Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 03:57 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Is not being a "white guy" reason enough to vote for a candidate |
|
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 04:11 PM by Perky
Do we really need affirmative action when it comes to selecting our nomime for the Presidency of the United States/Leader of the Free World/Commander in chief?
|
bunnies
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:00 PM
Response to Original message |
noamnety
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:01 PM
Response to Original message |
|
deliberately misrepresenting affirmative action as a decision to hire based solely on race/gender, rather than it being considered in addition to experience and ideas among qualified candidates.
|
ThomCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:01 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Sorry, but this is a B.S. poll. |
|
I haven't heard ANYONE say that they're voting for someone SOLELY because that candidate isn't a white man.
If two candidates are essentially equal, then someone might choose the one that isn't a white male, and I think that's as valid as any other way to decide between them.
But your poll implies that people are ignoring a qualified white man to choose an unqualified person who isn't a white man.
Is being a white man reason enough to vote for a candidate? You know damned well it is for some people. Racism and sexism are alive and well.
|
Beaverhausen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. you must have missed this thread |
noamnety
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. The options the OP laid out are disengenuous. |
|
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 04:20 PM by lwfern
That's unaffected by the content of the link.
|
Beaverhausen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
I didn't start this thread. I'm confused.
|
noamnety
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
I edited my post to correct that. I didn't check user names, was multitasking here and thought the OP was responding to Thomcat. Sorry!
|
ThomCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
11. I didn't miss that thread. |
|
He's not proposing that we elect some random black person or woman. He's suggesting that, of the qualified candidates, it's time that we break the monopoly that white men have on high office.
You're entirely ignoring the part about choosing from the qualified candidates.
I can tell you from a great deal of personal experience that white men often get preferencial treatment because we're white men, and the higher you go the more preference we get. Why does it bother you so much when someone suggests choosing someone who isn't a white man?
|
Beaverhausen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. Hey, I'm female and think it's high time we have a female president |
|
but again, like I said in that thread, I vote on issues, not gender or race.
and the fact that two of our top candidates are not white men should mean something, shouldn't it? Why bring this up when in fact one of these two may well be elected?
I guess I didn't read that thread correctly.
|
racaulk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
26. I didn't get that at all. |
|
I read the OP in that thread, and I didn't see a thing about "qualified candidates." The OP stated that he felt it was time to elect a woman or a black man to the post, and nothing more. He didn't mention anything about "choosing from the qualified candidates," which led me to believe that we should elect someone by the sole virtue of their gender or ethnicity. As long as the person elected is not a white male.
I also noticed that he didn't say anything about Richardson.
|
ThomCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
27. Given that the post only talked about Hillary or Obama |
|
and both of them are qualified, I think it's pretty well implied.
That post certainly wasn't talking about electing some random black woman off the street.
|
Perky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
10. Someone posted the question... |
|
Isn't it time we gave someone other than a WHite Guy a chance. I think that question is insidious on its face. All thing being equal argument is an interesting alternative phrasing ans worth of its own poll. Pesonally I don't think race or gender should be a factor at all.
|
ThomCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
14. Of course race and gender should be a factor. |
|
Let's not revive the myth of a colorblind and genderblind society. Race and Gender are often factored into a wide range of decisions, to the detriment of black people and women. But when that happens it's buried. It's ignored. It's invisible.
The myth that we can remove race and gender from the equation is ONLY raised when it looks like people might possibly favor someone other than the white man. OMG, we can't consider race or gender if it's not going to benefit some white guy! :wow:
The myth that we need to get rid of anything that resembles affirmative action in order to be fair just allows racism and sexism to thrive, because then the only biases that are allowed are the status-quo racism and sexism.
|
noamnety
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
18. My daughter is on a hiring committee at her college. |
|
She said affirmative action came up in the hiring debate. They don't have a single person of color on their faculty. Not one.
Not surprisingly, they sometimes sit around wringing their hands, wondering why their student body is so white, why aren't they attracting a more diverse group of students?
When some people suggested that maybe an initial round of candidate selection to narrow down the field to the top 10% of applicants should be colorblind, and after that, they should be allowed to find out race/gender, there was a fair amount of opposition to the idea that perhaps they should give some weight to minority status.
This probably doesn't even need to be said, but while the women were divided on the issue, there was not a single white guy on the committee who thought there was any reason for affirmative action.
|
ThomCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
|
But not surprising.
I've seen the same thing here in the corporate world. Being a consultant for large corporations I see the inside of a lot of decisions. White men will consistantly argue the loudest that there is no need for AA, and insist that the all-white executives all got there entirely on merit. Race and gender didn't have anything to do with their success, of course. :eyes:
|
rucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:02 PM
Response to Original message |
4. This is the political equivelant of asking your spouse if you look fat. |
bunnies
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. In my house we say "yes" if its true. |
Tom Rinaldo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:05 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Race or Gender can be one of a number of considerations that may be relevent.
|
lojasmo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:10 PM
Response to Original message |
12. Enough among this pathetic group. EOM |
bunnies
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:13 PM
Response to Original message |
|
that think we should vote based solely on race and gender?! And WHAT is the reasoning behind that?! I dont get it!
|
Spirit of 34
(119 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:19 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I'm really impressed with the high level of political discourse on the threads I'm reading in this subforum. :eyes:
|
fascisthunter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:30 PM
Response to Original message |
19. A Deliberate Mischaracterization of Affirmative Action |
|
and pure flaimbaiting to boot
|
Fresh_Start
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:32 PM
Response to Original message |
20. When did you like the results of the 'white guy' club? |
|
Not Bush Jr Not Clinton Not Bush Sr Not Reagan Not Carter Not Nixon Not Johnson.....
Maybe not being part of the "WHITE GUY" club is a good thing.
|
asdjrocky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
|
I liked Carter. Is that ok?
|
Fresh_Start
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
30. ok, so you give it a 1:6 rating |
|
again, the odds are not in its favor
|
theredpen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:33 PM
Response to Original message |
21. It doesn't matter if they're white or male, just as long as they're gay. n/t |
ThomCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
|
not one of those closeted republicans, thank you very much. :)
|
theredpen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #23 |
25. Oh those Republicans aren't gay! Sen. Craig said he's not gay! He has a wide stance! n/t |
racaulk
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 04:51 PM
Response to Original message |
|
For me, I'm more concerned with what the candidate will do once he or she is in office. I could care less what the color of their skin is or what their genitals look like.
Geez...
|
geek tragedy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Nov-28-07 05:43 PM
Response to Original message |
29. Affirmative action? Rush, is that you? n/t |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 12:09 PM
Response to Original message |