What About Minority Groups?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 04, 2023, 07:15:15 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, The Address That Must Not be Named)
  What About Minority Groups?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: What About Minority Groups?  (Read 9399 times)
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 08, 2004, 03:30:22 AM »
« edited: July 08, 2004, 03:47:48 AM by Vice President Supersoulty »

Are any minority groups going to be angry, because Kerry had a good choices among minorities but opted for the pretty-boy white-guy instead?

or

When are minority groups finally going to realize that the Dems only talk about diversity, whereas the Republicans acctually practice it (and with qualified individuals to boot)?


Seriously though, will the Edwards pick influence minorities in any negative way?
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 51,911


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2004, 03:54:28 AM »
« Edited: July 08, 2004, 03:59:16 AM by jfern »

Are any minority groups going to be angry, because Kerry had a good choices among minorities but opted for the pretty-boy white-guy instead?

or

When are minority groups finally going to realize that the Dems only talk about diversity, whereas the Republicans acctually practice it (and with qualified individuals to boot)?


Seriously though, will the Edwards pick influence minorities in any negative way?

50 out of 8000 elected black officials in the United States are Republicans. Every single Republican ticket has always had 2 Protestant males. That's not true for the Democrats.

Harold Ford or Barack Obama could become President.  
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,031
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2004, 07:16:29 AM »


I need to find that article I read last week.  It stated that there are a record number of black republicans running for office this election, party due to the disenfranchisement from the democratic party as well as the growing number of successful black businessmen who no longer feel as repressed as the democratic rhetoric makes them out to be.  It was a good (but awfully long) read.  
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,031
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 08, 2004, 08:25:08 AM »

This isn't the article that I was referencing, but it does touch on the points I was making:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-06-14-gop-south-blacks_x.htm
Logged
millwx
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 08, 2004, 08:46:05 AM »

When are minority groups finally going to realize that the Dems only talk about diversity, whereas the Republicans acctually practice it (and with qualified individuals to boot)?
I don't know whether to laugh at you or vomit.  While there are a handful of exceptions (Snowe, Jeffords - until he bolted, Collins, Specter - to a lesser degree, McCain - to a lesser degree, Chafee, etc), the Republicans have a laughable record on diversity.  This is not meant as a defense of Democrats.  Their pandering to minorities with entitlement handouts is disgusting.

But what party is typically the one taking up inner city issues (thich tends to impact minorities more)?  Democrats.  How has Bush's reduced funding to the nations cities affected them?  Visit Richmond some time.  Ask the citizens there.  The Republicans have cut funds going to police forces, requiring cutbacks.  The result is predictable.  Crime rates in many cities (like Richmond) have been on the rise.  This overwhelmingly impacts minorities.

And how about gays.  O.k., o.k., I know many Republicans will argue that they're not "minorities".  Nice out.  Do you realize that because the ENDA bill never passed (solely because of Republican opposition) a gay or lesbian person can be fired from their job simply because the boss "doesn't like queers"?  That's right, getting fired on the basis of sexual orientation, completely non-work related, is perfectly acceptable to most Republican law makers.  Federal workers are protected based on an executive order from Clinton (and, surprisingly, not repealed by Bush), as are many private workers simply because of company policy.  But as a matter of law, they are not protected.  Yeah, that's wonderfully fair.  I am a manager in my workplace, responsible for hiring and firing, so I have a pretty good perspective on this.  It is repugnant and inhuman that someone can strip another person of their livelihood based on sexual orientation!  I don't care how "conservative" one is.  Most Republican lawmakers think this is fine and dandy and wouldn't want to infringe on "employer's rights".  Give me a break.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,468


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2004, 08:54:21 AM »

Are any minority groups going to be angry, because Kerry had a good choices among minorities but opted for the pretty-boy white-guy instead?

or

When are minority groups finally going to realize that the Dems only talk about diversity, whereas the Republicans acctually practice it (and with qualified individuals to boot)?


Seriously though, will the Edwards pick influence minorities in any negative way?

WHo were the well qualified black candidates for Vice-President...there is not a single black Senator or Governor on either side.  Richardson was a qualified Hispanic, but from what I understand, he had other issues.

