously and it says nothing about animus. Society added the animus. The strict definition is simply discrimination based on race. It’s that simple. Excluding a group simply because of the color of their skin meets that very definition. You’re making it more complicated than it needs to be. KISS
Click to expand...
Like with most words, there are different definitions which can be applied often within the same source. However, the definition above does speak of hostility and animosity without specifically using those words. It is hostile to one race to find it inferior to another. You will find that definition under Merriam-Webster. It seems like you are just wanting to argue with someone for f*** sake... maybe out of boredom?
 
#41,457
#41,457
BowlBrother85 said:
Like with most words, there are different definitions which can be applied often within the same source. However, the definition above does speak of hostility and animosity without specifically using those words. It is hostile to one race to find it inferior to another. You will find that definition under Merriam-Webster. It seems like you are just wanting to argue with someone for f*** sake... maybe out of boredom?
Click to expand...
Perhaps. I do enjoy arguing sometimes. That doesn’t change the definition of racism though. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.checkerboards
#41,461
#41,461
0nelilreb said:
Wha???? ... even for you that’s a crazy statement . You honestly believe Russia is the only foreign power actively conducting propaganda and trying to interfere with US elections ? SMDH
Click to expand...
If you read the statement from the ODNI it says that China doesn’t not want trump to get re-elected but has not take any action. The Russians prefer Trump and have take active measures to hurt the Biden campaign.
 
#41,463
#41,463
volfanhill said:
The racism/discrimination debate is not relevant. What should be discussed is a POTUS candidate publicly stating they have no interest in insuring they have the best people around them. Could a minority female candidate be the best choice? Of course. But his approach is terrible.
Click to expand...
What kind of grade would you give Trump on surrounding himself with the best people?
 
#41,467
#41,467
DC_Vol said:
You can probably narrow it down to his final choice by working through his checklist:

1- leftist
2- black
3- female
4- articulate
5- bright
6- CLEAN
7- nice looking
Click to expand...
Not a bad list. I'm curious what list Trump used to come up with Pence.
1. - right wing
2. - old
3. - white
4. - male
5. - fundamentalist / ultra religious
6. - stiff
7. - from forgotten fly-over country
 
#41,468
#41,468
luthervol said:
Not a bad list. I'm curious what list Trump used to come up with Pence.
1. - right wing
2. - old
3. - white
4. - male
5. - fundamentalist / ultra religious
6. - stiff
7. - from forgotten fly-over country
Click to expand...

I’m glad you asked, Luth. If I had to guess, I’d rank your list as follows (eliminating any choices I believe not to be pertinent):

1 - Trump is not a conservative and needed a strong conservative on the ticket
5 -solidify the religious right
7 - help solidify support in the Midwest

I don’t think color or cleanliness were high on Trump’s list. JMO.
 
#41,469
#41,469
Susan Rice sells Netflix stock worth more than $300G as Biden mulls choice of running mate: report

Rep for ex-national security adviser insists sale has 'nothing to do with VP speculation'

Former national security advisor Susan Rice has reportedly sold her shares in the streaming service Netflix amid rumors that she is on the shortlist of candidates to be presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden's running mate.

Deadline reported Friday that Rice sold her shares valued at $305,323, according to an SEC filing dated Thursday.

Susan Rice sells Netflix stock worth more than $300G as Biden mulls choice of running mate: report
 
#41,471
#41,471
Franklin Pierce said:
Susan Rice sells Netflix stock worth more than $300G as Biden mulls choice of running mate: report

Rep for ex-national security adviser insists sale has 'nothing to do with VP speculation'

Former national security advisor Susan Rice has reportedly sold her shares in the streaming service Netflix amid rumors that she is on the shortlist of candidates to be presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden's running mate.

Deadline reported Friday that Rice sold her shares valued at $305,323, according to an SEC filing dated Thursday.

Susan Rice sells Netflix stock worth more than $300G as Biden mulls choice of running mate: report
Click to expand...

Lets see her tax returns and bank records America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mr.checkerboards
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top