Vote for women! Vote for blacks! No more whites in power!

No. I’m male myself, but would vote for a woman, because I think the male influence is already sufficiently presented: I think a country would be better governed if there would be a balanced consideration of all relevant views. So I would vote for increasing such a balance (again, all other things being equal).

I’m not advocating that you vote for an exact copy of yourself. In fact with respect to ‘white males’ I’m advocating the opposite of that. But then, this is a purely academic statement at the present moment. You probably have voted for white male candidates all your life simply because there was no alternative.

Both. It’s especially annoying (IMHO) when white people feel that way, but I’m sure there are some blacks who think white political power deserves more credit than what’s due.

I think the issue at hand is WHY you have to have an IVY League education, or be rich to enter the presidential race.

I think it’s fairly well known and agreed upon that politics is corrupt, and becoming more and more openly corrupt as time marches on. If this is not agreed upon then those not in agreement must be looking upon politics with rosier glasses than I am.

To enter the presidential race you need a lot of support and backing from all and sundry. Why is this? Why is it such a popularity contest that must be fueled by money and behind the scenes agreements and you scratch my back, and down the line I’ll scratch yours? I think most people have heard of the Potomac two step, and understand it’s meaning, and it’s utterly infuriating.

These people we elect are supposed to represent us, and have our best interests at heart and to be brutally honest and frank about it, they don’t. You know it. I know it, and it’s an accepted truth amongst everyone. Hell, they get elected on platforms and promises that they never keep. How can that be an allowed privilige? Yes elect me, I’ll reform, A, B and C. 3 years down the line, not one promise has been kept, and that’s all ok is it? Then there are the arguments as to why the promises are not kept. Oh, this party kept forcing my hand, reality and circumstance intruded upon my reforms, and there was never time to complete or even begin them.

Really? Why the F not? You are a politician. You’ve risen as high up the political ladder by playing the game, so you basically are aware WHAT you CAN achieve and what you cannot, so don’t sit there all smug and tell me why you were unable to keep your election promises, it won’t wash with me. But they do exactly that, time and time again, and the public allows them. And GOD FORBID any of them are ever held under a microscope and are brought forth to answer as to WHY they’ve not kept their promises, because all they’ll offer is soundbites that’s ran by the media and spun one way by one broadcast service, and spun another way by another service. And once again, we’re all ok with this because we expect to be screwed.

Politicians are not chosen for their track record, their chosen by how good they look or sound on camera. Never again would we ever elect a Churchill, or a Roosevelt, because they were ugly, uncouth individuals. No, that time is past, now you have to be pretty and wealthy, and able to walk all over your opposition with ease. We respect that. Apparently.

And then we wonder why the electable positions are full of wealthy white men, who go golfing together, who do back door deals together, who’ve been in business together for years before their political ideals or careers were struck and cast forth. They go into politics because it will BENEFIT THEM. NOT US. NEVER THE PEOPLE THEY ARE APPARENTLY CHOSEN TO REPRESENT.

Not only is the above true, but we KNOW it’s true. We’ve come to accept it to be a truth, and we elect people to office now, and we HOPE they’ll do something for us. We know for SURE they’ll do something for themselves, but we hope whilst they’re doing that, that they will look upon the lowly denizens below them and they’ll kindly consider some of our questions and pleas and maybe, just maybe make decisions that will benefit those who elected them to high positions of power.

It’s sickening, and it’s no wonder there are less candidates from minority groups, or from women candidates, because they simply not on the same level playing fields that these other politicians inhabit.

They make laws that they appear to choose out of a lucky bag. They don’t consider the majority view point, nor do they appear to try to represent the entire nation with it’s wishes and demands. They simply please themselves. They grow richer and they openly make deals that will benefit themselves and their friends, or colleagues. Occasionally one of these deals is trotted out as if to show some scandal, and what occurs? We all ooh and ahh, and say: Hey yeah, now there’ll be justice! And what happens? In most cases, NOTHING. Small fine, slap on the wrist, and right back to what they were doing 2 minutes before the apparent scandal was brought to light. And we ALL KNOW THIS. And again, we’re all apparently ok with this once more. Why? Because even IF we were NOT ok with this, what can we do about it? Why, let’s see…

I can tell everyone else, around me, how unfair it is, and why it’s wrong. They’ll agree, and? Yep, and we all know it’s corrupt, get used to it.

We can enter into politics, and… Yep, without money, power or influential friends, you’re going nowhere. And if you make those friends, why, you’ll have to comprise those ideals that brought you to the table in the first place, because… Because it’s just the way it has to be. No compromise, no support, no support, no political career, no career, no ability to change the political scene that we all know is corrupt.

