JD Vance: Testing the waters of bigotry

[NxNW]

Then please link or quote his statement in context. Please and thank you.

Already discussed at length, and no longer up for debate. Google it up yourself if you think you can defend it.

 

[NBB]

Leftist are out of their minds, they want to jail people for saying something is immoral.
is not having moral values a basic right?
So who is the bigot one for standing up for principles, or the leftist wanting to cut your freedom, and ruin your life for that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Leftist are out of their minds, they want to jail people for saying something is immoral.

That doesn't seem to have any relation to this thread, which is about a major Republican figure being unable to say deplorable bigots aren't welcome in the party..

 

[NBB]

That doesn't seem to have any relation to this thread, which is about a major Republican figure being unable to say deplorable bigots aren't welcome in the party..

I don't want to defend any political party, but is related, since leftists say people are bigots just for having opinion and not harming anyone.

 

[essentialsaltes]

leftists say people are bigots just for having opinion and not harming anyone.

People who hold bigoted opinions are bigots.

Definitions from Oxford Languages

bigot

a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

 

[Always in His Presence]

That doesn't seem to have any relation to this thread, which is about a major Republican figure being unable to say deplorable bigots aren't welcome in the party..

The ONLY quote we have in this thread from the Vice President is:

"We don't care if you're white or black, rich or poor, young or old, rural or urban, controversial or a little bit boring, or somewhere in between," he said.

Doesn't sound racist to me....

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Already discussed at length, and no longer up for debate. Google it up yourself if you think you can defend it.

No, it hasn't been discussed at length...it's been discussed, but then as soon as the context is mentioned, certain people simply just ignore the replies and move on to a different thread to trot out the "Charlie Kirk doesn't trust Black pilots" (hoping to get more mileage and likes there in a different thread)


Again...for the 4th time...

His position was that:
In an environment where a certain amount of hiring is based on trying to fill certain quotas, and that initiative trumps "getting the most qualified person", that represents a lowering of the bar by ending up with a larger percentage of people on-staff who simply met the minimum requirements rather than the person who was the best candidate compared to all other candidates.

"Meets the qualifications" is different than "the best"

If a hospital was hiring brain surgeons, and they had a quota where "we have to get at least 5 Pittsburgh Steelers fans on-staff in the neurosurgery department, that's number 1 priority above all else" If I see my surgeon roll up in a Steelers hat and jersey, I'm going to be skeptical. That doesn't mean I hate Steelers fans or think that a Steelers fan isn't capable of being a good brain surgeon. It simply means I realize that if their organization said "no matter what, it'd gotta be a Steelers fan", that very likely means they could've passed over dozens of other more well qualified applicants in order to fill a quota.

Charlie Kirk's position was that if there were no DEI quotas in hiring, and it was all 100% based on who is the best (meritocracy), he'd have no problem with a Black pilot. It's the programs themselves that prioritize other aspects than "who's the best" that made him skeptical.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The ONLY quote we have in this thread from the Vice President is:

Some context for what 'controversial' people Vance welcomes into the tent

After a long weekend of debates about whether the movement should exclude figures such as bigoted podcaster Nick Fuentes, Vance came down firmly against "purity tests."

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Some context for what 'controversial' people Vance welcomes into the tent

After a long weekend of debates about whether the movement should exclude figures such as bigoted podcaster Nick Fuentes, Vance came down firmly against "purity tests."

Have the purity tests worked well for Democrats?

One could reasonably assert that he doesn't want to see his party make the same mistakes of their opponents.

Y'know, like kicking out Joe Manchin, Tulsi Gabbard, and Kyrsten Sinema. How did those work out?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Y'know, like kicking out Joe Manchin, Tulsi Gabbard, and Kyrsten Sinema. How did those work out?

Pretty good riddance, I’d say. Only difference, if the right ever boots someone like Fuentes, you can bet we’re not going to be taking him in on our side.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Pretty good riddance, I’d say. Only difference, if the right ever boots someone like Fuentes, you can bet we’re not going to be taking him in on our side.

How did that "good riddance" mentality work out?

Instead of having a Democratic senator (in West Virginia of all place...talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth) like Manchin - who at least sided with the Democrats on some things, they ended up with Jim Justice, a staunch republican Senator who sides with them on literally nothing.

Fuentes is irrelevant to this aspect, because he's not an elected leader, so there would be no need to take him on, as the GOP kicking out Fuentes wouldn't change their balance of power in the House or the Senate.


In practical terms, kicking out moderate democrats (who actually held elected office in places where they don't normally win) for not passing a purity test led to a guy with way too much bronzer, doing a double fist pump dance accompanied by the village people at an inauguration gala (I wanted to post the gif, but the site is still acting up, if they would just agree to my consulting rate lol)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Have the purity tests worked well for Democrats?

One could reasonably assert that he doesn't want to see his party make the same mistakes of their opponents.

Y'know, like kicking out Joe Manchin, Tulsi Gabbard, and Kyrsten Sinema. How did those work out?

Joe Manchin retired. He was not kicked out or primaried. He was always a conservative Democrat and did go "independent" for his last few months.

Tulsi Gabbard was not kicked out. She ran for president and no one was interested. Her old House seat in Hawai'i is still represented by a Democrat.

