One Muslim, two Buddhists.
Nah. I will let this one play out. If you stop responding, it will probably die on its own.
You are more than welcome to open a separate thread on a related topic.
HOWEVER, I would strongly suggest that you give serious thought to the way in which you phrase you thread title and the way in which you construct your argument.
If you are only going to try to play “gotcha” with claims that the U.S. electorate is not the totally open-minded and unprejudiced population that no one has actually claimed that it is, then your next thread will also turn into a trainwreck.
If you believe that there is some basic understanding of the electorate is flawed and that you have the Truth about the situation, then provide concrete examples of expressions of error with actual refutations to those claims.
[ /Modding ]
And Satanist. And I doubt a white woman will ever be president of Iran. Those damn racist Iranians. I have it on good authority they’re homophobes too.
I figure the answer is no, but that doesn’t prove the thread title statement is true. At the very least, it’s asking if voters today (since the question is asked in the present tense) are the same as the voters of 2004, 2000, 1996 or 1992.
They aren’t.
In general, ehe?
So, after the slam about American’s, this is the actual question you want answered, seemingly. It’s a matter of moving the goal posts in order to ‘prove’ your initial slam, and sadly for you, no one here is stupid enough to buy your bullshit (I’m sure you thought it was pretty clever though).
In general, I don’t think being ‘Mexican’ would be a large bar to being president today, and probably not when Obama or GW were elected either. It might have been a small bar for Clinton and possibly a slightly larger one for GH, but, you see, the goal posts have moved. Jewish I think would have been similar to ‘Mexican’ in this regard. Islamic would probably have been a fairly large bar to Obama, slightly less to GW/Clinton/GH due to events after 9/11. Gay (presumably openly) would still be a fairly large bar even today, but those goal posts are also shifting, so I could see that happening in my lifetime (as I could see Islamic…I’d say Jewish/‘Mexican’ are slam dunks, presuming an actual Jewish or 'Mexican candidate come forward who is in serious contention). Woman (which you didn’t mention) would is also, IMHO, a slam dunk in my lifetime, with the same caveats.
If they played out in ‘most voters minds’ then they wouldn’t get elected, no? You have, perhaps, noticed that we have a black president these days, who won (against a guy who pretty much defines the term ‘white boy’ AND had the whole war hero thingy going for him as well) by a pretty good margin and who, IMHO, is going to breeze into a second term unless he screws up monumentally in the next year or so. Are there voters who are raciest, homophobic, anti-Semitic, ant-Muslim? Certainly. But I question whether this constitutes ‘most’, and I also point out that our society isn’t a static one, with attitudes as you describe them being cast in stone for all times. We’ve already seen huge shifts in who voters will or won’t vote for, and this continues to shift as the old fogies die off and new generations with new attitudes take their places at the polls. Do you REALLY think that the generation of kids today are going to give a shit about whether a candidate is a ‘Mexican’ or a Jew? Or if they are homosexual?? Or a woman? I doubt they are even going to give much of a shit if they are an open Muslim or even the ultimate…an atheist. They will obviously have their own prejudices and hangups, but there is no reason to assume that they will be the same as ours…just as ours aren’t exactly the same as our parents, or their parents…
-XT
You assert that neither major party would nominate a Jew for candidacy for the Presidency, and then you claim that it’s irrelevant that one of the major parties did in fact nominate a Jew for the vice-presidency. How is it irrelevant? If we’ll tolerate a Jewish VP candidate, what makes you think we wouldn’t tolerate a Jewish presidential candidate?
I’m not saying Obama was elected because he was black, but that played a massive role in it. Not only did it get him more attention, but a plethora of black people who never would’ve voted and probably couldn’t tell anyone about the Obama campaign voted for him because he was “one of them.”
I think it’s still an issue. I was surprised by the number of die hard Democrats here in Arkansas who loved Bill Clinton but tell me they don’t “trust” that Barack Obama for some reason. I suspect it’s because he’s black.
Yes, and plenty of people voted for John McCain and other candidates because they were ‘white’ or not ‘black’, not to mention, not ‘female’, not ‘Jewish’, not ‘take your pick’. What is your point?
We had that sort of crazy talk over here in the U.K. when people talked about putting a woman in the P.Ms position.
We soon showed them hicks.
Personally I would never vote for a lesbian who was born as an ethnically half Mexican jew who converted to Islam.
God how I hate them people yet you see them everywhere.
OMG !You mean he’s Gay?
Come to think of it, America has never voted in one of the “little people” as President. Nor anyone covered completely in tattoos.:eek: Nor has any Montenegran-Americans ever been President. :eek:Damn, we’re also height-phobic, anti-tattoo and racist towards Montenegro. :eek:
On the other hand, we’ve been pretty liberal about presidents with hooks for hands.
(Any other John Hodgeman fans out there?)
How about cripples? Could a seriously disabled person ever be elected presdient?
Er… FDR?
Or was this a whoooosh?
You still manage to be slightly wacko even when you say something reasonable.
James Madison plus Stephen A Douglas was a strong candidate.
And you are still out of line making this sort of crack in Great Debates.
Stop it.
[ /Moderating ]
Out of curiosity, what country, in your opinion, has voters that are racially, sexually and religiously free of bias?
