PDA

View Full Version : He's Black. She's a Woman.



Vercingetorix
08-27-2007, 12:12
Is America progressive enough in 2008 to elect a President who is Black (Barrack) or is a woman (Hillary)? The scope of this discussion is NOT "do you approve of their politics". It is NOT Republican versus Democrat. It is not I hate Hillary because of Bill. And so on... For this discussion, the positions of the candidates are irrelevant.

As I grew up, we were told "Any boy can grow up to be president". Is this true? Can we now say "Any boy or girl can grow up to be president?"

Or, if the Democrats nominate Obama or Rodham-Clinton, will they hand the Whitehouse to the Republicans without a fight?

I anticipate strong opinions here. No name-calling. Fight fair.

Discuss.

georoc01
08-27-2007, 12:21
I think the right woman or black or hispanic could win, but they will have an uphill battle to pull it off. Given the breakdown of the electoral college, both sides know which states are the swing states and its down to a handful on either side that make a difference.

How about religion? It was a big deal when a Catholic won in John Kennedy. Do the Republicans have the same issue if they nominate a Morman in Romney?

And then you have the political background issue. Can a Senator finally break through and win? Its been a long time. As a country we prefer leaders that have had some executive position like a governorship. That may be a bigger issue for Clinton and Obama than their sex or color of their skin.

Osprey
08-27-2007, 12:23
It's hard to say for me. I'm more worried about the stupidity of "you didnt vote because you're racist" or "you didnt vote because you're sexist" instead of accepting that people like the candidate for WHO they are, not WHAT they are.

Formerly 45yroldNewbie
08-27-2007, 12:24
I think the country is ready for someone like Obama to be president. What I mean by "someone like" is a black non-raidical (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton type). I also think it would go a long way to continue melting down some of the racial differences still alive and well in this country. I truly beleive that if Colin-Powell would have run, regardless of party, he would have won hands down.

However I don't think a woman would be able to get elected as president for quite a while yet. Not that I think a woman couldn't handle the job, I just don't think the country is ready for that step.

Just my humble opinion.

Vercingetorix
08-27-2007, 12:27
georoc01,

Your points are well made. I remember the Kennedy being a Catholic issue (yes, I'm that old). Romney being a Mormon would be an issue.

The Excutive issue, I'd also not thought of. But then, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush Sr. were not chief executives. Reagan, Carter, Clinton, and Bush Jr were.

greyzen
08-27-2007, 12:29
I am so torn on this argument.

Personally, I feel no preference based on race/sex (I'm white male) but I honestly don't think our country is ready to accept a non-white leader. I still firmly believe that there is a strong undercurrent of:
"They are good people, as long as they stick to their own"

While I don't personally agree with this opinion, I think it exists.

creggur
08-27-2007, 12:30
I think either could win (not that I would want either of them to)... I would hope that would be the case anyway... I'm 36, from the south, conservative, and I don't care about race or gender. I want someone who can do the job...Period.

ReefHound
08-27-2007, 12:34
I think America is ready for either a woman or a black President. I have not sensed any opposition to Hilary or Obama over these issues. More fuss has been made over Obama's name and presumed religion than anything else. And Hilary... well she's just polarizing.

dallasdivergirl
08-27-2007, 12:42
I hope America is ready for either.
I hope to be able to tell my nieces & nephews that I got to help elect someone who made a difference despite race or color.
But living here & where I grew up I do know neither state is ready.

greyzen
08-27-2007, 12:48
I hope America is ready for either.
I hope to be able to tell my nieces & nephews that I got to help elect someone who made a difference despite race or color.
But living here & where I grew up I do know neither state is ready.

Yeah Dallas, we're in the same boat :(

I would LOVE to be able to stand up and say "Yes we are ready" for a new kinda president, but unfortunately I don't think it is the case :smiley13:

reservecops
08-27-2007, 12:55
The scope of this discussion is NOT "do you approve of their politics".In other words, let's make this an issue of race or gender, which it is not.

You can not ask if we'll elect someone based on race or gender, because most intelligent people are not that single-sighted when it comes to voting.


Is America progressive enough in 2008 to elect a President who is Black (Barrack) or is a woman (Hillary)?No. The majority of American voters are (still) not willing to allow this country to be turned into a bastion of social, political, and economic failure. At least I HOPE they're not that clueless.

creggur
08-27-2007, 12:59
No. The majority of American voters are (still) not willing to allow this country to be turned into a bastion of social, political, and economic failure. At least I HOPE they're not that clueless.

My fear is that many would vote for either one based solely on their race and gender, or just to say they are being "progressive", without having a clue what their stance on policy actually is...

reservecops
08-27-2007, 13:00
I hope America is ready for either.
I hope to be able to tell my nieces & nephews that I got to help elect someone who made a difference despite race or color.
But living here & where I grew up I do know neither state is ready.That's because EVERY politician claims the same thing - "Vote for ME - Vote for CHANGE!".

My father held (local) political offices many years ago. He was out city's Mayor for many years.

From his years of political experience, he told me something about politics that has endured, and is just as accurate today as it was hundreds of years ago:

In politics, the only things that change are the names and the faces.

:smiley2:

georoc01
08-27-2007, 13:05
georoc01,

Your points are well made. I remember the Kennedy being a Catholic issue (yes, I'm that old). Romney being a Mormon would be an issue.

The Excutive issue, I'd also not thought of. But then, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush Sr. were not chief executives. Reagan, Carter, Clinton, and Bush Jr were.

I guess the other part as serving as a VP. Nixon and Bush Sr. were, and Johnson was a sitting president running for re-election taking over for Kennedy.

John F. Kennedy was the last one. Ford was, but he was never elected, just appointed. Prior to that, you have to go back to Warren Harding to find a sitting Senator that moved into the Presidency. And even he was a LT Governor.

I think crossover can be a big factor. Its why California Republicans like Reagan and southern democrats like Carter, Clinton and even Johnson have to bridge the gap across the red/blue states.

This is going to be an interesting year in politics. With the accelerated primary schedule, there is a good chance that we will know the winners of each party's primary season by the first week of February. That means we are going to have a general election campaign for 8 months. That's a very long time to di-sect two candidates.

reservecops
08-27-2007, 13:14
My fear is that many would vote for either one based solely on their race and gender, or just to say they are being "progressive", without having a clue what their stance on policy actually is...You are exactly correct.

I challenge anybody, regardless of political party affiliation, to pick a half dozen or so acquaintences and ask them who they would vote for if the election were held today.

Then, ask them to tell you (in at least some moderate form of detail) what their candidate's position is, on at least three or four major issues BESIDES the hot button issues like abortion, immigration or gun control. I'm talking issues like tax reform, welfare, social security, jobs, government reform, free trade policies, foreign policy, the environment, education, corporations, or the economy. Odds are, few will be able to cite their stance correctly on any issues besides the ones that get BIG attention in the media,

Then ask them if they can cite ANY piece of legislation (that was passed into law) that their candidate was instrumental in WRITING (not just supporting or signing on someone else's work).

The bottom line is: most people WILL vote for someone because of race or gender, or because of one or two issues. And that is truly sad.

The problem is, had they done a little research on the candidate (and his/her past actions), they would see that, although they agree on one or two issues, they are completely opposite on many OTHER important issues that will affect their life.

Too many Americans rely upon soundbites on the evening news and front page headlines (without reading the articles) in the mainstream papers to make their voting decisions for them. Sad, but true.

greyzen
08-27-2007, 13:20
You are exactly correct.

I challenge anybody, regardless of political party affiliation, to pick a half dozen or so acquaintences and ask them who they would vote for if the election were held today.

Then, ask them to tell you (in at least some moderate form of detail) what their candidate's position is, on at least three or four major issues BESIDES the hot button issues like abortion, immigration or gun control. I'm talking issues like tax reform, welfare, social security, jobs, government reform, free trade policies, foreign policy, the environment, education, corporations, or the economy. Odds are, few will be able to cite their stance correctly on any issues besides the ones that get BIG attention in the media,

Then ask them if they can cite ANY piece of legislation (that was passed into law) that their candidate was instrumental in WRITING (not just supporting or signing on someone else's work).

