Newsom’s vow to appoint a Black woman to the Senate

NiftyNiblick said:
BEST is obviously subjective.
The elected governor was given the authority to use his subjective judgement.
We both value diversity, but we place it in very different places on the priority list.

With one person making a unilateral decision, that person's priorities--entirely by itself-- is what determines who's "best."
That's the subjective best as perceived by the person charged with making the decision.
We're not going to come across a mutually accepted definition of best--that's not how subjectivity--even in the process of trying to be objective--works.

If that person is in tune with his/her/its constituents, his/her/its choice will be well received...
Click to expand...

Right, I don't disagree with any of that but you were making the point there is an objective singular best which is what i am questioning and want to understand?

Do you agree that person deciding could look at the resumes of the Top 10 people and go to bed thinking he will choose from a group of 3 of them but then in the morning re look at them all and pick someone entirely different?


If there is truly a singular best that cannot happen as there is only one.

In your world view he is making a wrong choice, if his goal is to choose the best and he,, in his mind can choose between any of one of 3 or 5.


How do you reconcile that? If there is truly only one how can he debate and switch on his choice and is he wrong in doing so?
 
Bigdog said:
:thumbsup:

The 5 Dixiecrat States all voted Democrat again in 52. While Ike did make some inroads in the South due to a growing a middle class in some States.

election-Results-Candidate-American-Votes-Republican-Political-1952.jpg




Just like many of our Schools, history.com is pushing leftwing political propaganda.
Click to expand...

Yep 14 years before Johnsons' Civil Rights Act.
 
QP! said:
Right, I don't disagree with any of that but you were making the point there is an objective singular best which is what i am questioning and want to understand?

Do you agree that person deciding could look at the resumes of the Top 10 people and go to bed thinking he will choose from a group of 3 of them but then in the morning re look at them all and pick someone entirely different?


If there is truly a singular best that cannot happen as there is only one.

In your world view he is making a wrong choice, if his goal is to choose the best and he,, in his mind can choose between any of one of 3 or 5.


How do you reconcile that? If there is truly only one how can he debate and switch on his choice and is he wrong in doing so?
Click to expand...

We're on a topic, ad nauseum, that doesn't apply to my life, and which doesn't particularly interest me..

I was specifically speaking of Newsom saying in advance, stupidly in my view, that he was intent on choosing a black woman.

You think that's OK. I don't. People see things differently.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
We're on a topic, ad nauseum, that doesn't apply to my life, and which doesn't particularly interest me..

I was specifically speaking of Newsom saying in advance, stupidly in my view, that he was intent on choosing a black woman.

You think that's OK. I don't. People see things differently.
Click to expand...

No you are just being dishonesty and i do not know why.

We ARE NOT discussing Newsome pick and my view or your view of it being oK. We have NEVER engaged in that discussion.

What we ARE discussing is you stated a view that xsaid you believe there is such a thing as a singular qualified person for a job and i questioned how and why you could think that as it does not follow any logic.

in every attempt to defend or explain your position you have instead went off to tangents to misrepresent as i think you realize you simply cannot defend it and instead of owning you want to deflect.



This 'singular best person' for the job is a political myth used to agitate people who are gullible. There will always be, especially for the SC or any Political position numerous people in many different groups, who will have the qualifications ALL OF WHICH are fine to choose. It will then come down to subjective criteria (do you prefer a SC Justice who worked as a Defense attorney or a prosecutor) which you may prefer one aspect and i may prefer another. What that does not mean is that the person picked was not qualified just because you would prefer it was the other person.


It is a lie. You seemingly have bought and internalized the lie and do not want to reflect on it and thus you deflect.
 
Damocles said:
Ugh... Why do they have to pander? Just say you are going to appoint the "most qualified" then appoint a black woman and defend your pick. Stop announcing that you are just using vaginas and melanin as qualifications for such an important job.
Click to expand...

He was pandering because he was getting recalled. At the end of the day the recall wasn't close but for a period of time polls showed voters wanted him out so he was taking no chances. Black people make up a small percentage of California but are the most loyal Democratic voting block (especially black women) so he was trying to shore up that base.

Depending on your viewpoint what's funny is he likely had two candidates in mind when making this pledge, Karen Bass and Barbara Lee. Karen Bass is now Mayor of LA so she's out and Barbara Lee is running for the Senate seat so giving her the seat now would give her a huge advantage as an incumbent (and Newsom especially doesn't want to do that considering Pelosi has endorsed Adam Schiff for the seat). So now the name being thrown around is Oprah Winfrey.

