Corbin Fisher: Conrad Drenches Brady

Oh, WhimsyCotton, you predicted that Max would be in this update. Well you were wrong, wrong, wrongity, wrong, wrong WRONG!

I’m not going to let the presence of Conrad ruin this for me. It’s alright because Brady is back.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/308a210b5189f3c6ab84816afd0854c1e721c975aece2570f09d9a663d2a1a34.gif

I’m glad nobody else wants Brady because that means I can have him all to myself.

(He did a sex scene at Corbin Fisher with a woman.)

Funny.
No, I did not watch it; I have no interested in women in pornography.

yes, at 25 he’s a regular Olivia de Havilland (rolls eyes)

I believe they moved the date because of September 11th.

I read people were more shocked by the nudity than about his dick.

THANK YOU! I wish more people would stop and realize every time people vote for a celebrity, it ends up in disaster.

Cynthia Nixon is out there blaming her loss on such things as the pols not being open late enough. Bitch, you lost by over 30 goddamn percentage points. They could have remained open until 3 a.m. and you still would have gotten creamed.

Anyways, I’m here for this update. I feel like a Max/Brady pairing needs to happen. I don’t understand all the Brady hate here, I’m 100% Team Brady.

I know his name but yo me he is Antman LOL

It could be argued running against Nixon made Cuomo embrace even more liberal ideas. But frankly I don’t care what his party affiliation is. He put in motion a legislative plan to spend unnecessary time and funds so he could get the new Tappan Zee Bridge named after his daddy. Then on top of that, he insisted the builders have the new bridge completed by the primary, just to make himself look good. Completely disregarded the potentially deadly safety concerns with rushing the construction of a bridge, which is exactly why the bridge opening had to be delayed, because of a safety issue with the old bridge. Not to mention the whole bit of circumnavigating regulations about campaign donations made by gubernatorial appointees. The guy is a crook and liar and he’s only concerned with patting himself on the back. He thinks this job is a legacy job. Were he to ever run for president, I have no doubt he’d be tapping into his Kennedy connections (through his ex-wife) and making that a part of his political image. If Arnold and Jesse Ventura can have a governor go of it, I don’t get why Cynthia couldn’t. What’s the worst she could do in four years? If New York could survive under a literal whoremonger like Spitzer I don’t think the redhead from Sex and the City would send the state into ruin.

I’m not really talking about how they got into the office or even how they performed, but more of addressing celebrity status as a disqualifier. And in the case of Arnie, yeah he won during a recall election, but he still won. And he won his second term. How much political experience did Obama have? That was one of the things held against him when he ran. All I’m saying is you have to look at a person’s entire history when you evaluate them for these positions. Looking at one or three pieces of the puzzle won’t build the whole picture.

But most of the time, that’s exactly who we have to choose from. And if your point is only people who are experienced in those areas are qualified to lead, then you’re going to limit the pool of morally upright people to choose from. And you’re limiting having “others” in positions of leadership, because those others have been systematically disenfranchised from acquiring the skills you’re saying are necessary to hold those positions. For me, in many cases a life resume holds more weight than an educational or employment resume.

I wrote life resume. Meaning how you’ve lived your life and how you’ve treated people. The things you have done to elevate your community and not yourself. Personal experience is always going to factor into your ideologies and your decision making. How could it not? If that wasn’t case, nobody would care who is President when a Supreme Court Justice retires or dies, because it wouldn’t matter who the replacement is, because their judgments will be based on the law itself without anything personal factoring in. You also wouldn’t hear personal questions asked at those nomination hearings, because it wouldn’t matter.

I find fault with the assumption that just because it doesn’t appear that someone has that skillset on paper, we’re automatically deciding they don’t. You can get those analytical, data interpretation and interpersonal skills in any manner of jobs outside of the political field. Good surgeons just don’t wake up and become good surgeons. They don’t graduate and automatically become good surgeons. They are given the tools and the knowledge then they have to hone those abilities through actions. A surgeon can’t become good or great without someone first allowing them to grab a scalpel and work on an actual person. You can’t refine those skills through knowledge and theory only. Yes, some people are going to die. It’s the nature of the field. But hopefully that surgeon learns from his/her mistakes and improves. We would never say “Okay, you were the top doctor in med class, therefore you’re qualified to start cutting into people.” Residencies exist for a reason. The only people will learn is if they’re allowed that chance to step in and step up.

And again, if the requirements which are already laid out for those positions are met, then who’s to say that person isn’t qualified to run for office? Clearly they are, because they made it to the next step. Would we have been better off telling Obama not to run because he had limited experience as a government official? And again, if you’re raising the bar without ensuring that disenfranchised groups have the tools required to see that bar, let alone reach it, you’re enabling a system where the majority will always be in power and the minority will continue to remain underrepresented.

Why would I assume the current state of the law isn’t as it should be? If the law states someone has the requirements to run, there’s nothing wrong with them running. If you or anyone else doesn’t think they’re right for the job, don’t vote for them. It’s no different than someone applying for a position, and an employer doesn’t hire him/her because they want someone with more experience. It’s as simple as that. Saying someone isn’t right for a job and saying someone isn’t qualified to apply for that job are two different things.

If you’re saying it takes a more established skill set than what is currently required of a gubernatorial candidate, why wouldn’t you then also require that same skill set for the POTUS? You don’t have to have previously held an elected position to run for President. You don’t have to have a law background. You don’t even have to have military experience, even though the job puts you in charge of our nation’s military. If the highest job in our country doesn’t require you to have certain skills, I’m not sure why you think a lower end political job needs those skills.

Those political parties should be doing that, but they aren’t. And if you make it harder for those people to run in the first place, those parties are then going to be more reluctant to increase their recruiting efforts. That’s the point.

Nope. I remarked on your insistence that people aren’t qualified for a position unless they meet certain educational and experience benchmarks, then compared that to how getting a gun doesn’t even require that much effort. Surely getting a gun should require more experience than running for office.

You disregard my words all the time (like when you stated personal experience shouldn’t factor into the creation of policy and I mentioned Supreme Court Justice appointments, and how their personal experience does just that). This is exactly like me. What’s wrong is you have this idea that the law is the law and you apply it to situations you feel prove your point (like when you tried to bring legalities into our conversation about cultural appropriation). But then you turn around and disregard the law when it doesn’t prove your point (like you’re doing here, by insisting Nixon wasn’t qualified for the position when the law says she was). You’ve followed a specific path and that’s great. But you have this law-minded tunnel vision where all you see is what you see. You want to make it harder for people to run for political positions, fully knowing that it’s already hard for certain groups to achieve those positions now, without even considering what that underrepresentation is going to do for the communities who need it the most. It smacks of elitism. Maybe that’s not how you mean it to come across, but that’s my perception. There are plenty of areas in this country where if you’re not a White, cis-gender male, your voice counts for nothing. How many states have never had a Latino governor, or a trans mayor, or a gay senator? It took up until 2008 for a half Black man to become President, and plenty of people still feel him being lighter skinned and half White made him more acceptable. That was only eight years ago. Racism is still alive in this country. Bigotry of all kinds is still alive. And you want to raise the bar for political office so the voices who need that representation the most are put at a more uneven playing field then they are right now? Have you considered what’s going to happen when those voices are pushed out of these jobs? Have you considered what’s going to happen to policy regarding those voices if they’re not in positions of power to help influence and create those policies? Because from what I’ve been reading it doesn’t sound like you have. And honestly, that has been what has disappointed me the most about this exchange.