It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dems 2020 if you are Old, White and Male you need not apply

page: 3
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 02:37 PM
link   
They're not looking for it but if an old white male existed suitable to do it, they could win easily as would Joe Biden vs Donald Trump. Being old, white, and male goes a long way for potential Republican swing voters and undecided, believe it or not. Not so much John Kerry because he was too liberal but a more moderate candidate could do it. At the same time, even a progressive candidate could do it like Bernie Sanders. That's an uncertain competition because, ironically, the new Democratic progressive congresswomen are making themselves look rather stupid and more importantly suspect to people who aren't liberal. While it may or may not be good for the party (but might or might not be good, lol) they haven't really looked at the potential damage they could cause in the area of swing voters and undecided. That's not a big group of people but they're pivotal. You know, like a pivot on a swing.

Edit: Now that I think about it, that's the group I'm in, undecided and swing voters because I can vote for a Democratic, Republican, or even an Independent for President, although I doubt an Independent can ever win it. Sometimes billionaire businessmen think they can do it, Trump did it, but he did it through a party. I have no party leanings. I'm honestly critical of both parties while admittedly having a little sympathy for the Democrats, but even then I'm critical and it's hard to make me want to vote for them or support them. It's probably from being in a low tax bracket without the potential to move up in the very near future, being against racism (reverse racism as well) and interacting with so many minorities in my city. If I were looking at it as an entrepeneur, someone with a lot of wealth, a business owner or leader in a business, heavily into my religion etc I'd lean right.
edit on 2/11/2019 by r0xor because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




Let's be honest... what does the modern Democratic party even offer if one is a straight white male?


Absolutely not a damn thing. Except told they are the cause of all the worlds problems.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm

originally posted by: mikell
Our company got rid of the older people a couple of years ago. Early retirement and such. Guess who they are hiring back because the younger ones are only wanting part time work. My assistant is back making nearly twice what he was. It's pretty funny really. Call them back to save the day!!



I've been in IT for most of my career. I've seen that happen so many times. They lay off or force retirement, then quickly realize they got rid of the one person that knows an antiquated program/system, or weird filing system etc.

That's some pretty funny stuff!


Ha, lived with it too.. The old guy we had, was good with the old systems we still had. He was retired, brought back after, and paid hell more than myself, as supervisor.. helped he was friends with the manager, but still.. when it came to trees and so on, he'd ruin permissions with a single click.

And he'd either talk your ears off with incessant twaddle, OR sneak up behind you and you'd never know, till yo turn around and BOOM, a hairy grey beard in your face.

I now have a hairy grey beard too.. god what the kids me say about me..



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: JAGStorm
I was reading up on 2020 candidates and would be candidates.

A familiar face popped up, Joe Biden. I know people have their opinions of him which is fine.
I have seen first hand, with my own eyes how he went out of his way to personally help a friend of mine.
That is the kind of stuff that isn't show on the news or tabloids. Well anyways, as I was reading I was
absolutely taken aback by this.

The left does not want him because:

“Let’s be honest: He’s an older white guy,”
www.mcclatchydc.com...

Well I guess they are not splitting hairs anymore they are just coming out and saying it, if you are a Man, or white, or older you aren't what
they are looking for. Isn't that sumthin... Is this what our country has come to? If that isn't the most racist, sexist, age discrimination I've ever read I don't know what is.


So then as a white male, I guess I just won't vote for them since they hate me for the color of my skin...wait that is racist. I thought they were anti-racist, so logically they should follow the lemmings...



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

Two wrongs don't make a right. What is civil rights? = the rights of citizens to political /social freedom and equality.


Certainly two wrongs don't make a right and a simplistic cliche response does not cover the inaccuracies of your original post.

The statement by one, and only one democratic stratigest does not compare to decades and even centuries of exclusion from the voting process as you suggest it does. The article you offered I found to be a good article offering a broad spectrum of opinion and evaluation of the choices being faced by democrats in the next year. Throughout the article Biden, who I like as well, is treated with much respect and his value as a potential nominee is given a lot of attention. While he is stated as being a strong contender, some of his possible lack of favor-ability among younger voters who have serious doubts about ''baby boomers'' is well founded in assessing who will be the candidate to be chosen to run against Trump.

Yet for some reason you chose from a long and expansive article only one sentence by one man to focus on and then declare it as almost a consensuses of the racism, sexism and ageism you want to paint the entire party with.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Ironically enough, it was the Democratic Party who were out front leading the fight against minorities and women being allowed to vote in the eras you're talking about. It seems to be a trend that the party must, at all times, be denying rights and oppressing at least one wide swath of the country. Seems to be a systemic issue with them, doesn't it?


Sure, that is ''if'' we ignore the fact that party names and affiliations change and morph over the centuries. To my mind, this is one of the simplest tools used to keep voters confused. As well, I find no calls for denying anyone rights or voting privileges in that article. As well as looking at the inadequacies of the current democrat party we might just as well look to the policies exhorted by the current republican party.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 04:57 PM
link   
In all fairness, old white men have been running the show for awhile. And I've seen nothing but partisan bickering, unnecessary wars/conflicts, obvious corruption, laws bias to corporations or countries, a failed war on drugs, and the list goes on...

I don't think race matters, a great mind is great in any skin.

But damn, I don't think we need more old white folk touring how marijuana is baddddd, while letting the FDA pass every drug big pharma throws piles of money at.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
Democrats don't even realize how narrow-minded, divisive, and intolerant they are. They actually think their idiotic hijinks and insults are open-minded, inclusive, and tolerant. They are ill.

Actually, it's been shown that Conservatism is a condition: Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Attitudes. Whether or not it is an illness is up for debate. I vote yes. Just sayin', eh?