The bottom line is: most people WILL vote for someone because of race or gender, or because of one or two issues. And that is truly sad.

The problem is, had they done a little research on the candidate (and his/her past actions), they would see that, although they agree on one or two issues, they are completely opposite on many OTHER important issues that will affect their life.

Too many Americans rely upon soundbites on the evening news and front page headlines (without reading the articles) in the mainstream papers to make their voting decisions for them. Sad, but true.


One of my friends told me his parents and sister voted in last round of elections.
They voted for bush based on the follow platform (No I am not kidding):
1) He hates gays, just like god.

That was the entire reason... I almost cried.

loudgonzo
08-27-2007, 13:20
As long as the US never elects someone like this....

http://www.maniacworld.com/what-is-she-talking-about.html

then we're all good.

creggur
08-27-2007, 13:32
Then, ask them to tell you (in at least some moderate form of detail) what their candidate's position is, on at least three or four major issues BESIDES the hot button issues like abortion, immigration or gun control. I'm talking issues like tax reform, welfare, social security, jobs, government reform, free trade policies, foreign policy, the environment, education, corporations, or the economy. Odds are, few will be able to cite their stance correctly on any issues besides the ones that get BIG attention in the media,

.

This would be to easy during the primary's..
Republican - pick the stance most to the right..
Democrat - pick the stance most to the left...

Everybody runs to their respective corners during the primary to have a shot at winning. After the primaries they all run back to the middle.
All you have to do to see how fake they all are, is just pay attention a little bit. They contradict themselves so often it's actually amusing.
Of course they never really get called on it, so they get away with it, over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over..........

Osprey
08-27-2007, 14:49
One of my friends told me his parents and sister voted in last round of elections.
They voted for bush based on the follow platform (No I am not kidding):
1) He hates gays, just like god.

That was the entire reason... I almost cried.

That makes me want to puke, it bugs the hell out of me when people put hate before intelligence, or reason

greyzen
08-27-2007, 15:27
One of my friends told me his parents and sister voted in last round of elections.
They voted for bush based on the follow platform (No I am not kidding):
1) He hates gays, just like god.

That was the entire reason... I almost cried.

That makes me want to puke, it bugs the hell out of me when people put hate before intelligence, or reason
I whole heartedly agree...

I find it almost intolerable that people can't look beyond one opinion to see another.

I told my friend to tell them that he felt people who hated were evil and see if they could see the irony.

scubasavvy
08-27-2007, 16:18
Anyone but Hillary...

porsche060
08-27-2007, 16:23
Is America progressive enough in 2008 to elect a President who is Black (Barrack) or is a woman (Hillary)? The scope of this discussion is NOT "do you approve of their politics". It is NOT Republican versus Democrat. It is not I hate Hillary because of Bill. And so on... For this discussion, the positions of the candidates are irrelevant.

As I grew up, we were told "Any boy can grow up to be president". Is this true? Can we now say "Any boy or girl can grow up to be president?"

Or, if the Democrats nominate Obama or Rodham-Clinton, will they hand the Whitehouse to the Republicans without a fight?

I anticipate strong opinions here. No name-calling. Fight fair.

Discuss.


Your question is biased. Any man or woman of any race could be elected. However I hope it won't be Obama (Mr. Fake) vs Clinton (Ms. Socialist/Communist)

We need someone like Reagan. Problem is I dont see it. Even Ron Paul is a big porker though he claims otherwise

porsche060
08-27-2007, 16:24
Also what does progressive have to do with anything? We elected woman and minorities as senators, governors, etc.

porsche060
08-27-2007, 16:26
I hope America is ready for either.
I hope to be able to tell my nieces & nephews that I got to help elect someone who made a difference despite race or color.
But living here & where I grew up I do know neither state is ready.

You want to elect someone who can bring socialism to the US. Great, you would of made a difference. But your neices and nephews might say thanks alot!

porsche060
08-27-2007, 16:29
Can anyone name some things Obama has done?

greyzen
08-27-2007, 16:29
Can we kinda move away from personal views on the candidates?
I'm not in charge or even that knowledgeable I just know these kinda conversations tend to get very difficult to retain friendliness :)

greyzen
08-27-2007, 16:30
Can anyone name some things Obama has done?

You know you can edit your previous post and add stuff to it right? :P

dmdoss
08-27-2007, 17:04
If you want to make a true difference elect a libertarian.

Vercingetorix
08-27-2007, 17:30
If you want to make a true difference elect a libertarian.I knew there was something I respected about you (besides MOF).

Vercingetorix
08-27-2007, 17:33
Your question is biased. Any man or woman of any race could be elected. However I hope it won't be Obama (Mr. Fake) vs Clinton (Ms. Socialist/Communist)Name-calling, not supported by empirical data.

The question is: all things being equal, can a minority be elected? Not is it legallly available (it is). But, is America ready?

Splitlip
08-27-2007, 17:38
If you want to make a true difference elect a libertarian.
:smilie40:

porsche060
08-27-2007, 17:41
Is America progressive enough in 2008 to elect a President who is Black (Barrack) or is a woman (Hillary)? The scope of this discussion is NOT "do you approve of their politics". It is NOT Republican versus Democrat. It is not I hate Hillary because of Bill. And so on... For this discussion, the positions of the candidates are irrelevant.

As I grew up, we were told "Any boy can grow up to be president". Is this true? Can we now say "Any boy or girl can grow up to be president?"

Or, if the Democrats nominate Obama or Rodham-Clinton, will they hand the Whitehouse to the Republicans without a fight?

I anticipate strong opinions here. No name-calling. Fight fair.

Discuss.


So would you vote for Janice Rogers Brown?

If its progressive to vote for a female or minority, why didn't democrates vote for a minority female?

JANICE ROGERS BROWN, 56
Based: Washington. Now: U.S. appeals court judge, D.C. Circuit. Background: Law degree from the University of California at Los Angeles in 1977. Was deputy in charge of the civil and criminal divisions of the California attorney general's office and was legal affairs secretary for California Gov. Pete Wilson from 1991 to 1994. First African-American woman to serve on the California Supreme Court. The skinny: Daughter of an Alabama sharecropper. She told U.S. senators during her confirmation hearings for the appeals court seat that she likes to "stir the pot" to make people think. In speeches, she has criticized affirmative action and has called big government an "opiate." She was among President Bush's judicial nominees who were blocked by Democrats until a deal was struck in May between 14 Democratic and Republican senators that ended a filibuster.

porsche060
08-27-2007, 17:43
Your question is biased. Any man or woman of any race could be elected. However I hope it won't be Obama (Mr. Fake) vs Clinton (Ms. Socialist/Communist)Name-calling, not supported by empirical data.

The question is: all things being equal, can a minority be elected? Not is it legallly available (it is). But, is America ready?

America is ready for anyone who has the right values. Why does it have to be Obama or Clinton?

America has elected many minorities over the years

I find it interesting that you want to seperate people by sex and race. I think of them as a politician not in that way.

So what state do you live in?

porsche060
08-27-2007, 17:44
Your question is biased. Any man or woman of any race could be elected. However I hope it won't be Obama (Mr. Fake) vs Clinton (Ms. Socialist/Communist)Name-calling, not supported by empirical data.

The question is: all things being equal, can a minority be elected? Not is it legallly available (it is). But, is America ready?

How is it not supported by empirical data?

Hillary wants govt health insurance for all, higher tax rates for the people who work and at one time a 10% 401k tax. Isn't that socialism?

Vercingetorix
08-27-2007, 17:51
How is it not supported by empirical data?

Hillary wants govt health insurance for all, higher tax rates for the people who work and at one time a 10% 401k tax. Isn't that socialism?
Perfect. That's what I wanted you to say. Now, you're throwing some data into the fray.


So what state do you live in?Look to the left, below my avatar.

The question concerning separating into race and sex is based upon the leading Deomcratic Party contenders.

But, I return to the original question (see above).

porsche060
08-27-2007, 17:53
You say will the US elect for a black man or woman. But they been elected governors, congressman, senators, supreme court justices. So I don't see what your trying to ask.

Will the US elect a democrat who is also a black male or a woman?