And if the Republicans actually practice diversity, where are there no black Republicans in Congress...or as Governor or Senator.  Every single black Congressman is a Democrat.  Every Asian Governor, Senator, or Congressman is a Democrat.  At least 2/3 of the Hispanic Congressmen as Democrats (I don't know the exact count).  In 2002, we will finally elect a black Senator (Obama) and a Hispanic Senator (Salazar)...both Democrats.  It there Republican diversity beyond a couple Cabinet offices?  I haven't seen any evidence.  
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,031
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2004, 09:13:27 AM »


In defense of "Republicans" on the gay issue, the Democratic/Liberal rhetoric is "Keep government out of our bedrooms."  However, you never hear their opposition saying "Keep your bedroom out of our Government."  No matter how much of a groundswell there has been for "gay rights," it is very unlikely that it will become something acceptable in our society, at least, as long as we are still alive.  This isn't the same as the women's rights or black's rights movements.  

Dispite the claims by some of the "gay rights" activists, there has been no proof that being gay is genetic.  It is a choice people make in their lives, and with any choice, there are opportunities and opportunity costs.  Within the US, the opportunity cost is that you are not entitled to benefits which a married couple would be.  

I guess the best example of this would be if Jewish people (religion is a choice, not genetic) were to fight for all of their holy days to be nationally recognized and observed, requiring a whole series of changes both on the national, state, corporate, and personal level.  Would it be "fair?"  Sure, of course it would be fair to observe the holy days of Islam and any other group that would follow in their wake until it came to the point where our society comes to a gridlock and stops functioning.  

Similar is with "gay rights."  If society were to cave into the demands of a small group of people who feel repressed for their choice, we'd start seeing groups of transexuals, polygomists, etc start demanding the same exceptions till the point where the system fails.  

So, back to your example of the person being fired since he was gay, the simple solution is to check your sexual orientation at the office door when you go into work each day.  Just like people do with their religion and other affiliations.  They aren't topics or practices which are appropriate within the working environment since they can have negative impacts on the working conditions of others.  Just like with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy the military had, especially aboard naval ships.  

*I'll throw this little disclaimer in:  I'm not a homophobe, or have anything against people which choose a homosexual or bisexual lifestyle.  Nor did I plan on standing on a soapbox this morning on this topic.  Just my views on the issue, and that's probably all I have to say about it.*
Logged
millwx
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2004, 09:26:37 AM »
« Edited: July 08, 2004, 09:36:32 AM by millwx »


In defense of "Republicans" on the gay issue, the Democratic/Liberal rhetoric is "Keep government out of our bedrooms."  However, you never hear their opposition saying "Keep your bedroom out of our Government."  No matter how much of a groundswell there has been for "gay rights," it is very unlikely that it will become something acceptable in our society, at least, as long as we are still alive.  This isn't the same as the women's rights or black's rights movements.  

Dispite the claims by some of the "gay rights" activists, there has been no proof that being gay is genetic.  It is a choice people make in their lives, and with any choice, there are opportunities and opportunity costs.  Within the US, the opportunity cost is that you are not entitled to benefits which a married couple would be.  

I guess the best example of this would be if Jewish people (religion is a choice, not genetic) were to fight for all of their holy days to be nationally recognized and observed, requiring a whole series of changes both on the national, state, corporate, and personal level.  Would it be "fair?"  Sure, of course it would be fair to observe the holy days of Islam and any other group that would follow in their wake until it came to the point where our society comes to a gridlock and stops functioning.  

Similar is with "gay rights."  If society were to cave into the demands of a small group of people who feel repressed for their choice, we'd start seeing groups of transexuals, polygomists, etc start demanding the same exceptions till the point where the system fails.  

So, back to your example of the person being fired since he was gay, the simple solution is to check your sexual orientation at the office door when you go into work each day.  Just like people do with their religion and other affiliations.  They aren't topics or practices which are appropriate within the working environment since they can have negative impacts on the working conditions of others.  Just like with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy the military had, especially aboard naval ships.  

