• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Democrats 2020

I've found out when they were born, and I've sorted them by birth year.
  • Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont - 1941
  • Former Vice President Joe Biden - 1942
  • Businessman and former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New York City - 1942
  • Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (added by myself) - 1947
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts - 1949
  • Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington - 1951
  • Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio - 1952
  • Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado - 1952
  • Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon - 1956
  • Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts (former) - 1956
  • Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia (former) - 1957
  • Activist and philanthropist Tom Steyer - 1957
  • Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota - 1960
  • Rep. John Delaney of Maryland (declared) - 1963
  • Sen. Kamala Harris of California - 1964
  • Gov. Steve Bullock of Montana - 1966
  • Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York - 1966
  • Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey - 1969
  • State Sen. Richard Ojeda of West Virginia (declared) - 1970
  • Attorney Michael Avenatti - 1971
  • Mayor Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles - 1971
  • Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas - 1972
  • Rep. Eric Swalwell of California - 1980
No-one from Kenya?
 
I laugh at this pathetic dodge.

It's a response, not a dodge. Where's that evidence you promised?

If you do not recognize scholarly achievement you are a child.

You therefore have childish opinions and childish dodges.

All I did was chuckle at your refusal to provide the evidence you promised.


Unless you wanted me to provide evidence that I chuckled at your comment. Were you actually asking me to provide evidence that I laughed at you? Really? Do you want me to post a YouTube video of me reading your post and laughing?
 
If you do not recognize scholarly achievement you are a child.

You therefore have childish opinions and childish dodges.

All I did was chuckle at your refusal to provide the evidence you promised.

I provided you with all you need to know she is a scholar of the law.

Not a con man.

If you can understand such things.

That is something you have not demonstrated.
 
Glad to know you are done.

You finally come around, now you say she's a con woman.

She is a distinguished scholar of the law.

She is a scholar of the law. "Distinguished" is a matter of opinion.

A serious thinker.

That is nothing but opinion.

A teacher.

Which makes her stand out from the large number of teachers across the country?

She is substance.

That is still unestablished.

Not a con man.

We've agreed that is a gendered term.

But you prefer a good show to substance and try to demean substance.

That is projection. You've yet to show you can deviate from the party line on any issue at any time. It is almost as if you are a programmed background character in a video game.
 
She is a distinguished scholar of the law.

She is a scholar of the law. "Distinguished" is a matter of opinion.

Harvard law?

Which makes her stand out from the large number of teachers across the country?

People that teach are people of substance.

She taught the Law at Harvard.

That is not your run-of-the-mill teaching position.

It makes her of rare distinguished substance.

Most politicians do not teach.

Obama also taught.
 
Okay, so you're not saying that being a graduate of Harvard Law makes one notable, only being faculty of Harvard Law.

Here's something you might not know about higher education. Minorities are underrepresented among educators. Since all colleges want a faculty that looks diverse, minorities are bid away from smaller colleges and snapped up by those that can pay significantly more. So if she applies as a female Cherokee, Affirmative Action increases her chance of getting the position.
 
Okay, so you're not saying that being a graduate of Harvard Law makes one notable, only being faculty of Harvard Law.

Here's something you might not know about higher education. Minorities are underrepresented among educators. Since all colleges want a faculty that looks diverse, minorities are bid away from smaller colleges and snapped up by those that can pay significantly more. So if she applies as a female Cherokee, Affirmative Action increases her chance of getting the position.

What are you even talking about??? :confused:

I have applied for many academic positions, and been hired to two, and no one ever asked whether I was a Cherokee or not, nor would it have been appropriate to throw that into the interview unless it was relevant to my qualifications somehow.
 
Okay, so you're not saying that being a graduate of Harvard Law makes one notable, only being faculty of Harvard Law.

Here's something you might not know about higher education. Minorities are underrepresented among educators. Since all colleges want a faculty that looks diverse, minorities are bid away from smaller colleges and snapped up by those that can pay significantly more. So if she applies as a female Cherokee, Affirmative Action increases her chance of getting the position.

She is more talented than most of the white male faculty members who are not in the US Senate.

She is of unusual quality for a member of Congress.
 
She is more talented than most of the white male faculty members who are not in the US Senate.

She is of unusual quality for a member of Congress.

*snerk*

Instead of making up irrational arguments of why you don't like her - twisting everything into a negative (as you like to do), why don't you just say why you don't like her - be honest for once.
 
She is more talented than most of the white male faculty members who are not in the US Senate.

She is of unusual quality for a member of Congress.

*snerk*

You have been given your evidence.

Your little childish ignorant snerk is total shit!

Your opinion is total shit.

You wouldn't know a quality mind if your life depended on it.

Getting half a billion from your daddy and then playing your whole life is not an achievement.
 
Back
Top Bottom