Vercingetorix
08-27-2007, 17:57
Will the US elect a democrat who is also a black male or a woman?Read slowly:

Is America ready to elect as President a minority?


FYI...Supreme Court Justices are not elected, they're appointed.

porsche060
08-27-2007, 18:10
Will the US elect a democrat who is also a black male or a woman?Read slowly:

Is America ready to elect as President a minority?


FYI...Supreme Court Justices are not elected, they're appointed.

Yes, just not your version of a minority.

Vercingetorix
08-27-2007, 18:19
Yes, just not your version of a minority.And what, pray tell, is MY version?

The current top contenders, who happen to be minorities, are Black and a female. Hence, I limited my discussion and question to those two. If there were other top-contender minorities represented, then they would be within scope.

If the Democratic Party nominates Obama or Rodham-Clinton, will that nominee win the Presidential election? Or, will race be the deciding factor that allows the Republicans to retain the White House?

Try to stay on target, please.

Foo2
08-27-2007, 18:22
This is getting ugly fast...boys go to your corner and take a water break.....whether that be a "red" or "blue" corner. Muahhahahahahahaha

greyzen
08-27-2007, 18:26
Or create another topic just to contain this conversation...

Can't we all just talk about diving again?! :(

Or maybe, not pad our posts counts by using our whole argument in one nicely formatted thread?!

dmdoss
08-27-2007, 18:27
This is getting ugly fast...boys go to your corner and take a water break.....whether that be a "red" or "blue" corner. Muahhahahahahahaha


What corner does that leave me? I'm Libertarian.

Foo2
08-27-2007, 18:28
This is getting ugly fast...boys go to your corner and take a water break.....whether that be a "red" or "blue" corner. Muahhahahahahahaha


What corner does that leave me? I'm Libertarian.

Good question.....ummmmm.....what about white? hehehe!

dmdoss
08-27-2007, 18:31
This is getting ugly fast...boys go to your corner and take a water break.....whether that be a "red" or "blue" corner. Muahhahahahahahaha


What corner does that leave me? I'm Libertarian.

Good question.....ummmmm.....what about white? hehehe!


Doesnt white represent purity? Don't know if that would fit.:smiley36:

Foo2
08-27-2007, 18:33
This is getting ugly fast...boys go to your corner and take a water break.....whether that be a "red" or "blue" corner. Muahhahahahahahaha


What corner does that leave me? I'm Libertarian.

Good question.....ummmmm.....what about white? hehehe!


Doesnt white represent purity? Don't know if that would fit.:smiley36:

Oh heavens.....how did I not think of that....you can choose...yellow or black.

Vercingetorix
08-27-2007, 18:39
I'm Libertarian as well, politically and philosophically.

The question was not to debate, but rather are we ready as a society to open the office of President up? That's it. Nothing to get ugly about. That's why I prefaced this thread with no name-calling. I don't want ugly. I hate ugly. Leave personalities of posters out of it. And, so far, we have done so.


Can't we all just talk about diving again?! :(That's why we are in Surface Interval, not a sub-forum dedicated to a diving topic.

On the other hand, if this turns ugly, then kill the thread. I'm not trying to be controversial.. You'll note that I have stated no position. I'm trying to serve as a moderator of the discussion, not a participant.

Queen
08-27-2007, 18:55
I don't think this country is ready to elect a person of color or a woman.

That being said...If either of the two you mentioned show me they've got what it takes to lead the country then I'll do everything I can help make it happen.

texarkandy
08-27-2007, 21:09
Is America progressive enough in 2008 to elect a President who is Black (Barrack) or is a woman (Hillary)?

Oh Boy!!! Politics!!!! What fun!!!! (can we do religion next? sex has been done already I think.)

Interesting you throw the term "progressive" in the mix there (which nowadays is usually considered tobe a polite way of saying "liberal democrat")

How about this - is America "progressive" enough in 2008 to elect a president who is a black woman (Condi Rice comes to mind)

(Personally, Ron Paul's still getting my support!)

Liv7301
08-27-2007, 21:22
I have some of the same frustrations as a few people here...

I am a social liberal/fiscal conservative so not only do I not have a party, but since I am in a massively Republican-dominant area I always feel so skeptical that my vote really is going to do much for any of the rare candidates that I would support.

FishFood
08-27-2007, 21:35
Oh Boy!!! Politics!!!! What fun!!!! (can we do religion next? sex has been done already I think.)

Interesting you throw the term "progressive" in the mix there (which nowadays is usually considered tobe a polite way of saying "liberal democrat")

A winner on both accounts.

I never think of "progressive" as a good word these days.

scuba Widow
08-27-2007, 21:58
I personally do not feel that America is ready for either minority in the Oval Office. Personal beliefs of the general public are too narrow minded to accept it.

This election should not be black and white but red, white and blue.

porsche060
08-28-2007, 07:00
I personally do not feel that America is ready for either minority in the Oval Office. Personal beliefs of the general public are too narrow minded to accept it.

This election should not be black and white but red, white and blue.

How can you say that when governors, senators and reps have been elected time and time again that are minorities and females. Is it the US is too narrow minded till we elect a Democrat to the presidency?

porsche060
08-28-2007, 07:02
BTW: I support the candidate. I rather a conservative Democrat rather then a RINO....

I could easily support Janis Rogers Brown, Condi Rice, etc. But I need to know where they stand on the issues..

Hillary is against vouchers. Shouldn't kids be able to get an education?

Vercingetorix
08-28-2007, 07:47
How can you say that when governors, senators and reps have been elected time and time again that are minorities and females. Please do not make this personal by attacking another poster. We want to encourage discussion (not argument, not even debate). Posters should not have to defend themselves, unless they make spurious accusations.

In this case, Scuba Widow referred specifically to the Presidency, which is where this topic began. Nobody questions that other offices have been filled by minorities. The topic is the Presidency.

thank you.

porsche060
08-28-2007, 08:09
I don't see how that sentence by itself is a personal attack. His/her response was that people are too narrow minded to elect a minority to the presidency. However not far from the presidency is governor, senator, and rep. In some cases the governor has more influence in people lives then the president. So to say my response was off.

Besides one becomes president usually by first being governor/senator/rep. As more and more females and minorities get elected it will mean more of them to be elected president.




How can you say that when governors, senators and reps have been elected time and time again that are minorities and females. Please do not make this personal by attacking another poster. We want to encourage discussion (not argument, not even debate). Posters should not have to defend themselves, unless they make spurious accusations.

In this case, Scuba Widow referred specifically to the Presidency, which is where this topic began. Nobody questions that other offices have been filled by minorities. The topic is the Presidency.

thank you.

porsche060
08-28-2007, 08:11
Also when scubawidow said the the public beliefs of American are narrowminded that should be defended. Are you the owner of the board that says I can't respond?

"Personal beliefs of the general public are too narrow minded to accept it. "

I come from NY where everyone gets along. Color and gender should not matter and do not matter to most people. It's more the candidate.

Hemlon
08-28-2007, 08:16
I WISH we were ready for either of those candidates to be in office but I just don't see it happening.

It looks to me like we'll have another Republican in office. My hope is that the next one doesn't request (and receive!) blind following in relation to this blasted war as I'm about to have a dog in the fight. (My son is due to leave for Iraq in a couple of months.)

Vercingetorix
08-28-2007, 09:25
Are you the owner of the board that says I can't respond? I come from NY where everyone gets along. Color and gender should not matter and do not matter to most people. It's more the candidate.

I'm simply trying to maintain a civil discussion.

You also assert that in NY, everyone gets along. A rather broad statement considering the very high crime statistics in NYC. In upper state NY, the crime is lower.

Did you see what I did there? I questioned the statement without attacking you. I brought in some facts to validate my hypothesis that it was a broad assertion. This keeps the discussion civil and non-inflammatory.

creggur
08-28-2007, 09:33
I'm about to have a dog in the fight. (My son is due to leave for Iraq in a couple of months.)

