Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Honestly I'm highly on board with this idea, the notion that our government should actually be representative of the entire country and not just one specific subset (and I say this as a white guy). The idea of a dual-party ticket actually fascinates me and I'd love to see something like that happen, so long as the candidates on the ticket are actually upstanding and decent candidates that are willing to put aside party differences to actually work together for the common benefit of all Americans.
So we will have affirmative action in voting now? The country is majority white. We had either a black person in female in 4 of the 4 past presidential elections.
Democrats talk a big game but in 2020. Of all the people they could have chosen for POTUS. They pick the old white guy.
Honestly I'm highly on board with this idea, the notion that our government should actually be representative of the entire country and not just one specific subset
Democrats had their chance in 2020, and they elected Biden who was already a VP for 8 years. So now you get to enjoy 3 more years of him.
Democrats pretend to support diversity, but when it's time to vote, they're terrified that a "racial quota" pick would get beaten by another Trump.
I'm not discriminating, by ruling it out, just asking the parties to reflect their constituancies more closely.
How about more women, younger people, & people of color, to reflect the electorate at large?
I'm against quotas, I'm just asking for some level of diversity in BOTH parties.
I commend the Dems getting Kamala Harris into the VP slot, even though a disagree with her policies, but at least she connects with more women, and people of color, than rich old whites dudes.
As a rich old white guy, I'm so ready for some diversity.
I'm also ready for a dual-party ticket to diffuse the Red vs. Blue junk that is enslaving us all.
Why now Sinema-Paul?, Noem-Manchin? Other combinations?
lol Yes you are being discriminating
It's always about policy and not your silly identity politics.
I liked Carly Fiorina back when, I thought she did quite well in the debates.
Why not pick the best most qualified candidates and be blind to race or gender? You are playing the democrats game. Because I am sure they are busy looking for the perfect half hispanic, half asian lesbian. non-binary trans candidate that recently converted to being a Muslim. Who happens to be paraplegic and blind. And whose parents and siblings all were tragically killed in a mass shooting. They have a spouse whose father snuck into the country illegally from Central America and a mother who is half Native American and half Inuit. And the spouse is vegan and works as a climate change activist as well as is an attorney who does pro bono cases only for people of color who have been shot by police officers in traffic stops. And is Wiccan. The perfect dem presidential candidate and first couple.
Last edited by Oklazona Bound; 11-08-2021 at 05:49 AM..
I'm not discriminating, by ruling it out, just asking the parties to reflect their constituancies more closely.
How about more women, younger people, & people of color, to reflect the electorate at large?
I'm against quotas, I'm just asking for some level of diversity in BOTH parties.
I commend the Dems getting Kamala Harris into the VP slot, even though a disagree with her policies, but at least she connects with more women, and people of color, than rich old whites dudes.
As a rich old white guy, I'm so ready for some diversity.
I'm also ready for a dual-party ticket to diffuse the Red vs. Blue junk that is enslaving us all.
Why now Sinema-Paul?, Noem-Manchin? Other combinations?
TBH- nominating an old white guy is dicey for either side but they do it continuously. The only time an old white guy has won since 1990 was when it was old white guy vs old white woman ('16) or old white guy vs old white guy ('00.) As for rich- poor people do not have the time/$ to pursue politics and by the time someone reaches 60-70, they have often accumulated enough savings/investments/real estate appreciation/inheritances/retirement benefits to be wealthy by modern US standards. Even Bernie the avowed socialist is a multi-millionaire. And Obama had to be on the cusp simply from spikes in book sales leading up to 2008.
Jimmy Carter is the only President since Truman who led anything resembling a middle class life and that can probably be attributed to living through the Depression and living in a smaller town.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,551 posts, read 81,085,957 times
Reputation: 57739
When federal law bans discrimination on the basis of age, you will not see an age limit on elected officials. What I want is term limits, getting rid of the career politicians that are in their 80s, with 3 currently age 88.
For those who question whether CRT is taught, please know that the above statement IS CRT.
I am not sure you know what CRT is. Asking parties to have more diversity in their candidates isn't CRT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t. raleigh fingers
Can one party stop judging people by the color of their skin, and get back to 'content of their character?'
No because that is all that one party has. If they did not race bait in order to keep African Americans voting for their candidates they might never win another national election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
I am not unsympathetic, but it will not stop until we get big dark money out of politics, and will probably still happen sometimes anyway.
Dark money didn't create rich old white guy politicians and it is impossible to eliminate. Long before Citizen's United there was "dark money". Only when it began to effect Democrats did they complain and try to ban it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t. raleigh fingers
Obama and Pelosi are not 'rich old white guys.' Nor is Chuck Schumer, if you consider Jewish people as 'people of color' (coming as they did from present-day Iraq). I don't know if you do, since you don't define 'person of color.'
Nancy Pelosi is a rich old white guy if you consider "guy" a generic term. (see how that "if you consider" works). She is the epitome of insider rich white interests. The whole "Newson, Brown, Pelosi, Getty cabal" is legendary in CA.
Obama might have been half African (not African American), but he led the life of a 'rich young white guy" in going to the most expensive prep school in Hawaii and then onto the Old Ivies. And as Biden said, he was "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". What he meant was, "he looks and sounds like a white guy".
Lastly, Jewish people are not 'people of color'. 'People of color' and Jews don't get along very well; witness NYC, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g555
The Dems (or Biden directly) made a mistake with selecting Kamala Harris. I'm sure even if Beau was alive, he would have told his dad not to go with her. Biden had already announced he was selecting a woman VP during a Bernie Sanders debate and then after George Floyd's death, it more or less had to be a black woman.
Democrats think pandering works and to an extent, it does. A woman on the ticket might have gotten some soccer moms and suburban moms, but Harris didn't help at all with them and she is clearly unqualified to assume control when Biden goes down for the count. Amy Klobuchar would have been better for the ticket and better for the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t. raleigh fingers
Making 2nd finisher VP was tossed with the 12th Amendment in 1804, only about 13 years after completion of the Constitution. It did not work out well at all. Forcing two people who might hate each other's guts to work together as a harmonious team is not a good idea.
OMG can you imagine if we'd had Trump as Pres and Hillary as Veep?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearHeadDave
At least in recent history, this scenario (party A in the White House, party B control House and Senate) has been the most stable configuration, and actually serves the interests of the people in the most useful and practical way.
It worked well until Obama began passing laws with his pen. He blew up what had worked under Reagan and Clinton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearHeadDave
And then we got Trump in 2016, who as we all know is really not a politician - he's an anarchist, an opportunist who would enjoy nothing better than to destroy the fundamental structures of our representative republic. Even a wanna-be authoritarian like Trump would be held in check if the protectors of the Constitution held the House and the Senate. This is the dream that the founders had, they surely knew that someone like Trump might come along one day and try to enthrone himself; but they always assumed that the balance of powers would hold him in check.
I am not Trump's biggest fan, but he is nowhere near the authoritarian Obama was or Biden is. It was the Democrats who tried to destroy the Republic with phony impeachments, phony dossiers, the corruption of the FBI and CIA and the permanent entrenched federal bureaucracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beach43ofus
How about an all female tickets?
You speak of a more inclusive, representative government, but want to exclude half the population?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