*I'll throw this little disclaimer in:  I'm not a homophobe, or have anything against people which choose a homosexual or bisexual lifestyle.  Nor did I plan on standing on a soapbox this morning on this topic.  Just my views on the issue, and that's probably all I have to say about it.*
MODU, while I respect your opinion (it was presented far more "logically" than the starter of this thread in terms of minorities in general), there are a few problems...

1) The "keep govt out of the bedroom" idea was a Republican idea!  What happened?  The religious right happened.

2) You make a MASSIVE leap that since there is no proof that being gay is genetic it must be a choice.  For one thing, there have been some bits and pieces of evidence suggesting that it might be genetic... or partially so.  For another thing, genetic science is in its infancy.  Just because something has not been proven to be genetic it is not safe to assume it is not genetic.  As a result, there is, likewise, no proof that being gay is a choice.

3) Even if it is a choice, you make a very correct leap to compare it to religion.  Here's my problem... I, too, don't care to get off on some major discussion about being gay.  My point was regarding simple job protection.  Not entitlements or "special" rights or anything else.  If being gay is a choice, the religion parallel is superbly correct... especially since most opposition to homosexuality comes out of religion.  Well..... it IS illegal to fire someone on the basis of religion!  The precisely same treatment should be afforded to sexual orientation.  The Republicans, in general, oppose this.  That was my point.  I'm not trying to argue for or against gay marriage, civil unions, genetics versus choice, etc, etc, etc.  I'm simply talking about job protection.  Religion, a choice, is protected.  Sexual orientation should be as well.  Period.  As for "checking it at the door", that is WAY, OVERLY simplistic.  People (co-workers, bosses, etc) CAN find out by accident... in or out of the workplace.  That's why there is legal protection based on religion and needs to be based on sexual orientation.  Your parallel is an excellent one.  Problem is, there is protection for one of the groups, but not for the other.  And Republicans solely have blocked that protection.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,031
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2004, 09:35:22 AM »


We should me for lunch.  Possibly turn DC "green" like we have with Maryland and Virginia.  hahaha
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,209
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2004, 09:39:44 AM »

Sexual orientation is determined in early infancy and in the womb. There might be a genetic component but don't count on it. (If there is, there is a parallel to eye and hair colour.) It's not deprogrammable.
 
Logged
millwx
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 08, 2004, 09:42:19 AM »
« Edited: July 08, 2004, 09:44:07 AM by millwx »


We should me for lunch.  Possibly turn DC "green" like we have with Maryland and Virginia.  hahaha
DC green?  Never.  Smiley  Maybe we can go to Delaware and try there, that's an easier prospect.  Actually, I should be "yellow" (Libertarian).  But many "yellows" are "yellow" for gun rights purposes and "blue" on most other issues.  Drives me nuts.  I have no "home".  Sad  So, I'm "green".  I'm a true "yellow" and an old fashioned "blue".  Which is funny, because it forces me to hold my nose and vote "red" most of the time.  Tongue  What happens when you mix "yellow", "red", and "blue"?  I think you just get "white".  I guess I'm just "white".  Tongue
Logged
millwx
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 08, 2004, 09:49:40 AM »

Sexual orientation is determined in early infancy and in the womb. There might be a genetic component but don't count on it. (If there is, there is a parallel to eye and hair colour.) It's not deprogrammable.
 
I agree.  But I was trying not to start that whole argument here.  Cheesy  Wink   I was trying to keep it to policies and politics... using the issue of job protection for gays.

I blame MODU Tongue, he brought up the choice versus genes issue. Wink  I was merely trying to point out that Reps don't sincerely embrace/support diversity.  They did in the 1960s (and earlier).  No longer.
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,031
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 08, 2004, 09:55:17 AM »

hehehe . . . sure, the old "Blame MODU" routine.  Wink  

Hey, I have proof that the Kerry/Edwards campaign is going all out for the "gay" vote.  Check out the drudge website:  www.drudgereport.com

"Hugs, kisses to the cheek, affectionate touching of the face, caressing of the back, grabbing of the arm, fingers to the neck, rubbing of the knees..."

