Obama for President?

Quote from hcour:

The U.S. will not be electing a female or a black president or even vice-president in the near future, no matter their qualifications or lack thereof. This country is simply not that far along yet.

H
More...

It could happen, but I do not think a black or a female democrat would be elected. Nearly every time that minority groups have made significant progress it has been as republicans, and I suspect that would be the case for a woman or minority president as well.
 
"Nearly every time that minority groups have made significant progress it has been as republicans."

U are delusional...

Quote from Brandonf:

It could happen, but I do not think a black or a female democrat would be elected. Nearly every time that minority groups have made significant progress it has been as republicans, and I suspect that would be the case for a woman or minority president as well.
More...
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

Man what an arrogant cynical statement. Using that line of reasoning we shouldn't trust anyone, including anything you say.
More...

Right, trust must be <b>earned</b>.

If you're completely unfamiliar with who I am and what I've written, trusting anything I say now would be premature.
 
Quote from Rearden Metal:

Right, trust must be <b>earned</b>.

If you're completely unfamiliar with who I am and what I've written, trusting anything I say now would be premature.
More...

It wouldn't matter what you have written or who you are. According to your blanket statement every human not in public office is an inferior being and not smart enough to understand and/or evaluate any problem put before them. That's roadkill.
 
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"Nearly every time that minority groups have made significant progress it has been as republicans."

U are delusional...
More...

Think what you want, but I am right. First minority on the supreme court is appointed by the republicans, first black man to be the sec. of state is appointed by the republicans, the first african american FEMALE state also by the republicans. First Latino to become Attorney General, geez another republican. Many many many republicans would never trust a minority to high office that was a democrate. However, if that person is a republican they are more likely too, and many dems will vote just to get a woman/minority president. Thats the truth.
 
What bozo comments.

Republicans advance the agenda of republicans, not minorities. Your comments that republicans would only support those minorities that advance their agenda is evidence...

Check your history....In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson appointed Judge Marshall to the office of U.S. Solicitor General. Before his subsequent nomination to the United States Supreme Court in 1967. He was the first black to serve on the Court and was, in most reports, an almost larger-than-life figure there. Marshall, who actually did something to advance minority rights, unlike a man that the African American community routinely calls an "Uncle Tom" i.e. Clarence Thomas...

It is not having a minority in a position of power that matters, but having a minority in power who actually does something to advance minorities.

Republicans, simply pathetic...

Quote from Brandonf:

Think what you want, but I am right. First minority on the supreme court is appointed by the republicans, first black man to be the sec. of state is appointed by the republicans, the first african american FEMALE state also by the republicans. First Latino to become Attorney General, geez another republican. Many many many republicans would never trust a minority to high office that was a democrate. However, if that person is a republican they are more likely too, and many dems will vote just to get a woman/minority president. Thats the truth.
More...
 
Quote from ProfLogic:

It wouldn't matter what you have written or who you are. According to your blanket statement every human not in public office is an inferior being and not smart enough to understand and/or evaluate any problem put before them. That's roadkill.
More...

Non-Sequitur. I didn't say that.

All I meant, was that the collective political decisions of the masses cannot be trusted. I mean, just look at the vast array of sleazebags elected to hold positions of power.

Obviously, there are some astute individuals out there who prove themselves exceptions to this rule. However, they are vastly outnumbered by joe-sixpacks who simply vote for the candidate they'd rather have a beer with.

Unless you're willing to state that you <b>do</b> trust the masses to consistently elect the best man/woman for the job, we're not even in disagreement here.
 
Politics in the US is just another business..

The business is to collect the votes so that your party can control the tax money...

Election time...

Money pools are collected...video clips and sound bytes are created ...they are played over and over again...

The public votes for the best set of videos and soundbytes...and thus the winning party gets the edge on tax money...with a ridiculous amount of power given to a handful of average people...
...................................................................................

It is due time for the internet to control the game and for parties to be eliminated...It is utter nonsense...

The public inputs its desires as to how to spend tax money...and how the tax money is to be raised...

This in itself will lead to some form of consumption tax..and also the process becomes totally transparent...There are no longer nonsense political offices ...but offices run by the most qualified people for the jobs at hand....whose capabilities are in open view...

Has the public not had enough of seeing some politicians name in the paper over and over again...

The time limitations themselves cause undue havoc and incomplete objectives..

Utter nonsense ........and easily corrected...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top