cwr
Oakenshield 说:
These people disagree.
2016 U.S. Presidential Elections: The Circus Is In Full Swing
- 主题发起人 Anthropoid
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
These people disagree.
Oakenshield
Recruit
Apart from Rubio none of those people have any real chance or are even running lets face it.Dirk Robbing 说:Oakenshield 说:
These people disagree.
Look at the GOP field the vast majority are as I described.
And as for Democrats obviously there is Hillary, but she is already pretty much running unopposed with next to no contest currently.
Dirk Robbing 说:
That's definitely a white person in blackface. Either that or Mitt Romney after his electoral campaign took him within the orbit of mercury with no UV shielding.
cwr
There's plenty of white male candidates with no chance of winning also. Hillary does has opposition. She's the favorite though.Oakenshield 说:
Ben Carson has a chance, Obama actually won his election, Hillary is probably the most likely to be president as her opposition is the weakest, though it exists.
So, talking about people with a chance in the GOP primary because we will assume Hillary will win the Democratic nomination.
Carson-nonwhite
Rubio-nonwhite
Rand Paul-white
Jeb Bush-white
Chris Christie-white
Now, do some basic math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_States#Demographics
White 77.7%
African American 13.2%
Asian 5.3%
American Indian and Alaska Native 1.2%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 0.2%
Multiracial (2 or more) 2.4%
Hispanic/Latino (of any race) 17.1%
Non-Hispanic/Latino (of any race)
77% of the country is white. Thus, you would naturally expect around 77% of viable candidates to be white? That percent is 60%. If you want to say Rubio is white, then it's 80%. One is as close to 77% as you could possibly get with 5 viable candidates, and the other is far below 77% white, with minorities actually over-represented.
If you want to take all GOP candidates, viable or not, you would see similar results as you add idiots like Trump, Jindal, etc.
I don't claim minorities are over represented in politics. That would be stupid. I claim that you are wrong in saying the answer is that there are racist 'requirements' to be president of being white, which is demonstrably wrong.
rebelsquirrell 说:
Too late Supreme Court beat you.
SwadianJedi 说:
Because there are two dominant billion dollar political firms (parties I mean) that have invested hundreds of millions, zillions of people hours and a huge proportion of their institutional structure into gaming the electoral system. We can't wipe away all that electoral complication and force these powerful special interests who have worked so hard to be the only choices we have in selecting our elected representatives to have to start from square one! Who would look out for the best interest of the country and the people if that happened! Why! It would be the veritable downfall of the country!
Similar to the reason the tax code will never be wiped clean and transformed into a nice simple system: vested interest with trillions of dollars and most of the real power.
Tiberius Decimus Maximus 说:
EXACTLY! One might even say there are a whole "family" of related professions which live off the esoteric and complex tax codes, and a lot of powerful rich people who are vested in it too.
Same thing for the electoral system, and probably the same thing as far as the failure for a third alternative party to really get good foothold.
Mage246
Let me guess, you want a "simple" flat tax, simple in that it simply ensures an even more unequal society.
cwr
Mage246 说:
I'm genuinely curious- how would a flat tax without loopholes increase inequality?
Everyone has to pay the same absolute value for food and shelter, but minimum wage-rs get bitten on the ass disproportionately more than above average earners because their money almost entirely spent on food and shelter, while above average earners spend a much smaller percentage of their money on it.
In practice it's even worse than this, because poorer people tend live in cities where house prices are higher, they tend to have to rent most of their lives (paying more in the long run), and don't have savings to eat into.
In practice it's even worse than this, because poorer people tend live in cities where house prices are higher, they tend to have to rent most of their lives (paying more in the long run), and don't have savings to eat into.
Kind of a ****ty catch-22. You can live out in the suburbs, but you need to pay out a large upfront payment for your house and transportation to actually live there. Or, if you live in the city, you have to pay out a consistent amount of your paycheck which ensures you can't really go anywhere.
Austupaio
Duke
Pretty much why I've been trapped in Seattle for so long, putting enough money away to move out is nigh-on impossible because of how much it costs to live in here.