(insert images of Kerry and Edwards hugging and touching during campaign stops)

"CAN'T KEEP HANDS OFF EACH OTHER"

hahaha . . . just too funny.  Smiley
Logged
millwx
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 08, 2004, 10:00:23 AM »

hahaha . . . just too funny.  Smiley
Maybe during the convention they'll share an "Al & Tipper" moment.  Cheesy
Logged
MODU
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,031
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 08, 2004, 10:03:14 AM »


Just to "seal the deal."
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2004, 01:08:12 PM »

Are any minority groups going to be angry, because Kerry had a good choices among minorities but opted for the pretty-boy white-guy instead?

or

When are minority groups finally going to realize that the Dems only talk about diversity, whereas the Republicans acctually practice it (and with qualified individuals to boot)?


Seriously though, will the Edwards pick influence minorities in any negative way?

WHo were the well qualified black candidates for Vice-President...there is not a single black Senator or Governor on either side.  Richardson was a qualified Hispanic, but from what I understand, he had other issues.

And if the Republicans actually practice diversity, where are there no black Republicans in Congress...or as Governor or Senator.  Every single black Congressman is a Democrat.  Every Asian Governor, Senator, or Congressman is a Democrat.  At least 2/3 of the Hispanic Congressmen as Democrats (I don't know the exact count).  In 2002, we will finally elect a black Senator (Obama) and a Hispanic Senator (Salazar)...both Democrats.  It there Republican diversity beyond a couple Cabinet offices?  I haven't seen any evidence.  

Carol Mosley-Braun could have been a good VP candidate, as could Bill Richardson

Colin Powell could be President.  So could Condi Rice.

On the cabinet, we have Elaine Chao, Rod Paige, Alphonso Jackson.

Where were the high ranking minorities in the Clinton Administration?  Just Richardson and he doesn't even have a Hispanic last name (not that it matters, just thought I would point it out).

Sen. Ben Nighthorse-Campbell or don't Indians count?

Then we have Mel Martinez, Vernon Robinson, J.C. Watts, Herman Cain, a whole host of local southern black politicians who have switched to the GOP.

The main reason that we see all these minority Dems in Congress is because most minorities come from areas that have been heavily Democratic since the Irish were considered a minority group and because they have these idiotic ancestral ties to the party that has simply made their lives worse.  The more they pull the lever for the Dems, the worse their lost in life has become.  Don't they realize that.  Well, acctually some do.  23% of young blacks now consider themselves Ind. so at least they are trying to flee the plantation.

And suprise suprise areas that are heavily Republican have few minorities.  So, when a J.C. Watts or a Vernon Robinson gets elected, it acctually means something, unlike the cookie cutter minorities that the Democrats stamp-out.  And, on what planet, in what country could Obama or Ford ever be President, pray tell?
Logged
I will not be your victim, I will not bathe in your flames
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 105,784
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2004, 01:09:17 PM »

who are these "good choices among minorities"? The only statewide elected official who is a minority is Bill Richardson, who Kerry seriously considered, but he refused to take the position himself. This post is making me laugh.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,468


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2004, 01:15:44 PM »
« Edited: July 08, 2004, 01:16:13 PM by Gov. NickG »


Are you seriously claiming that Carol Mosley-Braun would have been a viable VP candidate for the Dems?  Or is this just the wishful thinking of a Republican?  Irrespective of her race, Braun is completely unelectable, both for ideological reasons and because of personal scandal.   It would be like the Republicans nominating Bob Dornan, who ran a brief presidential campaign in 1996.
Logged
I will not be your victim, I will not bathe in your flames
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 105,784
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2004, 01:17:13 PM »

Carol Mosley-Braun could have been a good VP candidate, as could Bill Richardson

Kerry did ask Richardson and showed interest. Richardson said no.

Mosley-Braun would've been a good VP candidate? How is a scandal-ridden former Senator who lost her reelection bid in a heavily Democratic state to a guy who was basically hated by his own party a good VP candidate?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 08, 2004, 01:47:26 PM »

If Kerry would have pressed Richardson, he would have said yes.  Democrats don't care about scandel, so I don't see how that would hurt Braun.