Politics aside, I just wanted to extend a thanks to your son for his service..I've had family members over there basically since the beginning.
I talked to my cousin, a Marine Sniper the other day, and according to him, despite the news that we get here, things are getting better over there..
I hope so, and prayers out to your family and particularly your son for a safe tour, and return!!

greyzen
08-28-2007, 09:36
And he did so without ever pointing to the "ST-Forum Mod" title sitting under his name. (Which in a way does kinda give him the same as owner status for editing posts.)

georoc01
08-28-2007, 09:47
Are you the owner of the board that says I can't respond? I come from NY where everyone gets along. Color and gender should not matter and do not matter to most people. It's more the candidate.

I'm simply trying to maintain a civil discussion.

You also assert that in NY, everyone gets along. A rather broad statement considering the very high crime statistics in NYC. In upper state NY, the crime is lower.

Did you see what I did there? I questioned the statement without attacking you. I brought in some facts to validate my hypothesis that it was a broad assertion. This keeps the discussion civil and non-inflammatory.


I wouldn't even say that about Upstate NY. I know when I lived in Rochester, we had a murder rate around 60-70 per year. I moved to Portland Oregon, a larger city which had about 13 a year. Now I live in Denver where we have closer to 40. I think the more you have, the less its reported in the media and the less you will hear about it.

As far as racism goes, it still exists, just much more subtle. School Districts are broken down by suburb and are small enough that no integration really happens. I grew up in a school district where we had about 1000 students in the high school and maybe 20 were black. A few miles down the road, the city school district had a school district which had the opposite ratio.

Nowadays, people send their kids to private schools to avoid the integrated ones. While that action is to get their kids the best education they can, it does cause a racial divide as most minorities can't take that option.

And education is the big factor. A democracy can't function properly with out an educated electorate.

I think the best way for the country to cross this boundry is to have a minority/female vice president who can then run off an incumbant's coat tails.

dallasdivergirl
08-28-2007, 09:48
I agree with you about not feeling that my vote counts in this state as well.


I have some of the same frustrations as a few people here...

I am a social liberal/fiscal conservative so not only do I not have a party, but since I am in a massively Republican-dominant area I always feel so skeptical that my vote really is going to do much for any of the rare candidates that I would support.

Vercingetorix
08-28-2007, 11:00
can't function properly with out an educated electorate.

I think the best way for the country to cross this boundry is to have a minority/female vice president who can then run off an incumbant's coat tails.Tried with Geraldine Ferraro. Unfortunately, Mondale was at top of the ticket and the press went after her husband. Maybe somtime in the near or distant future again.

reservecops
08-28-2007, 11:37
The question concerning separating into race and sex is based upon the leading Deomcratic Party contenders.Based on your line of questioning and your follow ups, you appear to fall, politically, on the left side of the aisle.

It comes as no surprise to me that people who want other people to make a decision on a candidate based NOT on position or issue, but on race or gender, also come from the left.

Just an observation.

yankeefan21
08-28-2007, 11:40
Is America progressive enough in 2008 to elect a President who is Black (Barrack) or is a woman (Hillary)?

For this discussion, the positions of the candidates are irrelevant.
I would like to think America is progressive enough to vote for the most qualified candidate regardless of race or gender. I know that within my circle of friends and colleagues, that's how it works. Then again, I work for a University so diversity is celebrated here and people tend to be a bit more open minded.

For that reason, I don't think I can have a very meaningful discussion on politics or whether or not I would vote on a candidate without discussing the candidates' positions.

I will tell you this; I wouldn't vote for someone just BECAUSE they were black or white or male or female or kryptonian...

For the record, I'm a libertarian. I took an interesting poll prior to the last presidential election that tried to match me up with a candidate based on my personal opinions on certain issues. The interesting part of the poll was the result, which pretty much reinforced what I was thinking; regardless of who won [Bush or Kerry] I was 52% sure the country would be headed in the wrong direction!

reservecops
08-28-2007, 11:44
If the Democratic Party nominates Obama or Rodham-Clinton, will that nominee win the Presidential election? Or, will race be the deciding factor that allows the Republicans to retain the White House?Based on your choice of words, if the Democratic Party nominates Hillary or Obama AND they lose to the Republican candidate, it MUST have been due to race or gender.

I disagree with your presumption. It won't be based on race or gender, which makes the question irrelevant.


Try to stay on target, please.You load up a question with the only two results being (a) America is Progressive or (b) America is Racist/Sexist. Nice job ... not ... :smiley21:

awap
08-28-2007, 11:52
Or a candidate's demographics may effect the voting behavior of select segments of the population and have a favorable effect on the outcome.

reservecops
08-28-2007, 11:56
How can you say that when governors, senators and reps have been elected time and time again that are minorities and females. Please do not make this personal by attacking another poster. We want to encourage discussion (not argument, not even debate). Posters should not have to defend themselves, unless they make spurious accusations.

In this case, Scuba Widow referred specifically to the Presidency, which is where this topic began. Nobody questions that other offices have been filled by minorities. The topic is the Presidency.No offense, but I would strongly disagree with labeling THAT as a 'personal attack'.

porsche060 attacked a position, not a person.

A personal attack would have been something along the lines of:

"I think you're an idiot/moron/jerk for saying blah blah blah ..."

I'm certainly not attempting to tell you how to do your job, but I've been involved (as a SysOp, Moderator, and participant) of online discussion forums and BBS's dating back to the late 1980's, and in my humble opinion, this could not have been any FURTHER from a personal attack.

porsche060
08-28-2007, 12:16
can't function properly with out an educated electorate.

I think the best way for the country to cross this boundry is to have a minority/female vice president who can then run off an incumbant's coat tails.Tried with Geraldine Ferraro. Unfortunately, Mondale was at top of the ticket and the press went after her husband. Maybe somtime in the near or distant future again.


It's not the gender but the quality of the person. She was running against a Pres Reagan ticket, one of the most popular presidents of all time.

As you said Mondale was at the top of the ticket. I had liberal professors who were ashamed of the Jimmy Carter presidency;Mondale being his VP did not help.

Ferraro herself was weak candidate. After the election the (Democrat) House Ethics Committee officially criticized her mishandling of campaign finances. She couldn't win a Senate Primary in NYS twice!

yankeefan21
08-28-2007, 12:22
She couldn't win a Senate Primary in NYS twice!
This is true. Yet Hillary Clinton is a "can't lose" as a "carpet bagger." Go figure!

Vercingetorix
08-28-2007, 12:30
It's not the gender but the quality of the person. She was running against a Pres Reagan ticket, one of the most popular presidents of all time.
I agree. The Reagan juggernaut was a force to be reckoned with. I looked forward to him becoming the Grand Old Man of the Grand Old Party. Unfortunately, that was not to be.

Vercingetorix
08-28-2007, 12:42
Based on your line of questioning and your follow ups, you appear to fall, politically, on the left side of the aisle.
Libertarian, politically, philosophically, economically.


It comes as no surprise to me that people who want other people to make a decision on a candidate based NOT on position or issue, but on race or gender, also come from the left.

Just an observation.And, inflammatory at that.

I didn't ask for participants to choose a candidate. Rather, I asked, is America ready ready to select a Black or a Female if he/she is otherwise qualitifed? Hence, my statement that positions were irrelevant to this discussion.

Kingpatzer
08-28-2007, 13:20
Personally, I'd like to believe that it doesn't matter, but I just don't think that's the case.

I really suspect that regardless of party, there's enough bigotry in the USA for a minority or female candidate to face a significant up-hill battle based on race or gender.

What's really fascinating is that much of that bigotry will come from those sharing the characteristics being prejudged. Women tend to be far harsher on Clinton and blacks tend to be far harsher on Obamma than the general population is. I'm not sure why that is, but I'm pretty sure it's an accurate observation.

yankeefan21
08-28-2007, 13:32
Perssonally, I'd like to believe that it doesn't matter, but I just don't think that's the case.
What gives me hope is that I remember how HUGELY popular Colin Powell was following Desert Storm. If he had decided to run back in 1996, he would have won in a landslide.

kevinj1
08-28-2007, 13:57
i really think anyone can be President, regardless of race orsex. I think everything is based on your backgroud and what you have done in the past.

yankeefan21
08-28-2007, 13:58
i really think anyone can be President, regardless of race orsex. I think everything is based on your backgroud and what you have done in the past.
And name recognition. And who your parents are. And how much money you've got... :smiley2:

kevinj1
08-28-2007, 14:00
i really think anyone can be President, regardless of race orsex. I think everything is based on your backgroud and what you have done in the past.
And name recognition. And who your parents are. And how much money you've got... :smiley2:

yes, a lot of truth to that yankeefan..