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown?

Last time I looked, they were old, white, and male.

It's one thing good about the Democratic party, its called being INCLUSIVE.
edit on 11-2-2019 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire




Yet for some reason you chose from a long and expansive article only one sentence by one man to focus on and then declare it as almost a consensuses of the racism, sexism and ageism you want to paint the entire party with.


Oh come on. I chose that article and statement, but I think a lot of us agree it is the same sentiment across the board.
Face it, Dems don't like Old White Men. They don't like they so much they are willing to be racist, ageist, and sexist against them.

But I'll give you examples if I must:

www.usatoday.com...
White men are now the Democratic Party's punching bag. That's a dangerous bet to make.

slate.com...
Democrats Have Made One Thing Very Clear About 2020: They’re Over White Men

www.unz.com...
No Party for White Men: Another White Guy Democrat Loses Due to His White Guyness

I could go on and on and on.



posted on Feb, 11 2019 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I recall a number of them agreeing with Shelley Garland's Huffpo article before the backlash was viewed as being too massive to confront and they "exposed" Garland as being a fraud... the point there was that "White men should be disenfranchised and lose their right to vote" and yeah, a lot of the far left radicals climbed on board that concept with full gusto...



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

Oh come on. I chose that article and statement, but I think a lot of us agree it is the same sentiment across the board.
Face it, Dems don't like Old White Men. They don't like they so much they are willing to be racist, ageist, and sexist against them.


I appreciate your time in locating those additional articles as all three are venues I do not frequent. The USA article seems to be from two Republican guys talking about Democrats from their perspective and that perspective is definitely main stream media as USA Today was to my knowledge the first nationwide newspaper outlet not tied to a specific city and hence from my point of view one to be taken as a propaganda tool aimed at the broad spectrum of people across the nation wanting to have news all summed up for them and homogenized into a one size fits all package.

The Slate article I found to be good as it offers a perspective analysis of democrat and liberal trends and those trends are most definitely pro diversity. Here they say, and I agree that it is diversity that is what they are after, not exclusion.

Now sure, there are likely those who are racist who support only people of color, who stereotype the ''old guard'' as white and males and hence should be pushed out of the way. Granted. But to label the whole party in this stereotypical manner is an over simplification of the evolving trends within that party.

One thing that I think to be important here is any attempts to ''break'' from the old standards of politics. Trump did this to great success, yes? If there is one thing that screams establishment, that is the iconic image of American government run and controlled by white men.

So once again, yes, there are those in the democrat party that may be not only calling for diversity but the outright exclusion of white men, I find no declaration in any of those articles that states that that is the overall position of the vast majority of liberals in that party.



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I recall a number of them agreeing with Shelley Garland's Huffpo article before the backlash was viewed as being too massive to confront and they "exposed" Garland as being a fraud... the point there was that "White men should be disenfranchised and lose their right to vote" and yeah, a lot of the far left radicals climbed on board that concept with full gusto...


My question back to you is who on the ''far left''. Anyone I would have heard of? And sure, I have no doubt that there were some who agreed with the hoax piece but to label them ''far left'' rather than malcontents, which I would call them, fails to recognize the similarities between malcontents who have been divided up into two groups, left and right, by those of either side who are willing to believe just about any crap offered about the ''other side''.



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I recall a number of them agreeing with Shelley Garland's Huffpo article before the backlash was viewed as being too massive to confront and they "exposed" Garland as being a fraud... the point there was that "White men should be disenfranchised and lose their right to vote" and yeah, a lot of the far left radicals climbed on board that concept with full gusto...


My question back to you is who on the ''far left''. Anyone I would have heard of? And sure, I have no doubt that there were some who agreed with the hoax piece but to label them ''far left'' rather than malcontents, which I would call them, fails to recognize the similarities between malcontents who have been divided up into two groups, left and right, by those of either side who are willing to believe just about any crap offered about the ''other side''.


Your "malcontents" are starting to appear in the House of Reps in the form of AOC, Tliab, Omar, and Senators like Sanders, Waters, Warren, and Harris. A pile of dog crap can be called "lawn debris" all you want, same as a far left politician can be called a "malcontent," but the point is the Dems' "malcontents" are starting to build up in the yard and it's time for y'all to curb your damn dogs and throw away their tightly coiled piles.



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 01:55 PM
link   
If you are a young dark-skinned female and married your brother, you are a big hit!

mobile.twitter.com...



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

What???
No way!



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Anything and everything she says is potentially a bald faced lie anyway... Taqiya dictates that so long as someone in a position of leadership for within their religious group cited the marriage with her brother as a value for progressing their jihad against the western world, she can lie through her teeth about it all she wants with zero religious implications.



posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Oh. Never mind then.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm


Up to a few years ago I was a hard line left leaning democrat (basically because I have strong feelings about the environment and labor rights). Having come from a very dark Mediterranean Sicilian mother and a blond blue eyed American father, I have been in the interesting position of being technically white but viewed by many white people as non white. I know what racism sounds like and how ugly it is. Notwithstanding, there are a lot of very mean nasty racist white people out there who have no problem voicing it to anyone who isn't of a pinkish color. So I can relate to the experiences and sentiments of people of color. As a result, in recent years when all the anti white hostility started to surface in the dems and the left, I recognized it for what it is, overt racism and bigotry. Even with that repulsion, the democrats as of late seem less like champions labor than outright open borders globalists whose major concern about the environment seems to be figuring out a way to levy a carbon tax on people. They may not want old white guys but I am sure at this point the feeling is quite mutual.



posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JAGStorm

So , I guess they have no Problem with Lying Indian American Bitches Running though ? Hmm..






top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join