What about the presious Harold Ford that all you guys are crazy about?  If Dick Gephardt can be seriously considered, why not Ford?  

What about Dianne Fienstein?  A Jewish woman.  She has more expireince and political prowess than Edwards.  If Kerry had picked her, I would have been satified because at least it would have made sense.  Or would that look too pro-Israel?

Why not Vilsack?  Polish and Catholic.  He's been a governor for 6 years so he already has more experience than Edwards.  He could bring in Iowa and shore up Pennsylvania.  A Pollock on the ticket would be huge in the area I come from.  But, I guess even a Pollock is too WASPy for well, the WASP's.  Huh

Then we have Ed Rendell.  He is Jewish, too.

I could think of some more, but....
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,468


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 08, 2004, 02:01:32 PM »

If Kerry would have pressed Richardson, he would have said yes.  Democrats don't care about scandel, so I don't see how that would hurt Braun.

What about the presious Harold Ford that all you guys are crazy about?  If Dick Gephardt can be seriously considered, why not Ford?  

What about Dianne Fienstein?  A Jewish woman.  She has more expireince and political prowess than Edwards.  If Kerry had picked her, I would have been satified because at least it would have made sense.  Or would that look too pro-Israel?

Why not Vilsack?  Polish and Catholic.  He's been a governor for 6 years so he already has more experience than Edwards.  He could bring in Iowa and shore up Pennsylvania.  A Pollock on the ticket would be huge in the area I come from.  But, I guess even a Pollock is too WASPy for well, the WASP's.  Huh

Then we have Ed Rendell.  He is Jewish, too.

I could think of some more, but....

Harold Ford is not yet 35 years old.   Once he is, he will be a highly desireable pick for a national ticket.  How is he a viable nominee if he is not even constitutionally eligible?

As for the others....how can you claim that the Dems should have two religious minorites on their ticket when the Republicans have not nominated a single religious minority once in their entire history.  

The Dems have had a female nominee, a Jewish nominee, an Orthodox nominee, and three Catholic nominees.  The GOP has never had any of these!  There may not be many black Republicans, but there are certainly Republican women and Catholics.  Where is the diversity there???
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 08, 2004, 02:45:21 PM »



Harold Ford is not yet 35 years old.   Once he is, he will be a highly desireable pick for a national ticket.  How is he a viable nominee if he is not even constitutionally eligible?

My bad.  Your right.  That's my gaffe for the week.


As for the others....how can you claim that the Dems should have two religious minorites on their ticket when the Republicans have not nominated a single religious minority once in their entire history.
We don't claim to have this great devotion to diversity that the Dems do.  We put in the most qualified people.  The Dems rail about diversity, but rarely pratice it in acctuality.  Name one high ranking minority in the Clinton Administration other than Richardson.  Vernon Jordan doesn't count either.



The Dems have had a female nominee, a Jewish nominee, an Orthodox nominee, and three Catholic nominees.  The GOP has never had any of these!  There may not be many black Republicans, but there are certainly Republican women and Catholics.  Where is the diversity there???

Ferraro was set up to fail.  You guys hate Liebermann.  I'll grant you Dukakis, but the only reason he got the nomination is because the Greek Community put him over the top in a lot of states.  Kerry is about as Catholic as Billy Graham.  Smith doesn't count, that was almost 80 years ago.  JFK was a true Catholic, but since I'm an admire of JFK I have no problem conceding it.

Once again, it maybe true that the Republicans have never fronted a minority candidate, but the Republicans don't claim that racial diversity is the one of the most important things in the world.  Still, as I have said, inspite of the fact that we have fewer minorities in our party, we have plenty of qualified minorities in key possitions.  Plenty of practicing Catholics have run or would run for the Presidency as Republicans, but since they were/would all demonized by your party, a nomination isn't likely.  Alan Keyes, Jeb Bush, Rick Santorum and a whole host of others.

I admit, that we have feilded no one, but we are working on it.  We have, however, put minorities in prominent possitions and might have a black congressman and a black Senator and possibly an Hispanic Senator, along with an Hispanic Supreme Court Justice (Estrada is headed there) and a whole host of other minorities.