Maybe, just maybe, you can enter politics with some money behind you and still remain honest. Yep, it’s possible, unlikely but let’s say it’s possible. What then? Why every other politician around you will find some way to dig into your past. Mount smear campaigns, they’ll close ranks, and you’ll be back to square one, because… Yes that’s right! You don’t play the game! You’re an honest politician! WOW! What a concept, and they’ll make damn sure you’re getting screwed because there is NO WAY that you’re about to make politics a sane, sanitised career choice that is chosen by those people who will try to do some good for the community, for the state, and the nation that elects them with that very thing in mind. Goodness no.

It truly makes me sick.

Logic.

This getting to be academic. How often are canidate’s views equally close to your views? Maybe they legitimatley have for you, but it’s been my experance that if anyone saying that does more research they’ll change their tune. It’s a complex world with many complex issues.

I interesting how you just assume I’m a white male and that I have always voted for white males. I’m more Latin/Native American then white for one thing. For another I have voted for women. Not because they were women but because they were the canidate I thought would run the goverment the way I wanted it ran.

Very well said LogicinMotion. If we had more people who feel as you do we would be alot better off.

netscape6, I’m sorry if I have accidentally stepped on your toes.

As I said, it is indeed an academic standpoint. I’m just stating my preferences and my reasoning behind it, and why I do think that it would be better if other people followed the same reasoning. I am not thinking any less about people who feel differently. I hope I am at least allowed to voice my standpoint here: did I use any bad words when speaking about people who have different standpoints? In that case, my apologies, I didn’t mean it that way. I had hoped it would be permitted to say something which I personally feel, do not believe to be racist (which is the word you used, I didn’t want to use it) or in any way socially unacceptable, and am not proselyting about. Apparently I was mistaken. :frowning:

I most certainly did not assume you were white, the fact that you only stated you were male was a sure tip-off. My statement was precisely intended only to say that quite often there is no choice in this respect. Hence my carefully worded conditional statement.

In the interest of full disclosure: I do not live in the U.S., and am not much aware of the range of options you have in elections. The presidential elections were foremost in my mind since the president allegedly ‘runs’ the country, and AFAIK there has never been any other option there than a white male.

I’m sorry that I have apparently offended you and I suggest we stop the hijacking of this thread right now. :frowning:

I should say so. I’ve not met any fellow whites who think that way, but the reason i was asking was, that if it’s blacks, that surprises me.

(hope that made sense, :smiley: it’s time for bed for me).

Tusculan You have’nt offended me. I apologize for making it sound like you did. It was one of things I’ve said meaning one thing and it comes off different. You know what I mean? Rereading your post I you did state all other things being equal. In my groggy sleepy (but what a night wahoo!) state I failed to notice that.

On another note a couple of people apologizing in the pit, leap day certainly is strange.

The whole thread didn’t show up and I really wanted to have the OP in here, but the title will have to do.

What is fairness? Voting for someone because of the race? Looking at the title

It doesn’t sound fair to me to say ‘no more whites in power’ It would be entirly different of the OP was saying ‘consider voting for women and blacks based on issues not gender/race’ But they don’t say that at all.
You may not blindly follow, but there are many who do, such orginizations will try to appeal to both - which can only be expected as I don’t know any canidate who will shun the blind followers.

Lets get back to fairness, and for that matter race/sexism. On a individual level are we permitted to be race/sexist in this ‘free’ country? In other words can we choose to date/marry someone based on race? Can we choose what checkout line to stand on based on gender? Can we select our friends based on either, of our own free will? And is this selection ‘wrong’? Are we fair as individuals?

Now I think we will agree that Gov’t should be more un-racist/sexist then an individual should be. I would argue that state sponcered race/sex based advantages (AKA affermiative action) is the worst type of racism/sexism since it is the entity which we need the most color/race blind, is promoting race/sexism.

There is the argumnet that AA is for fairness, but how does denying someone who scores higher on a civil service test work in favor of a less qualified canidate? How does this help the public who this ‘less qualified’ person is suppose to serve? And how is this fair to our society in general in the long run? If you want to argue that the testing procedure is somehow unfair then I can accept that and lets change the test, not take the underqualified canidate simply due to race/gender.

I’d vote for Condoleeza Rice. If we put her up in 2008, the Demos will respond with Hillary Clinton. Hillary would have an initial advantage, but in the long run I think Rice would take it by a nose, picking up a higher-than normal percentage of the urban vote.

That might breakl the Democrat stranglehold on those areas, too.

Cite? Which organizations? Any stastical information/analysis on/of people who vote this way?