But you are correct, the pandering pledges do a disservice to the people chosen.
 
Sessions said Bush's secretary was the single most qualified person in the country to be put on the Supreme Court. It was wrong but also stupid. She was laughed out of consideration. However there are lots and lots of highly qualified people for every government position. There is a notebook full of people in California for the senate.
 
QP! said:
No you are just being dishonesty and i do not know why.

We ARE NOT discussing Newsome pick and my view or your view of it being oK. We have NEVER engaged in that discussion.

What we ARE discussing is you stated a view that xsaid you believe there is such a thing as a singular qualified person for a job and i questioned how and why you could think that as it does not follow any logic.

in every attempt to defend or explain your position you have instead went off to tangents to misrepresent as i think you realize you simply cannot defend it and instead of owning you want to deflect.



This 'singular best person' for the job is a political myth used to agitate people who are gullible. There will always be, especially for the SC or any Political position numerous people in many different groups, who will have the qualifications ALL OF WHICH are fine to choose. It will then come down to subjective criteria (do you prefer a SC Justice who worked as a Defense attorney or a prosecutor) which you may prefer one aspect and i may prefer another. What that does not mean is that the person picked was not qualified just because you would prefer it was the other person.


It is a lie. You seemingly have bought and internalized the lie and do not want to reflect on it and thus you deflect.
Click to expand...

I've been trying to discuss the Newsome situation all along.
That's the discussion I entered in the first place.
You kept trying to steer it somewhere else, and I kept trying to bring it back.
We've bored this forum enough with this discussion.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I've been trying to discuss the Newsome situation all along.
That's the discussion I entered in the first place.
You kept trying to steer it somewhere else, and I kept trying to bring it back.
We've bored this forum enough with this discussion.
Click to expand...

No you are being dishonest.

YOU and I disagreed over a 'best person for the job' and what that means, and that is what we have been discussing. You proclaimed you disagreed with me on that EXACT thing and we engagged.

You now want to back away from it and pretend that was never the case, which is fine. We can move on. It is a function of this forum that people do not want to own their positions and just deny them when they feel they are wrong later. I am used to it from others.

If you want me to go back and quote the origins of our dispute i can.
 
QP! said:
No you are being dishonest.

YOU and I disagreed over a 'best person for the job' and what that means, and that is what we have been discussing. You proclaimed you disagreed with me on that EXACT thing and we engagged.

You now want to back away from it and pretend that was never the case, which is fine. We can move on. It is a function of this forum that people do not want to own their positions and just deny them when they feel they are wrong later. I am used to it from others.

If you want me to go back and quote the origins of our dispute i can.
Click to expand...

If we indeed went off on that tangent, QP!, largely due to you persistence and not mine, we also carried that as far as it could go.
We disagree. People disagree all the time. Nothing to see here.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
If we indeed went off on that tangent, QP!, largely due to you persistence and not mine, we also carried that as far as it could go.
We disagree. People disagree all the time. Nothing to see here.
Click to expand...

we did not disagree though. Not in any supported way. You kept making points that when challenged you backed away from. In no way did you establish any argument for 'singular qualified person' for a job, a position you stated absolutely stated at the beginning you held in opposition to me.

The singular qualified person is a political myth created by right leaning derps simply to suggest anyone they do not agree with being picked is not qualified, when that is not the fact or accurate. A POTUS could say tomorrow if he gets a SC pick, he/she will choose a latino. That statement does not mean the person is any less qualified than anyone not latino. There will be qualified people in pretty much each group you could look at.
 
QP! said:
There will be qualified people in pretty much each group you could look at.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
One must then choose from among the qualified people using one's own priorities as a guide.
If you think that this requires further discussion or verification, then we've nothing to talk about because we do simply disagree.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I agree with this.
One must then choose from among the qualified people using one's own priorities as a guide.
If you think that this requires further discussion or verification, then we've nothing to talk about because we do simply disagree.
Click to expand...

We do not.

That was exactly my point which you originally disagreed with. So now we agree.
 
volsrock said:
Newsom’s vow to appoint a Black woman to the Senate looms large amid Feinstein health concerns



https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/29/poli...nne-feinstein-california-democrats/index.html





Blatant racial and sexual discrimination.
Click to expand...


Well, I think it a very good policy. I mean, just look at how well the same logic worked for BRANDON when it came to choosing who would be his Vice President ! Don't be fooled, folks. Gavin Newsome may look like a moron, but actually he's one really "smart cookie." !



Dachshund - the WONDER HOUND

DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top