But the Dems go on and on about diversity and don't seem to follow through.
Logged
I will not be your victim, I will not bathe in your flames
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 105,784
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2004, 10:58:08 PM »

If Kerry would have pressed Richardson, he would have said yes.  Democrats don't care about scandel, so I don't see how that would hurt Braun.

What about the presious Harold Ford that all you guys are crazy about?  If Dick Gephardt can be seriously considered, why not Ford?  

What about Dianne Fienstein?  A Jewish woman.  She has more expireince and political prowess than Edwards.  If Kerry had picked her, I would have been satified because at least it would have made sense.  Or would that look too pro-Israel?

Why not Vilsack?  Polish and Catholic.  He's been a governor for 6 years so he already has more experience than Edwards.  He could bring in Iowa and shore up Pennsylvania.  A Pollock on the ticket would be huge in the area I come from.  But, I guess even a Pollock is too WASPy for well, the WASP's.  Huh

Then we have Ed Rendell.  He is Jewish, too.

I could think of some more, but....

Why should Kerry pressure Richardson? He didn't want the job. End of story.

Democrats may not care much about minor sex scandals, but Braun had much more baggage.  And she doesn't help with any state. Besides, when's the last time someone who LOST their last election was picked for VP? I fail to see how someone who lost in a heavily Democratic state to a rather weak opponent is a good pick.

Ford is only 34. Ineligible.

Feinstein = Senator from state with Republican governor. Automatic disqualification in my view.

Kerry is a Catholic, but since when are Poles and Catholics minorities? Vilsack was seriously considered, but he was too unknown for the nation. Either way, he's still white.

But I thought everyone hates Rendell? Then wouldn't he not help at all with Pennsylvania? You kept talking about how he'd be such a bad choice.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,018


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2004, 11:30:15 PM »
« Edited: July 08, 2004, 11:31:09 PM by opebo »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

50 out of 8000 elected black officials in the United States are Republicans. Every single Republican ticket has always had 2 Protestant males. That's not true for the Democrats.

Harold Ford or Barack Obama could become President.  
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neither Harold Ford, nor Barack Obama, nor anyone who is not a white male can become president, at least not at the top of the ticket - lets be realistic.  And it doesn't hurt to be Protestant either.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2004, 11:52:14 PM »

If Kerry would have pressed Richardson, he would have said yes.  Democrats don't care about scandel, so I don't see how that would hurt Braun.

What about the presious Harold Ford that all you guys are crazy about?  If Dick Gephardt can be seriously considered, why not Ford?  

What about Dianne Fienstein?  A Jewish woman.  She has more expireince and political prowess than Edwards.  If Kerry had picked her, I would have been satified because at least it would have made sense.  Or would that look too pro-Israel?

Why not Vilsack?  Polish and Catholic.  He's been a governor for 6 years so he already has more experience than Edwards.  He could bring in Iowa and shore up Pennsylvania.  A Pollock on the ticket would be huge in the area I come from.  But, I guess even a Pollock is too WASPy for well, the WASP's.  Huh

Then we have Ed Rendell.  He is Jewish, too.

I could think of some more, but....

Why should Kerry pressure Richardson? He didn't want the job. End of story.

Democrats may not care much about minor sex scandals, but Braun had much more baggage.  And she doesn't help with any state. Besides, when's the last time someone who LOST their last election was picked for VP? I fail to see how someone who lost in a heavily Democratic state to a rather weak opponent is a good pick.

Ford is only 34. Ineligible.

Feinstein = Senator from state with Republican governor. Automatic disqualification in my view.

Kerry is a Catholic, but since when are Poles and Catholics minorities? Vilsack was seriously considered, but he was too unknown for the nation. Either way, he's still white.

But I thought everyone hates Rendell? Then wouldn't he not help at all with Pennsylvania? You kept talking about how he'd be such a bad choice.

Who cares?  Diversity for diversities sake is sooo important, right?  That's why we have AA, isn't it?  Isn't the Democrats' undying, heart-felt commitment to diversity one of the things that seperates you enlightened Liberals from us racist, troglodyte conservatives?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.095 seconds with 11 queries.