Harshal
08-28-2007, 14:03
I think should not matter both of them are US Citizen and gender and race should not be the deciding factor.
If we consider race and gender as deciding factor, then we are worst then 3rd world countries.
Look at the world even in developing nations women have led the countries. So why should they not get a chance in US.

Kingpatzer
08-28-2007, 14:13
I think should not matter both of them are US Citizen and gender and race should not be the deciding factor.

If we consider race and gender as deciding factor, then we are worst then 3rd world countries.

Look at the world even in developing nations women have led the countries. So why should they not get a chance in US.



I don't think anyone is saying it should matter, just pointing out that it does.

Heck, from the day radio was invented, what you sounded like became more important than what you said. From the day TV started airing candidates, how you looked became more important than either what you sounded like or what you said.

Today, it's all about the slick 5-second sound bites and avoiding "you tube" moments.

There has not been any real substance to political discussion in this country for a long time, it's entirely superficial.

The more I think about this, the more I'm not sure exactly why it should bother us more that some candidates are being judged superficially, when it is a point of fact that all candidates are being judged superficially.

We haven't had a real political debate between candidates in this country in decades. Any candidate who makes a nuanced, well-thought out argument for or against a particular issue is summarily ignored for the guy with the better smile and the nicer suit.

From a purely devil's advocate perspective: given our total lack of interest in anything that actually matters to political discourse in the first place, what is exactly more wrong with judging people on these superficial criteria over and above the entire remainder set of other superficial criteria we use to judge the value of political candidates?

creggur
08-28-2007, 14:27
And name recognition. And who your parents are. And how much money you've got... :smiley2:

While this has a lot of truth to it, Clinton didn't really have any of these prior to becoming President.

He certainly didn't grow up wealthy, he was a little-known Governor of a small state. The money didn't really come until later on, and the money that got him elected was raised campaign money, not personal wealth...

I was not, nor have ever been a Clinton supporter. Just merely sighting an example in recent history where someone rose from humble beginnings to the White House..

yankeefan21
08-28-2007, 15:04
And name recognition. And who your parents are. And how much money you've got... :smiley2:

While this has a lot of truth to it, Clinton didn't really have any of these prior to becoming President.
While that is a fair and valid point, you have to admit that is the exception rather than the rule. Cases in point:
The Bushes, The Kennedys [I'm including Bobby in this], The Rossevelts, The Adams, Reagan, Grant, Jefferson, etc.

Hemlon
08-28-2007, 15:12
I'm about to have a dog in the fight. (My son is due to leave for Iraq in a couple of months.)

Politics aside, I just wanted to extend a thanks to your son for his service..I've had family members over there basically since the beginning.
I talked to my cousin, a Marine Sniper the other day, and according to him, despite the news that we get here, things are getting better over there..
I hope so, and prayers out to your family and particularly your son for a safe tour, and return!!

Thank you! May your family be safe as well!

:)

creggur
08-28-2007, 15:34
While that is a fair and valid point, you have to admit that is the exception rather than the rule. Cases in point:
The Bushes, The Kennedys [I'm including Bobby in this], The Rossevelts, The Adams, Reagan, Grant, Jefferson, etc.


I fully admit it's the exception to the rule, just pointing out that even today it is possible..

plot
08-28-2007, 21:03
i read some poll somewhere that americans were more likely to vote for a black man than a white woman... next in line was a jewish person i think. they were least likely to vote for an athiest.

scuba Widow
08-28-2007, 21:31
I don't see how that sentence by itself is a personal attack. His/her response was that people are too narrow minded to elect a minority to the presidency. However not far from the presidency is governor, senator, and rep. In some cases the governor has more influence in people lives then the president. So to say my response was off.

Besides one becomes president usually by first being governor/senator/rep. As more and more females and minorities get elected it will mean more of them to be elected president.




How can you say that when governors, senators and reps have been elected time and time again that are minorities and females. Please do not make this personal by attacking another poster. We want to encourage discussion (not argument, not even debate). Posters should not have to defend themselves, unless they make spurious accusations.

In this case, Scuba Widow referred specifically to the Presidency, which is where this topic began. Nobody questions that other offices have been filled by minorities. The topic is the Presidency.

thank you.

I just wanted to say that you are entitled to to opinion just as I am...however, you have misunderstood my post....I have not disclosed my preference in candidates nor will I, because who I vote for is my own business as your vote is yours. I did not state that people were too narrow minded to elect a minority as President, but that they are to narrow minded to accept it, and there is a big difference in the two statements. I feel that we live in a country that is so diverse that prejudgements are unavoidable, the difference is that no one wants to admit that of themselves.

awap
08-28-2007, 22:32
[quote=porsche060;38056]...people are too narrow minded to elect a minority to the presidency.

"Minority" may not be the term we want to use here. Sen. Clinton is, I believe, in the gender majority; at least among eligible voters. Would "Demographicly Challenged" be more PC?

reservecops
08-28-2007, 22:42
[quote=porsche060;38056]...people are too narrow minded to elect a minority to the presidency.

"Minority" may not be the term we want to use here. Sen. Clinton is, I believe, in the gender majority; at least among eligible voters. Would "Demographicly Challenged" be more PC?Politically and sociologically, "minority" does not refer to a 'numerical' minority (lack of plurality). Even if a female population is greater than the male population in a geographic region, they are still a sociological minority in every one that I am aware of.

"Minority" refers to a sociological minority and the disadvantages a group has when compared to the more powerful "dominant" group, such as those involving employment, education, social status, wealth, and - in this case - political power.

scuba Widow
08-28-2007, 22:43
[quote=porsche060;38056]...people are too narrow minded to elect a minority to the presidency.

"Minority" may not be the term we want to use here. Sen. Clinton is, I believe, in the gender majority; at least among eligible voters. Would "Demographicly Challenged" be more PC?

You know I actually like that "Demographicly Challenged", because different areas of the country will vote differently.

reservecops
08-28-2007, 22:50
Just an observation.And, inflammatory at that.No, not at all. Looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of your statements. No big deal, really.

porsche060
08-29-2007, 08:09
[quote=porsche060;38056]...people are too narrow minded to elect a minority to the presidency.

"Minority" may not be the term we want to use here. Sen. Clinton is, I believe, in the gender majority; at least among eligible voters. Would "Demographicly Challenged" be more PC?Politically and sociologically, "minority" does not refer to a 'numerical' minority (lack of plurality). Even if a female population is greater than the male population in a geographic region, they are still a sociological minority in every one that I am aware of.

"Minority" refers to a sociological minority and the disadvantages a group has when compared to the more powerful "dominant" group, such as those involving employment, education, social status, wealth, and - in this case - political power.


So you are saying females are disadvantaged? You should use that line on a date. I don't believe that at all. Aren't there more females in universities then males these days?

Charlotte Smith
08-29-2007, 08:15
Anyone but Hillary...
Hasn't she already had her chance?????

texarkandy
08-29-2007, 10:30
Is America progressive enough in 2008 to elect a President who is Black (Barrack) or is a woman (Hillary)? The scope of this discussion is NOT "do you approve of their politics". It is NOT Republican versus Democrat. It is not I hate Hillary because of Bill. And so on... For this discussion, the positions of the candidates are irrelevant.

As I grew up, we were told "Any boy can grow up to be president". Is this true? Can we now say "Any boy or girl can grow up to be president?"

Or, if the Democrats nominate Obama or Rodham-Clinton, will they hand the Whitehouse to the Republicans without a fight?

I anticipate strong opinions here. No name-calling. Fight fair.

Discuss.

How 'bout this for an answer to your question:

In America today, a black/female/mormon/whatever presidential candidate is likely to "get" about as many votes based soley on their race/gender/religion/whatever as votes they will "lose" based solely on their race/gender/religion/whatever.

