(12-04-2019 11:21 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have always felt that candidates should be judged by the words out of their mouths and the ideas in their heads, not some outer "diversity". But I guess that is what makes me a racist.

I agree, though I would also add the actions they have taken in the past to "words out of their mouths" and "ideas in their heads." That said, representation is also important.

(12-04-2019 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Warren - old white woman
Sanders - old white man
Biden - old white man
Buttigieg - young gay white man
Steyer - rich white man
Bloomberg - old rich white man

The only "diversity" is the gay man. I guess when the Dems say they value 'diversity", that means nothing.

(12-04-2019 10:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-04-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  This is A+ trolling. Well done.

What did I get wrong? Is my math bad?

It is trolling because:
1 - you are knocking the Dems for a lack of diversity while ignoring the obvious fact that the Republican fields over the last few decades have been less diverse than the Democratic fields;
2 - you are ignoring the fact that this Democratic field was the most diverse in American history;
3 - just because the December debate looks like it will be 6 people with pale skin ignores the fact that Harris, Booker, and Yang were on the debate stage 5 times while Castro and Gabbard made the debate stage 4 times (lots of diversity even after as the field started winnowing);
4 - you ignore the fact that the first 11 notable candidates to drop out of the race were all white (Swalwell, Gravel, Hickenlooper, Inslee, Mouton, Gillibrand, de Blasio, Ryan, O'Rourke, Sestak, Bullock). So now 1 out of the 12 more notable candidates to drop out was a minority with many still remain in the race (Booker, Castro, Patrick, Gabbard, Yang), even if they haven't qualified for the December debate.
5 - while there is no longer much racial diversity in the primary, it is still notable (and diverse) that there are 2 women, 1 gay man, and 1 jewish man in the top 6 candidates. Any of those getting elected president would be a 1st.

Of course, Gabbard and Yang only need one good poll to qualify for the December debate, so their could still be some racial diversity on stage in December.

So I didn't get anything wrong?

Addressing your comments by number:

1. The Republicans have never touted diversity. The ones who have touted diversity have the above list. They deserve for people to comment on them not doing what they say is important.
2. I don't care if this field is the most diverse, or just barely diverse, or the least diverse in history. Diversity is not how I make decisions. Candidates positions on issues is. I have zero problem voting for a black female gay if her platform is right. I have tons of problems with those who would vote for her because she is black, or female, or gay.
3. But those people are not there now, are they? I can only remark on the field being put up now. Not exactly what the Democrats say they stand for.
4. I guess whites out + whites remaining just goes to show how whites dominated the field to begin with, in the party of diversity.
5. I don't care about "firsts". I care about "good for the country". I would not vote for anybody just to achieve a "first". What a shallow reason. That's like saying you should have voted for Romney so he could be the first Mormon President.