Kyrsten Sinema was a self-interested flake who transformed herself from a Green Party activist into backer of corporate interests. As for what happened... She was replaced by a Democrat in 2025.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

How did that "good riddance" mentality work out?

Instead of having a Democratic senator (in West Virginia of all place...talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth) like Manchin - who at least sided with the Democrats on some things, they ended up with Jim Justice, a staunch republican Senator who sides with them on literally nothing.

Fuentes is irrelevant to this aspect, because he's not an elected leader, so there would be no need to take him on, as the GOP kicking out Fuentes wouldn't change their balance of power in the House or the Senate.


In practical terms, kicking out moderate democrats (who actually held elected office in places where they don't normally win) for not passing a purity test led to a guy with way too much bronzer, doing a double fist pump dance accompanied by the village people at an inauguration gala (I wanted to post the gif, but the site is still acting up, if they would just agree to my consulting rate lol)

Fuentes isn't an elected leader but if he continues to be an influential voice on the right with no pushback from the larger conservative movement, it's only a matter of time until you get a Fuentes-esque candidate actually gaining steam.

Tulsi, Manchin and Sinema weren't forced out by anyone, besides their constituents, at the ballot box. None of them were really prominent voices on the left anyway but more importantly, none of them sticking around were ever as damaging to the left as Fuentes seems to be to the right.

 

[Vambram]

Obviously they do care about race, since they don't think a black pilot can be competent, and they're arresting citizens for the crime of being non-white. And Vance seems to be more chummy with the very-white Erika Kirk than his own wife. Since the GOP has made it clear that they don't care about marital fidelity, one can see how Vance might want to increase his appeal by ditching his wife.

It appears to me that you might have nothing better to do than hurl baseless and infantile insults a Erika Kirk and Vice President Vance.

 

[Vambram]

I agree. The Trump/Vance admin is not testing. It's more like full on application of bigotry. Every group that has Temporary Projection Status has been revoked by Trump/Vance, and asked to get out. Every group except the two white ones in those of Ukraine; and only those who are white and from South Africa.

There's absolutely zero bigotry in the Trump/Vance administration.

 

[Vambram]

Fuentes isn't an elected leader but if he continues to be an influential voice on the right with no pushback from the larger conservative movement, it's only a matter of time until you get a Fuentes-esque candidate actually gaining steam.

Tulsi, Manchin and Sinema weren't forced out by anyone, besides their constituents, at the ballot box. None of them were really prominent voices on the left anyway but more importantly, none of them sticking around were ever as damaging to the left as Fuentes seems to be to the right.

Fuentes has very, very, very little amount of influence among conservatives.

 

[Vambram]

No, it hasn't been discussed at length...it's been discussed, but then as soon as the context is mentioned, certain people simply just ignore the replies and move on to a different thread to trot out the "Charlie Kirk doesn't trust Black pilots" (hoping to get more mileage and likes there in a different thread)


Again...for the 4th time...

His position was that:
In an environment where a certain amount of hiring is based on trying to fill certain quotas, and that initiative trumps "getting the most qualified person", that represents a lowering of the bar by ending up with a larger percentage of people on-staff who simply met the minimum requirements rather than the person who was the best candidate compared to all other candidates.

"Meets the qualifications" is different than "the best"

If a hospital was hiring brain surgeons, and they had a quota where "we have to get at least 5 Pittsburgh Steelers fans on-staff in the neurosurgery department, that's number 1 priority above all else" If I see my surgeon roll up in a Steelers hat and jersey, I'm going to be skeptical. That doesn't mean I hate Steelers fans or think that a Steelers fan isn't capable of being a good brain surgeon. It simply means I realize that if their organization said "no matter what, it'd gotta be a Steelers fan", that very likely means they could've passed over dozens of other more well qualified applicants in order to fill a quota.

Charlie Kirk's position was that if there were no DEI quotas in hiring, and it was all 100% based on who is the best (meritocracy), he'd have no problem with a Black pilot. It's the programs themselves that prioritize other aspects than "who's the best" that made him skeptical.

Quoted For Truth

 

[essentialsaltes]

Fuentes has very, very, very little amount of influence among conservatives.

Then why is Vance afraid to speak out? It should be easy to swipe away this antisemitic gnat.

 

[High Fidelity]

I don't think Charlie Kirk was a bigot, but he did often use extreme scenarios to make his point, e.g. the pilot.

When you live in a country that elevates melanin over merit, it's a fair concern to have.

I'm glad he challenged it while he could. I live in the UK and even here we face similar issues. I work for a state entity and we have management and other training opportunities exclusively for people of Black, Asian (Indian, Pakistani etc) and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups.

Clearly there are white people early or even later in their careers that would benefit from such programmes, but they aren't available, despite us all going to the same schools, having access to the same state-funded benefits etc growing up.

As for Vance, I think he's speaking more to an ideal than individuals. There are blacks in America that are tired of the reputation they get from their peers. They're fed up of the crime that gets blamed on 'poverty', the riots and looting that gets called 'protest', the sense of entitlement to what they haven't earned or what they believe they're owed.

Be a good person and earn your place at the table through your actions, not because the colour of your skin or something else you had no active part in obtaining.

 

[Larniavc]

tell me - was he speaking of the race,

He was speaking about race.