For the short time my wife was pulling BAH before she went into transfer-limbo, we were pulling $1800 a month from it. That is, the government was paying an E-1 in training $1800 a month, purely for her spouse to pay rent and basic necessities. That's how expensive it is to live here.
For the short time my wife was pulling BAH before she went into transfer-limbo, we were pulling $1800 a month from it. That is, the government was paying an E-1 in training $1800 a month, purely for her spouse to pay rent and basic necessities. That's how expensive it is to live here.
Oakenshield
Recruit
Dirk Robbing 说:
Firstly, i'm not claiming a minority candidate could never win at an election, Obama is proof enough of that as you correctly say.
But Obama's not running this time.
In the 2016 election, I would be very surprised if anything other than a white middle aged male (or Hillary Clinton) wins the presidency.
America has just had a black president for 8 years, and the appetite isn't there for the nomination of another African American or minority candidate, especially within the Republican party (look at how much they loath Obama), where its still an open field.
I would dispute your assumption Carson has a chance at winning therefore.
It seems the most likely are Bush, Walker etc
There is obviously the anomaly of Rubio who does stand a good shot, fair enough I'll concede there.
As for the Democrats only Bernie is showing any real resistance to the Hillary coronation , and while he does seem to have a good grassroots campaign and we will likely see his popularity rise as we head towards the primaries, I think his age will act against him. Hillary is still miles ahead.
All I meant by my comment was that if only 1/44 of American Presidents have been anything other than white middle aged males, surely its obvious that there is a slight leaning towards these requirements, both demographically but also in the sense of what America and Amercicans are comfortable with.
Oakenshield
Recruit
Dirk Robbing 说:
Are you serious? You don't need to ask a racist for evidence that it has a huge impact, its blindingly clear.
Look At the way the Republicans have reacted againt Obama's recent Iran deal for example; If it had been brokered by a Republican President he would have been hailed as a hero, but because its Obama they oppose it. Are you really saying race plays no factor here?
Dirk Robbing 说:
They love minority candidates, and yet have never had a minority candidate as either president or even candidate for the WH?
Do you really honestly think a majority of Republican grassroots will ever select a AA candidate like Carson? He's a distant 6th in most of the polls, and they are crying out for a return to 'normallacy'
I think you've taken what I said far too literally; All I said was a lighthearted comment that its abundantly clear there is a definite leaning towards white middle aged men, modern history is proof enough of that. I never disputed that this was somehow unfair or disproportionate towards whites, as you say demographically they do make up the majority of the population, I NEVER DISPUTED THIS OR EVEN MENTIONED IT. I think we basically agree haha
So you're saying that if it had been Hillary Clinton that got elected in 2008/2012, instead of Barack Obama, the Republicans would be celebrating instead of complaining?Oakenshield 说:
What you're actually describing here is "GO TEAM!!!" politics, not racism. It also does not, by any stretch of the imagination, apply to only the Republican Party.
Oakenshield
Recruit
Wheem 说:
Well its impossible to predict how a Clinton presidency would have panned out but immediately after they would of been happier i guess, she is more moderate after all.
And yeah I agree that it doesn't only apply to the Grand Old Party, I'm just saying the level of hostility against the Obama administration from some of the Republicans can't purely just be down to ideology. I'm sure your aware their Congressional leadership simply refuse to work with him at all on most issues.
It's because he's charismatic and had a lot of support to begin with, and stuff like Obamacare really ground republican gears for some reason. Furthermore a lot of the right-wing vitriol boils down to "why didn't WE have an Obama?", which would explain their attempt to shove as many minority candidates as possible in an attempt to recreate Obama's success.
I suppose after two terms of Bush, having a president who wasn't a total hands-off moron felt like a communist dictatorship to some people.
I suppose after two terms of Bush, having a president who wasn't a total hands-off moron felt like a communist dictatorship to some people.
Oakenshield
Recruit
jacobhinds 说:
This is part of the reason, but honestly you can't dismiss race as not being a factor.
Clearly it is:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-voters/landrieu-obama-south-not-always-friendliest-place-african-americans-n237826
Consider the birthing hysteria as further proof
Jan 2012 YouGov poll found 37% of Republicans belived Obama wasn't a natural born citizen.