(with the exception of an openly homosexual, muslim, or atheist candidate of course - they don't have a snowballs chance in regardless of their political/social positions/policies/agenda)

greyzen
08-29-2007, 10:35
So you are saying females are disadvantaged? You should use that line on a date. I don't believe that at all. Aren't there more females in universities then males these days?

No he was saying socially women are considered a minority. And you would be surprised how many women would agree with him.
Women have to work twice as hard to receive half the paycheck in business.

It is true they are minority, most business is run by men and the 'old boys' network.

greyzen
08-29-2007, 10:37
How 'bout this for an answer to your question:

In America today, a black/female/mormon/whatever presidential candidate is likely to "get" about as many votes based soley on their race/gender/religion/whatever as votes they will "lose" based solely on their race/gender/religion/whatever.

(with the exception of an openly homosexual, muslim, or atheist candidate of course - they don't have a snowballs chance in regardless of their political/social positions/policies/agenda)

So now gay-jewish-black guy candidates, is what your saying? :smiley36:


Seriously, I would think that person would have more to lose by running for president than not. Imagine the level of threat generated by someone with that mixture. Every anti-semitic/racists/sexist/supremacy group would be chomping at the bit to get at that person.

reservecops
08-29-2007, 11:06
So you are saying females are disadvantaged? You should use that line on a date. I don't believe that at all. Aren't there more females in universities then males these days?Again, we're not referring to the word 'minority' in a numerical context. We're talking about a sociological context.

Regardless of numbers, females ARE disadvantaged. For example, consider the 'glass ceiling' that stops them from moving to the top management tiers in most companies. Consider that women are, in fact, paid less than men in most equal situations. Consider that, when a company is looking to promote a candidate and one is male and the other is female, the female may be passed over if the company believes she might - at some point in the future - want to focus on getting pregnant and becoming a mother - something that would negatively affect her availability to the company.

In today's society, women - who are a numerical majority - are still a minority (disadvantaged when compared to the dominant group: white males).

Just because there are MORE of something doesn't mean that they, as a group, are NOT "disadvantaged". Re-read my earlier post.

Buoyant1
08-29-2007, 11:16
At this point, I don't care who wins...I just want someone that's going to make things more logical and fair-er to the American people!

I hate the politics of politics...I think we need to become a self-sufficient nation, embrace OUR heritage and become a little more judicious with who we let in to stay, and better at getting rid of those that shouldn't.

Small businesses are getting beaten up by BIG businesses, importing is become a problem (i.e. China and their lead paint issue) and they are planning to make Hershey bars in Mexico!

Someone needs to make this country better, I don't care if his name is Obama (which "rhymes" with Osama) and he's not "caucasion" or if it's a woman...even if it IS Bill's wife. or some dimwit that we haven't met yet...someone needs to do it, and fast!

awap
08-29-2007, 11:23
Just because there are MORE of something doesn't mean that they, as a group, are NOT "disadvantaged". Re-read my earlier post.

Hence the term "demographically disadvantaged".

creggur
08-29-2007, 11:45
Someone needs to make this country better!

If you are expecting one person to do this, I'm afraid you are in for quite a wait.

Vercingetorix
08-29-2007, 17:29
So what are we seeing as a consensus here? Is the country ready or not ready for a Black or a Woman to assume the Presidency (assuming...I repeat, assuming...that either is qualified)? Or, are we not yet open to non-white or female candidate?

I know other elective offices are filled by both; but, let's limit discussion to the Presidency.

FishFood
08-29-2007, 17:33
So what are we seeing as a consensus here? Is the country ready or not ready for a Black or a Woman to assume the Presidency (assuming...I repeat, assuming...that either is qualified)? Or, are we not yet open to non-white or female candidate?

I know other elective offices are filled by both; but, let's limit discussion to the Presidency.

The consesnsus seems to be the country is ready, but who is going to come right out and say "I wouldnt vote for him because he's black, or her because she's a woman"? Nobody, because they would get flamed to death...

Kinda like asking a Klan member, who is standing in the middle of the hood, if he is rasict....

Vercingetorix
08-29-2007, 17:56
The consesnsus seems to be the country is ready, but who is going to come right out and say "I wouldnt vote for him because he's black, or her because she's a woman"? Nobody, because they would get flamed to death...

Kinda like asking a Klan member, who is standing in the middle of the hood, if he is rasict....Well spoken. So we have a crisis in courage of conviction.

scuba Widow
08-29-2007, 21:13
The consesnsus seems to be the country is ready, but who is going to come right out and say "I wouldnt vote for him because he's black, or her because she's a woman"? Nobody, because they would get flamed to death...

Kinda like asking a Klan member, who is standing in the middle of the hood, if he is rasict....Well spoken. So we have a crisis in courage of conviction.

That is a very true statement....if people could be true to themselves without ridicule...than maybe Americans could be truly free to choose for theirselves.

Queen
08-29-2007, 21:14
Well spoken. So we have a crisis in courage of conviction.

Nah, the voting booth is anonymous. Only in a public place like a forum will people fail to stand by their convictions for fear of being thought badly of by people they want to like them...except the trolls. :D

yankeefan21
08-31-2007, 13:11
Well spoken. So we have a crisis in courage of conviction.

Nah, the voting booth is anonymous. Only in a public place like a forum will people fail to stand by their convictions for fear of being thought badly of by people they want to like them...except the trolls. :D
Actually, I have to find this article I read online. The basic jist is that they took a poll of a certain number of people to see if they would vote for a woman. Then, they compared those results to the actual voting results [they thought the votes were confidential]. The outcome showed that women were far more likely to say the would vote for a woman but far LESS likely to actually do it.

I have to find this link!!

georoc01
08-31-2007, 13:22
Well spoken. So we have a crisis in courage of conviction.

Nah, the voting booth is anonymous. Only in a public place like a forum will people fail to stand by their convictions for fear of being thought badly of by people they want to like them...except the trolls. :D
Actually, I have to find this article I read online. The basic jist is that they took a poll of a certain number of people to see if they would vote for a woman. Then, they compared those results to the actual voting results [they thought the votes were confidential]. The outcome showed that women were far more likely to say the would vote for a woman but far LESS likely to actually do it.

I have to find this link!!

Well, I would have never guessed that Hillary would have become a Senator from NY. She is from Connecticut and her political life was in Arkansas! Yet she won a senate seat in NY twice. I wouldn't underestimate her ability to win a general election if she gets the nomination.

yankeefan21
08-31-2007, 13:40
Well, I would have never guessed that Hillary would have become a Senator from NY. She is from Connecticut and her political life was in Arkansas! Yet she won a senate seat in NY twice. I wouldn't underestimate her ability to win a general election if she gets the nomination.
Yeah. That's the scary part. Her popularity is unfounded and unsettling and that has NOTHING to do with her sex.

porsche060
08-31-2007, 19:29
Well, I would have never guessed that Hillary would have become a Senator from NY. She is from Connecticut and her political life was in Arkansas! Yet she won a senate seat in NY twice. I wouldn't underestimate her ability to win a general election if she gets the nomination.
Yeah. That's the scary part. Her popularity is unfounded and unsettling and that has NOTHING to do with her sex.


But NY got tricked by RINOS (Rudy and Pataki) who didn't care about making sure a new generation stepped up; as a result that helped the Democrats gain a foothold.

Now the voters don't care. Look at Spitzer. His aides are doing illegal things and they got away with it. Bloomberg is a disgrace and all bout charging the $$$ out of you in fees, trying to do congestion pricing ($20 in tolls) and increase the train fare.

reservecops
08-31-2007, 23:19
Newt Gingrich for President. Enuf said.

Divegirl
08-31-2007, 23:31
I think America is almost ready, however , not being really involved in the whole political think, I vote, but for now I have given up the news until my son arrives safe from Iraq.

However, to the subject, I am not sure that other countries will have the respect or will have confidence in a women to negotiate with. We have to remember MANY countries do not allow their women to be as outspoken as WE AMERICA WOMEN!!!

scuba Widow
08-31-2007, 23:35
I think America is almost ready, however , not being really involved in the whole political think, I vote, but for now I have given up the news until my son arrives safe from Iraq.

However, to the subject, I am not sure that other countries will have the respect or will have confidence in a women to negotiate with. We have to remember MANY countries do not allow their women to be as outspoken as WE AMERICA WOMEN!!!


