"Minority" vs "Female" for President.

lilboo

lilboo

CAGiversary!
Feedback
41 (100%)
Ok just a heads up, I'm not trying to be too politcal here. Just bored and always wondered this.

Let's say election time comes up..and the 2 candidates were a Black Male and a White Female.
Do you think that this country would be mature enough to actually look past that, and vote for the proper reason: Who is the better choice?

Or do you think you would have people vote for the Black president only because he was black, or vote for the woman BECAUSE she's a woman. OR vote for the woman because you don't want a black president, OR vote for the black president because you don't want a woman president.

Clearly it doesn't have to be "Black vs Female" it can be anything other then White Male v White Male.

Just gettin some opinions is all, no need for this to turn into a racial debate, or anything too deep.

I personally think that people would vote for the wrong reasons, but that's just my opinion.
What about you?
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']Female, cause at least she's white.[/quote]

Yup. Thread over. No one looks at the issues when they vote - it takes way too much effort. They either vote by party line or by appearance. Sad but true.
 
I think there will be a white female president before a black male (and black male before black female). Sad, but that's how it goes.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I think there will be a white female president before a black male (and black male before black female). Sad, but that's how it goes.[/quote]

While we're speculating, I bet that the first non-white president will be a hispanic president.
 
[quote name='camoor']While we're speculating, I bet that the first non-white president will be a hispanic president.[/quote]

I'm not so sure about that. At least now, it seems more likely to me that there would be a black male president than a hispanic male president.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I'm not so sure about that. At least now, it seems more likely to me that there would be a black male president than a hispanic male president.[/quote]
Agreed, arabs and mexicans are the new niggers.
 
obama.color.small_0.jpg


i would vote for obama
 
[quote name='SpazX']I'm not so sure about that. At least now, it seems more likely to me that there would be a black male president than a hispanic male president.[/QUOTE]


I would like to see a women president for once...but I agree with the other poster, two alert levels , and once a month it goes to RED :O

As for the black president............... as long as he looks and or acts like Morgan Freeman, then im cool with that.... everyone else.. screw that.
 
I see no Legitimate argument against a black male president, outside outright racism, or the fact that he'd probobly be a liberal democrat. I see plenty of legitimate arguments against a female president though.
 
[quote name='spmahn']I see no Legitimate argument against a black male president, outside outright racism, or the fact that he'd probobly be a liberal democrat. I see plenty of legitimate arguments against a female president though.[/quote]

Like what?
 
[quote name='spmahn']I see no Legitimate argument against a black male president, outside outright racism, or the fact that he'd probobly be a liberal democrat. I see plenty of legitimate arguments against a female president though.[/QUOTE]

So what you're saying is that racism is wrong but sexism is just fine?
 
[quote name='javeryh']Yup. Thread over. No one looks at the issues when they vote - it takes way too much effort. They either vote by party line or by appearance. Sad but true.[/QUOTE]

Dunno. There are plenty of people who vote on the issues, but unfortunately, many of them vote on a single issue or two (as we can expect, this year it will be voting on the Iraq War, and those with an "R" by their name who have stood by the President will suffer), and disregard the others. In some cases, we elect highly unqualified individuals who base their decisions on an issue or two (tax cuts, or being pro-life/pro-choice, or merely not being the incumbent can be enough to make people decide on a candidate - such shallow decision making is very problematic for our government, and its a self-fulfilling prophecy of the shitty government we get. We act upset at the dickheads we elect, as if we knew all of their positions from the beginning!

I was reading an op-ed in the NYT the other morning, which argued in favor of mandatory voting. They said that, in Australia, voting is mandatory, and punishable by a $15 fine. They have 95% reported voting in that nation; America barely breaks 60%, and that's only every four years during the general presidential election. Expect this years' congressional elections to be at or below 50%. What do you guys think about punishing non-voters?
 
dude, whatever......I don't care if its a white, black, male, female, hispanic in that office roughly 45 minutes to my east of my house that can fix the economy, make outsourcing illegal (my big pet peeve), fix the homeless and health insurance issue and other things that the previous clowns didn't want to fix even though they said they would, then its cool.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What do you guys think about punishing non-voters?[/quote]

I don't think it would be worth it (besides maybe the extra tax revenue). It's not like they're going to think about it, you can't force them to make an educated choice.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I was reading an op-ed in the NYT the other morning, which argued in favor of mandatory voting. They said that, in Australia, voting is mandatory, and punishable by a $15 fine. They have 95% reported voting in that nation; America barely breaks 60%, and that's only every four years during the general presidential election. Expect this years' congressional elections to be at or below 50%. What do you guys think about punishing non-voters?[/QUOTE]

I think it's a bad idea. I think people have the right not to be involved if they don't want to. Their life, their choice, and they're not hurting anyone else by doing it.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']they're not hurting anyone else by doing it.[/QUOTE]

bill-portrait.gif
030114-O-0000D-001_screen.jpg


Oh yeah? Take your pick and tell me that not voting doesn't hurt anyone else. Now, you could argue that the losing vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 wouldn't be much different, but that would validate my point about who gets selected in primaries due to a lack of overall voter representation.
 
Since Myke doesn't believe in personal liberty and the concept of freedom anyway, forcing people to vote isn't such a leap.