It is my opinion that this issue is a big 'ole strawman stuffed like a piñata. I am, however, open to changing my mind should any credible evidence be presented.

presidebt

Huh? I’m not sure I understand what you are asking, are you asking for a cite that people just vote having no idea of the canidates stand on the issue (i.e. just voting party lines), if so I would demand a cite from you that people don’t vote this way.

Please explain further?

The main cite I’m looking for regards the “organizations” you claimed would appeal to both mindless followers and people like me. You may include a cite on voters if you wish, and it would incumbant on you (as opposed to me) to do so, as you are the one claiming people do something. I’m not claiming this is dead wrong, without a doubt. What I am saying is that that hasn’t been my experience. The claim-maker provides the evidence in every good discussion I’ve engaged in.

cite enought?

Okay, maybe I’m missing something, but what exactly does an article on election fraud, which doesn’t make any reference to female/black candidates, a valid cite in this argument? To quote the whole paragraph:

If I’m missing something, please, explain further. Otherwise, it reeks of sloppy research and grasping at straws.

[QUOTE=LogicinMotion]
I think the issue at hand is WHY you have to have an IVY League education, or be rich to enter the presidential race.
Well, you don’t have to have an Ivy Leagure education. However the ruling class in America (translate $$$) usually educates their off-spring at the best schools.

And you can enter the presidential race without a lot of money, Sharpton and Nader are two good examples. Having a snowball’s chance is another thing entirely.

The wealthy aren’t inclined to give up that advantage. Look at what happened with Senator Fred Thompson and his work on campiagn finance reform - the Republicans were all set to go after Clinton for his campaign finances then they took a look at what it would lead to - all of a sudden it wasn’t such a good idea anymore.

Look presidebt you throw up the old cite on something that I see is along the lines of me saying that people enjoy sunbathing, then have the odasity to say I am the one making the claim that people do something and it is incumbant on me to provide a cite.

Lets use a little logic here, to win a campain you must get more votes then your competition. To do so you can either increase the votes for you or decrease the votes for someone else. Lets focus on the 1st one. To increase the votes for you, you can:

a) pursade ‘swing voters’ based on issues - you admit to being part of this ‘group’ so I don’t think I have to prove anything here.

or

b) Get people who will likely vote for you if the actually go and vote to go and vote - this is exactly why I provided the cite I did. Unless you are willing to suggest that buying a homeless person a sandwich is a political issue, these people are voting blindly and the campain is encouraging this.

This I feel extends to such racist/sexist campaines to rally people to vote just because of race/sex and doesn’t even mention a singel issue.

Well I decided this week that I wasn’t going to vote for any candidate just because he or she was gay. Too many people are running on the queer ticket – saying, “Vote for me, I’m gay,” rather than asking for a vote because of their positions on the issues. Interestingly, I noticed today that I have no legislative representative at the local, state, or national level who isn’t either female, gay, or both.

Yes, I do live in San Francisco. Why do you ask? :smiley:

I fully support gay rights, and there was a time when I voted for gay candidates because I felt that they needed a voice in government. But now that there are plenty of gay elected officials and candidates, it’s more important to look at the issues. That’s the whole point of getting candidates from underrepresented groups elected – so that eventually it won’t make any difference.

Bingo.

As much as the partisans like to make every election a moment of epic importance, the reality of checks and balances and a two-party system is that no adminstration is going to make truly massive changes to our way of life without broad national consensus. OTOH, electing a minority (I think it’s of less importance for women) would.

– My experience working with inner-city kids, with runaways and in homeless shelters tells me that there are millions of young minority kids out there who, on a very fundamental level, think that this country isn’t about them; they are not patriotic and they feel no sense of duty to the larger society because they do not think that that society has ever been fair to them. Whether or not they are right is irrelevant. But a black president would make a huge impression on a lot of “at risk” 12 year olds, many of them without a father figure, and cause them to start thinking of things like laws and police and commuity and responsibility in new ways.

A black Republican president would do good for both parties. It would force some of the David Duke crowd out of the GOP once and for all, and it would shut up some of the race-baiters on the left (Al Sharpton, Corrine Brown, et al). A minority president would obviously not make racism disappear, but it would go a long way to helping the healing.

God, I wish Colin Powell had run.

furt I think you are being a bit dishonest, after the OP is about the slogan ‘No more whites in power!’. This is going a bit further then your love and harmony post of just trying to get minorities to feel fully ‘American’.

Also I must STRONGLY disagree with your statement that if a GOP minority gets into power it’s good for both parties, it has been shown that the Dems (and arugably the press) will attack such a canidate as an Uncle Tom or such, which again only serves to divide us.

Now I am not saying that the GOP should not have a minority canidate, I would like the best person for the job regardless of such things, just I haven’t seen much on the opposing side that shows a benifit to the Dems.