I want to take this time to say to you and your family you have our prayers that you son comes home safe. I also want to Thank You and your son for your sacrifice.

FishFood
08-31-2007, 23:54
I think America is almost ready, however , not being really involved in the whole political think, I vote, but for now I have given up the news until my son arrives safe from Iraq.

However, to the subject, I am not sure that other countries will have the respect or will have confidence in a women to negotiate with. We have to remember MANY countries do not allow their women to be as outspoken as WE AMERICA WOMEN!!!

Dive girl makes a good point...

Every muslim nation will have another reason to hate us....

creggur
09-01-2007, 06:59
I think America is almost ready, however , not being really involved in the whole political think, I vote, but for now I have given up the news until my son arrives safe from Iraq.

Politics aside, I want to personally thank your son for his service, and extend wishes and prayers that he returns safely!!



However, to the subject, I am not sure that other countries will have the respect or will have confidence in a women to negotiate with. We have to remember MANY countries do not allow their women to be as outspoken as WE AMERICA WOMEN!!!

I think in some ways this actually could work to our advantage. While they would never admit it, a woman in power can be quite intimidating. Our last general manager was the nicest woman in the world, but you DID NOT want to be on her bad side....I just don't think Hillary is the right woman for the job...

creggur
09-01-2007, 07:03
Dive girl makes a good point...

Every muslim nation will have another reason to hate us....

Good, I say we elect Condi Rice...Then they'll have to deal with a black woman, whom when they read her resume, they will realize that she is waaaaaaaay smarter than them. On top of that, being a "crazy republican" they'll never know when she'll pull out a can of whoopasss on 'em!!

FishFood
09-01-2007, 08:11
Dive girl makes a good point...

Every muslim nation will have another reason to hate us....

Good, I say we elect Condi Rice...Then they'll have to deal with a black woman, whom when they read her resume, they will realize that she is waaaaaaaay smarter than them. On top of that, being a "crazy republican" they'll never know when she'll pull out a can of whoopasss on 'em!!

Heh, That'll work for me....

quarrydiver
09-10-2007, 20:18
Sorry, I thought this thread was about an adult movie...

PlatypusMan
09-10-2007, 21:54
Sorry, I thought this thread was about an adult movie...

Yup.

I was expecting something like:

He's Black. She's a Woman.
Together They Fight Tooth Decay.

:smilie40:

Vercingetorix
09-11-2007, 12:13
However, to the subject, I am not sure that other countries will have the respect or will have confidence in a women to negotiate with.What?? May I remind you:
Golda Meir
Margaret Thatcher

Israel and Great Britain...where the men are MEN and the women are war-time prime ministers.


Every muslim nation will have another reason to hate us....Do they NEED another reason? They are taught from the time they are children to hate the US. Thus, this is a non-point.

J-Cub
09-12-2007, 13:34
Interesting discussion..... but I have to wonder - Does it matter who gets elected because the parties tell the politician what to do anyway.

divingmedic
09-12-2007, 13:55
I don't see how that sentence by itself is a personal attack. His/her response was that people are too narrow minded to elect a minority to the presidency. However not far from the presidency is governor, senator, and rep. In some cases the governor has more influence in people lives then the president. So to say my response was off.

Besides one becomes president usually by first being governor/senator/rep. As more and more females and minorities get elected it will mean more of them to be elected president.




How can you say that when governors, senators and reps have been elected time and time again that are minorities and females. Please do not make this personal by attacking another poster. We want to encourage discussion (not argument, not even debate). Posters should not have to defend themselves, unless they make spurious accusations.

In this case, Scuba Widow referred specifically to the Presidency, which is where this topic began. Nobody questions that other offices have been filled by minorities. The topic is the Presidency.

thank you.
There is a big difference in running a state than running this country. It takes a whole different leadership style.

divingmedic
09-12-2007, 13:57
Interesting discussion..... but I have to wonder - Does it matter who gets elected because the parties tell the politician what to do anyway.
No it is not the "parties" that tell them what to do, it is the "special interests" that tell them what do to. We elect this yahoo's to office and then those putting money in their pockets tell them what to do and how to do it.

jwdizney
09-12-2007, 15:07
As I grew up, we were told "Any boy can grow up to be president". Is this true? Can we now say "Any boy or girl can grow up to be president?"


NO. any boy or girl CANNOT grow up to be president. not anymore! the problem today is that the MEDIA has become a political tool and leaders are not judged so much on their abilities and accomplishments as they are judged on their failures and shortcomings.... some of the best leaders i have know could never be president because of "skeletons" in their closet. Colin Powell, who I thought to be a very intelligent, capable military leader, refused to run for president, not because he didn't think he could perform the job, but because he didn't want his family dragged through the media sideshow of all his shortcomings....

on the other hand, the politicians with the manipulative skills to control the media, and a posse of loyal 'yes' men to help cover their tracks, are more likely to succeed at a nomination than one with lesser manipulative skills. it doesn't really matter Democrat or Republican liberal or conservative.... core values fall victim to political skills.....

just my thoughts... I still vote for who I think is the best of what we have to choose from, just frustrating that the truly great leaders often miss the ballot.......

AggieDad
09-12-2007, 15:20
You are exactly correct.

I challenge anybody, regardless of political party affiliation, to pick a half dozen or so acquaintences and ask them who they would vote for if the election were held today.

Then, ask them to tell you (in at least some moderate form of detail) what their candidate's position is, on at least three or four major issues BESIDES the hot button issues like abortion, immigration or gun control. I'm talking issues like tax reform, welfare, social security, jobs, government reform, free trade policies, foreign policy, the environment, education, corporations, or the economy. Odds are, few will be able to cite their stance correctly on any issues besides the ones that get BIG attention in the media,

Then ask them if they can cite ANY piece of legislation (that was passed into law) that their candidate was instrumental in WRITING (not just supporting or signing on someone else's work).

The bottom line is: most people WILL vote for someone because of race or gender, or because of one or two issues. And that is truly sad.

The problem is, had they done a little research on the candidate (and his/her past actions), they would see that, although they agree on one or two issues, they are completely opposite on many OTHER important issues that will affect their life.

Too many Americans rely upon soundbites on the evening news and front page headlines (without reading the articles) in the mainstream papers to make their voting decisions for them. Sad, but true.


One of my friends told me his parents and sister voted in last round of elections.
They voted for bush based on the follow platform (No I am not kidding):
1) He hates gays, just like god.

That was the entire reason... I almost cried.

My wifes family are what I call Yellow Dog Democrats. I asked my mother in law that if Bill Clinton came on TV, having sex with a ten year old girl, and said vote for me, what would she do. "I would vote for him because he is a Democrat".
Goes both ways.

I personally would like to see a civics test administered for anyone to be able to vote. :smiley11:

Vercingetorix
09-13-2007, 09:35
I personally would like to see a civics test administered for anyone to be able to vote.Or even a very basic intelligence test. There are some people I would prefer that they don't vote. They are simply too dangerous to be trusted with that.

I feel the same way about jury duty. You look around at the other potential jury members or talk to them, and you think "I feel sorry for the defendant. "Jury of peers"? Hah!

I've also heard about folks that vote the straight party line, regardless of the candidates' qualifications. Scary.

PlatypusMan
09-13-2007, 09:49
I personally would like to see a civics test administered for anyone to be able to vote.Or even a very basic intelligence test. There are some people I would prefer that they don't vote. They are simply too dangerous to be trusted with that.

Reminds me of an old Usenet signature line:

There are people who believe that Elvis is alive and Bigfoot exists, and that UFOs regularly kidnap and do terrifying things to their bodies.

Some of them own guns and nearly all of them can vote.

georoc01
09-13-2007, 10:09
I personally would like to see a civics test administered for anyone to be able to vote.Or even a very basic intelligence test. There are some people I would prefer that they don't vote. They are simply too dangerous to be trusted with that.

I feel the same way about jury duty. You look around at the other potential jury members or talk to them, and you think "I feel sorry for the defendant. "Jury of peers"? Hah!

I've also heard about folks that vote the straight party line, regardless of the candidates' qualifications. Scary.