A mandatory vote would guarantee a legislature ruled by public whim and emotion and politics would deteriorate to the depravity that is Australlia's. You think politicians are river silt slime dwellers now? Just wait until they have a depository of undereducated swing voters to pander to.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']a depository of undereducated swing voters to pander to.[/QUOTE]

Care to show me evidence that nonvoters are less educated than voters? You're likely right, but you also have to consider those people educated enough that they avoid voting at all.

I suppose that, in your laissez-faire drenched mind, you prefer an incentive based approach, such as the "Who Wants to Be A Millionaire" contest that Arizona is doing with unclaimed lotto money?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Oh yeah? Take your pick and tell me that not voting doesn't hurt anyone else. Now, you could argue that the losing vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 wouldn't be much different, but that would validate my point about who gets selected in primaries due to a lack of overall voter representation.[/QUOTE]

I don't see your point; it's like you feel that either of the two slimeballs you pictured wouldn't be in office if people were forced to vote, which I think is a big leap. I don't understand how you think forcing people who don't care and obviously have no knowledge of politics or candidates or issues or anything related will ensure a better result.

Or let's use statistics.

1968 turnout = 60.8%
1996 turnout = 49.1%

Are you arguing Nixon was a better choice than Clinton? After all, a bigger percentage of people voted that year, thus leading to a "better" choice...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't see your point; it's like you feel that either of the two slimeballs you pictured wouldn't be in office if people were forced to vote, which I think is a big leap. I don't understand how you think forcing people who don't care and obviously have no knowledge of politics or candidates or issues or anything related will ensure a better result.

Or let's use statistics.

1968 turnout = 60.8%
1996 turnout = 49.1%

Are you arguing Nixon was a better choice than Clinton? After all, a bigger percentage of people voted that year, thus leading to a "better" choice...[/QUOTE]

I'd argue that if mandatory voting is traced back to primaries, we wouldn't have the problem of the enthusiastic party supporters (i.e., "extremists") deciding who goes on to the general election. Consider the increase in primary turnout (though still dismal) that selected Lamont over Liberman and Johnson over McKinney this past week.

Is Nixon a better choice than Clinton? Don't pander to me like that. What I want to see is the nation taking accountability for the leaders it chooses; low turnouts producing shitty politicians lead to a self-reifying cycle in which people get turned off by nobody representing "them," and thus more people drop out of voting. I s'pose you could see as much in the 13% difference between 1968 and 1996, but without any trend lines, I can't say that's for certain.

Besides, Nixon was pretty fucking liberal for a Republican, so crook or not, I'd take him over any other (R) since 1976.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

Besides, Nixon was pretty fucking liberal for a Republican, so crook or not, I'd take him over any other (R) since 1976.[/QUOTE]

hmmmm.jpg
 
how about instead of mandatory voting, at least declare it a national holiday so people dont have to go out of their way before or after work or on their lunch break. The reason seniors vote is because they are mostly retired so they have nothing else to do.

We should also make voting easier, the whole registration process is a hassle and voting at specific spots. I have heard of elections in different countries where they will bus their citizens to their voting place if necessary. I am not saying something to that extent, but at least make the overall process easier for the average American Citizen.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']how about instead of mandatory voting, at least declare it a national holiday so people dont have to go out of their way before or after work or on their lunch break. The reason seniors vote is because they are mostly retired so they have nothing else to do.

We should also make voting easier, the whole registration process is a hassle and voting at specific spots. I have heard of elections in different countries where they will bus their citizens to their voting place if necessary. I am not saying something to that extent, but at least make the overall process easier for the average American Citizen.[/quote]

i agree....
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']how about instead of mandatory voting, at least declare it a national holiday so people dont have to go out of their way before or after work or on their lunch break. The reason seniors vote is because they are mostly retired so they have nothing else to do.

We should also make voting easier, the whole registration process is a hassle and voting at specific spots. I have heard of elections in different countries where they will bus their citizens to their voting place if necessary. I am not saying something to that extent, but at least make the overall process easier for the average American Citizen.[/QUOTE]

Things like you mention would have to be the case if it were made mandatory.
 
Voting in the primaries doesn't matter, as political parties ultimately choose and control whomever they select as their candidate.

These ain't the days of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Care to show me evidence that nonvoters are less educated than voters?[/quote]

It's an easy thing to say people are stupid for not voting, I think it's more along the lines of people thinking they are wasting their time because they feel like their votes don't count, but we don't need to derail the thread on that topic.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Things like you mention would have to be the case if it were made mandatory.[/QUOTE]

i dont like forcing people to vote, but make the process easier on the people and they will naturally vote more often.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'd argue that if mandatory voting is traced back to primaries, we wouldn't have the problem of the enthusiastic party supporters (i.e., "extremists") deciding who goes on to the general election. Consider the increase in primary turnout (though still dismal) that selected Lamont over Liberman and Johnson over McKinney this past week.[/quote]

You want to force me to vote in a fucking Republican or fucking Democrat primary? fuck you.

[quote name='mykevermin']Is Nixon a better choice than Clinton? Don't pander to me like that. What I want to see is the nation taking accountability for the leaders it chooses; low turnouts producing shitty politicians lead to a self-reifying cycle in which people get turned off by nobody representing "them," and thus more people drop out of voting. I s'pose you could see as much in the 13% difference between 1968 and 1996, but without any trend lines, I can't say that's for certain.

Besides, Nixon was pretty fucking liberal for a Republican, so crook or not, I'd take him over any other (R) since 1976.[/QUOTE]

If people want someone to represent them, they should vote. Why would people wanting someone to represent them not vote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top