What About Minority Groups? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:13:47 AM
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, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  What About Minority Groups? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: What About Minority Groups?  (Read 10292 times)
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


« on: July 09, 2004, 12:43:34 AM »



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.


Its plain and simple Edwards was the most viable candidate he got the job.  Edwrads has the nost to offer.  He makes the ticket stronger in the midwest (Ohio, WI, MI) as well as the south bringing NC into play and giving Kerry a better chance in the southenr satates.  Richardson secures New Mexico and Nevada probably makes Arizona close, but not much other than that.  Mausley-Braun is in a state that the Dems will win by double digits.  When picket the VP ticket much of it is who gives the President the best chance of winning.  How exactly does someone whose influence is mainly on an very safe Dem state going to help??  I personally like Braun, but she doesn't gfive Kerry s better chance of winning.

Other than Richardson who stated he didn't want the jobs  pretty much all the other inorities who were qualified (african americans, lationo's and women) came from states that are heavily Dem to begin with
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2004, 02:36:55 AM »
« Edited: July 09, 2004, 02:37:34 AM by Smash255 »

No, why blacks are so solid Dem in the south is because in the 30-40s they were threatened to be cut off from financial benefits if they stuck with the Republican party. Black Southerners used to be solid Republican and even sent delegates to the Republican convention before 1950. The Democrats really haven't changed their motives just they way they sell it to the majority.

and the New Deal appealed to them. Why were urban blacks so heavily Democratic? and why did they stick?

It's really a moot point now anyway, anyone who doesn't realize comparing the Democratic and Republican parties of the 1800s to the parties of today is worse than comparing apples to oranges isn't worth debating with. Why don't the Republicans just quit setting up double standards and telling minorities how they should vote, and just let the opposing party and minorities handle things themselves?


Well according to all the history I've read it's been the Democrats telling the blacks how to vote. But we really don't need to use facts if you wish. Smiley

no one forces blacks to vote Democratic today. Republicans like to act like we force them into voting booths at gun point and force them to vote straight ticket D, but the fact is 90% vote straight ticket D out of THEIR OWN FREE WILL.

Obviously they are sticking to Democrats for either a) economic benefits or b) someone is preaching to them to vote Democrat. The reason I say this is because any group voting 90% for one party is ridiculous. We can't even get 50% to agree w/each other a lot of the time here on this forum. I can not contemplate that 90% of any race/gender/whatever can agree enough to vote 90% in one direction. I never said it was by gun point that's a crazy. Yes they are using their free will but are they actually thinking before they pull they lever or are they simply looking for the  (D)?
Part of it comes down to AA programs and stuff like that.  Regardess how you feel  about AA most African Americans support it, which Republicans oppose.  Other issues such as community outreach programs and other things the Democrats tend to fund meanwhile the ERepublicans want to pull funding from.  These programs African Americans highly support.  Reasons like this is  why Afdrican Americans vote heavily for Dems.  However one race voting one way isn't just an African American Dem thing.  81% of whites including 87% of White Males voted for Bush in Mississippi in 2000
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2004, 03:15:52 PM »


AA is outdated.  The opportunity-disparity between "whites" and minorities have narrowed well enough over the last two decades that we can focus on abilities and experience rather than quotas.  AA does more harm than good for both sides of the debate, and in the long run, hurts our nation.

I personally think we still need it.  The opportunity disparity is still there & has actually widened over the last couple years.  During the late 1990's  & 2000 the difference between white unemployment and minority unemployment was the smallest it has ever been, however that differerence has shot back up over the past 3 years
Logged
Pages: [1]  
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 0.027 seconds with 12 queries.