Didn't they do this in the 50's in the south?

Vercingetorix
09-13-2007, 12:57
Didn't they do this in the 50's in the south?Don't know about that. They did have a poll tax, though, to limit the electorate. Thank God, that was removed.


There are people who believe that Elvis is alive and Bigfoot exists, and that UFOs regularly kidnap and do terrifying things to their bodies.And you're implying...what? I mean...I've seen Elvis...and Bigfoot. Mind you, I was at 125 ffw. So they must be divers, too. Wouldn't have been able to see them if not for the big, bright light that flying saucer was pointing at them that penetrated the darkness of the depth.

Platy, you were my DM for my AOW deep dive, so you KNOW I don't get narc'ed.

georoc01
09-14-2007, 11:53
As I grew up, we were told "Any boy can grow up to be president". Is this true? Can we now say "Any boy or girl can grow up to be president?"


NO. any boy or girl CANNOT grow up to be president. not anymore! the problem today is that the MEDIA has become a political tool and leaders are not judged so much on their abilities and accomplishments as they are judged on their failures and shortcomings.... some of the best leaders i have know could never be president because of "skeletons" in their closet. Colin Powell, who I thought to be a very intelligent, capable military leader, refused to run for president, not because he didn't think he could perform the job, but because he didn't want his family dragged through the media sideshow of all his shortcomings....

on the other hand, the politicians with the manipulative skills to control the media, and a posse of loyal 'yes' men to help cover their tracks, are more likely to succeed at a nomination than one with lesser manipulative skills. it doesn't really matter Democrat or Republican liberal or conservative.... core values fall victim to political skills.....

just my thoughts... I still vote for who I think is the best of what we have to choose from, just frustrating that the truly great leaders often miss the ballot.......

There was never a time where it was like that. It started when we put a clause in our constitution to keep Alexander Hamilton from being president. Its the same one that keeps the Governator from running.

Vercingetorix
09-14-2007, 17:39
There was never a time where it was like that. It started when we put a clause in our constitution to keep Alexander Hamilton from being president. Its the same one that keeps the Governator from running.Der Governator grew up in Austria; therefore, my original assertion stands.

That said, I believe the naturalization clause should be removed to permit ANY American citizen (natural or naturalized) to assume the Presidency.

quarrydiver
09-15-2007, 09:14
I hate to be the one to break it to you. Even "educated" people vote along party lines. Maybe what we should do is just not have elections because if only educated people will vote, we would all pick the same candidate? Do we really think that educated people don't vote in the same way most others vote? To serve their own interests. I am educated in history and this has been done before.

Capt Hook
09-15-2007, 12:28
Don't thonk we are ready for a black, a woman maybe but still doubtful. Don't think Romney will be nominated, Mass. allows same-sex marraige and that will not play in the south.

Suther2136
09-15-2007, 21:07
Don't thonk we are ready for a black, a woman maybe but still doubtful. Don't think Romney will be nominated, Mass. allows same-sex marraige and that will not play in the south.

I disagree, I think we are ready for a young articulate black man rather than a white water Washington insider takes money from all the PAC's cast iron B$#%@$%. But that's just me. Actually I think we're ready for a woman too, just not Hillary!

dbsea
01-02-2008, 09:28
If we can't get Kinky Friedman for pres, why not vote for Ron Paul.

fyrediver
01-02-2008, 10:10
Soap opera for the masses. "Don't follow leaders/watch the parking meters." Bob Dylan summed that one up, a while ago. I'm something along the lines of a libertarian, and I always vote, but I'm writing MY name in next time, it does that much good. The Democrats "swept," to power, and among other things, were going to stop the war, well, whatever. :smiley36: politicians from both sides of the isle, own stock in these Government contractors, that are feeding off of the Militarys budget. Its called, "money laundering," if you get caught doing it outside of government. You can get mad, and call me a bushy or whatever, but just google up the scandal that Dian Fienstien got into last summer, steering money to the government contractor her hubby holds principle share in, as she tells you she's against the war:smiley2: ( you can find plenty more if you care to, just one for effect.)This, is coming from a Military man, and I don't get into "conspiracy," theroys, its factual stuff. Vote for whomever you like, I've got no bias, as to a black person, or a woman, being whatever. When I get home? I have some house chores to do, and I'm going to take the Equipment repair specialty whilst I withdraw from tropical diving. Politics? feh, Bob Dylan per the above. Vote as you wish, or write in, "Fryediver." peace!:smiley20:

Goober
01-02-2008, 11:21
Wow! I'm actually tired now.

Garrobo
01-02-2008, 13:31
I think that a white woman would have a better chance of being elected as the president than a black male. I am sure that there are those in the Republican party who are on their knees, praying at night, that Barak Hussein Obama wins the Democrat primary. Let me back up. Let's say 'any white woman other than Hillary Clinton'. I am of the opinion that Hillary can be beaten in the 2008 election, as can Obama, by a Republican. Depends on what's in the news the weeks before the election. Lots of people (other than dedicated, knee-jerk, hard-core Dems and Repubs) don't make up their minds completely until just before the election. I'm not one of them. One poster mentioned Colin Powell as being unbeatable. The NRA would have ripped him to shreds if he had run. Anyway, his wife wouldn't let him run since she figured that he would go down like MLKing. Personally, I quit voting Democrat when I was about 40 years old which is the time that I started to realize what the party really stood for. Before, I was a rabid supporter of the Democrat party, being a union man and all. Seems that as you get older and you have time to wake up and think 'for yourself' about what's going on around you and where your money's going, you sort of wise up. If there was a white or black woman or black male running on the Republican ticket, I would be prone to vote for either of them because to get there they would surely agree with my position on the issues. Otherwise they would never have gotten that far. As for the question as to whether a black could be elected to the presidency at this time? I don't think so.

BuzzF117
01-02-2008, 15:11
I would have vote for Libby Dole, Margaret Thatcher, Shemane Nugent (Teds wife), Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coultre(maybe) all great conservative women. Not 100% about Condi Rice's politics but she would be my vote over a Hillary. Oh yeah conservative women are hotter(had to throw in a pig comment)

Garrobo
01-03-2008, 10:53
Yeah, man. Golda Myere (sp?) was HOT! How about Elanor Roosevelt on the other side. Really hot. Eh?

Matt P
01-03-2008, 11:16
Yes, I believe this country is ready for that. As a matter of fact I could see Hillary or Barrak being elected BECAUSE of their race or gender. I personally would not vote for either b/c I disagree with their politics. Force me to choose one and I'll take Barrak simply b/c the guy actually takes a stance on politics. Hillary is completely inexperienced and is not capable of taking a stance and committing to it.

How about a black woman? I'd vote for Condoleeza Rice in a minute especially if running against Barrak or Hillary.

Matt P
01-03-2008, 11:28
I would have vote for Libby Dole, Margaret Thatcher, Shemane Nugent (Teds wife), Michelle Malkin, and Ann Coultre(maybe) all great conservative women.I'm a conservative for sure. But, I couldn't ever vote for Coultre. She's a divisive and some times mean spirited person. The country really needs someone who doesn't buy into the R's vs D's smackdown. I think in general most people are good and have a lot more in common than the 2 parties purport. But, it is in the best interest of both parties and special interest groups to push this hatriolic attitude & cause divisiveness. That is how you get people to vote simply based on R and D instead of evaluating individual candidates.

BuzzF117
01-03-2008, 14:02
I really think Obama is in a no lose situation here because if he losses the nomination he will most likely run for the govenership if Illinois and most likely win thus setting himself up even better in coming election cycles for president.

Matt P
01-03-2008, 14:17
I really think Obama is in a no lose situation here because if he losses the nomination he will most likely run for the govenership if Illinois and most likely win thus setting himself up even better in coming election cycles for president.If Hillary gets the nod from the D's I wonder if Obama might even consider running as Veep.

skippy11
01-03-2008, 22:28
[/quote]If Hillary gets the nod from the D's I wonder if Obama might even consider running as Veep.[/quote]

Good Question. could be a touchy situation. we would then have the minority's on a team together. Could turn into a lose situation based on the racist/sexist votes against them. Guess we will have to wait and see.:smilie40: