Affirmative action for democrats

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Since the Democrats believe in affirmative action why don?t they give both Al Sharpton and Carole Mosey Braun each a 20 point lead in the coming primary races?



And shouldn?t both the DNC and the democratic party review the racial makeup of those two organizations to see if they have the same percentage of minorities in them as what is in the general population?



- Mark
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 30
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    Democrats don't believe in Affirmative Action. They just want the Automatic Black Vote. AA will die regardless of whether the Dems are promoting it or not. There is no place in Society for Preferences unless I'm the one getting the Brass Key
  • Reply 2 of 30
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sc_markt

    Since the Democrats believe in affirmative action why don?t they give both Al Sharpton and Carole Mosey Braun each a 20 point lead in the coming primary races?



    And shouldn?t both the DNC and the democratic party review the racial makeup of those two organizations to see if they have the same percentage of minorities in them as what is in the general population?



    - Mark




    jesus, what is your problem?
  • Reply 3 of 30
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    jesus, what is your problem?



    Well, in my opinion, Sharpton and Braun don't have a chance to become the front runners. So, why couldn't the DNC and/or the democratic party give some "affirmative action" points to these contenders to help them move up in the 2004 presidential election? Doesn?t this seem like a good way to get them closer to becoming contenders for the presidency?
  • Reply 4 of 30
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    I think a better way would be for braun or sharpton to get adopted but the Bushes. That way their new daddy could use all his power and influence to get them into whitehouse. Even if they were not qualified for the position.
  • Reply 5 of 30
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by keyboardf12

    I think a better way would be for braun or sharpton to get adopted but the Bushes. That way their new daddy could use all his power and influence to get them into whitehouse. Even if they were not qualified for the position.



    Ziiiinnnngg
  • Reply 6 of 30
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sc_markt

    Well, in my opinion, Sharpton and Braun don't have a chance to become the front runners. So, why couldn't the DNC and/or the democratic party give some "affirmative action" points to these contenders to help them move up in the 2004 presidential election? Doesn?t this seem like a good way to get them closer to becoming contenders for the presidency?



    did you ever think they were in the race to draw attention to things that they would like the other candidates to address? to draw attention to there core concerns? to perhaps mobilize the black voters to make sure other candidates don't forget about them?

    there is much more to politics than winning elections. just like i'm sure their must be more to klan rallies than burning crosses, or am i wrong?
  • Reply 7 of 30
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    Thank you! I will be here all week... Buh duh dum...
  • Reply 8 of 30
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    did you ever think they were in the race to draw attention to things that they would like the other candidates to address? to draw attention to there core concerns? to perhaps mobilize the black voters to make sure other candidates don't forget about them?

    there is much more to politics than winning elections. just like i'm sure their must be more to klan rallies than burning crosses, or am i wrong?




    ouch
  • Reply 9 of 30
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar

    did you ever think they were in the race to draw attention to things that they would like the other candidates to address? to draw attention to there core concerns? to perhaps mobilize the black voters to make sure other candidates don't forget about them?

    there is much more to politics than winning elections. just like i'm sure their must be more to klan rallies than burning crosses, or am i wrong?




    No. I think they are in it to win. The NAACP and other groups are there to draw attention to the important issues.

    I still want to know why the DNC doesn't give "affirmative action" points to these two presidential contenders. Maybe they think that they have the minority vote locked up? Seems kind of arrogant to me if this is indeed the case.



    Email this guy if you have any questions regarding the klan.
  • Reply 10 of 30
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sc_markt

    No. I think they are in it to win. The NAACP and other groups are there to draw attention to the important issues.

    I still want to know why the DNC doesn't give "affirmative action" points to these two presidential contenders. Maybe they think that they have the minority vote locked up? Seems kind of arrogant to me if this is indeed the case.



    Email this guy if you have any questions regarding the klan.




    ahem. lets look at the relevence of AA on an election which in and of itself is a democratic process.



















    ok. you see sc_markt, had you had an education you would realize that the voting public more or less decides which canidate the democrats (or the republicans for that matter) choose to support in the presidential election. if canidates arent doing well poll-wise they arent likely to get elected. unlike normal applications of AA where the selection is most definitely not democratic be it college admittance or job promotions, general elections are dependent on the idea that each eligible voter has their own voice and will vote more or less with it -- pollsters and the people they poll for have responded by polling preceding an election to either select out canidates that dont jive well with the public or alternatively to select what positions should be taken in what key issues.
  • Reply 11 of 30
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sc_markt

    And shouldn?t both the DNC and the democratic party review the racial makeup of those two organizations to see if they have the same percentage of minorities in them as what is in the general population?



    No. If we're to draw analogies to AA, then the DNC would make sure an accurate number of black candidates were in the primary. They can't 'give points' to a candidate, that most likely would be illegal.



    You see, the analogy would be getting a fair number of students into a school, not graduating from it. So, getting a fair number of candidates into the primary would be analogous to getting a fair number of students into a school. Letting those candidates pass or fail based on their own merits would be analogous to letting the students pass or fail based on their own merits at a university.



    See?
  • Reply 12 of 30
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,393member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    No. If we're to draw analogies to AA, then the DNC would make sure an accurate number of black candidates were in the primary. They can't 'give points' to a candidate, that most likely would be illegal.



    You see, the analogy would be getting a fair number of students into a school, not graduating from it. So, getting a fair number of candidates into the primary would be analogous to getting a fair number of students into a school. Letting those candidates pass or fail based on their own merits would be analogous to letting the students pass or fail based on their own merits at a university.



    See?




    The points that I'm talking about are not voting points but points that come from within the democratic party to boost the standings of these two candidates within the DNC's presidential race. For the most part, isn't it true that the DNC can pick anybody they want to run for president?



    As it is now, it looks to me like most of the voting democrats will never give enough support to any minority running for president to make them a serious contender. What I see know are mostly white males in the DNC race (and also running the DNC). Do you think this is right?
  • Reply 13 of 30
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    No. If we're to draw analogies to AA, then the DNC would make sure an accurate number of black candidates were in the primary. They can't 'give points' to a candidate, that most likely would be illegal.



    You see, the analogy would be getting a fair number of students into a school, not graduating from it. So, getting a fair number of candidates into the primary would be analogous to getting a fair number of students into a school. Letting those candidates pass or fail based on their own merits would be analogous to letting the students pass or fail based on their own merits at a university.



    See?




    Well articulated points bunge but AA is Racism.



    giving one person preference over another based on the color of skin is very very wrong.



    Ticket Master does not sell Tickets that way either. It is just flat unjust



    Fellowship
  • Reply 14 of 30
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    actually it's ironic the number of high power positions the republican party has appointed in the last decade or so considering thye're supposed to be the "white man's" party.
  • Reply 15 of 30
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sc_markt

    As it is now, it looks to me like most of the voting democrats will never give enough support to any minority running for president to make them a serious contender. What I see know are mostly white males in the DNC race (and also running the DNC). Do you think this is right?



    In all honesty, I'm not sure this is right. I think a serious contender would be taken seriously regardless of color.



    I think you see mostly white males because there are mostly white males in politics. That's a problem that exists before the DNC gets involved.
  • Reply 16 of 30
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    Well articulated points bunge but AA is Racism.



    That's a big argument I'm not sure we should get into here. I'm also not committed to either side of it at this point in time. I here arguments on both sides that sway me in either direction. Is it racism? That's probably stronger than I would say. Is it equality? That's a more important question and much, much harder to define.
  • Reply 17 of 30
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by sc_markt

    The points that I'm talking about are not voting points but points that come from within the democratic party to boost the standings of these two candidates within the DNC's presidential race. For the most part, isn't it true that the DNC can pick anybody they want to run for president?



    Sorry Alclimedes.



    Anyway,



    I don't think it would be legal for the DNC to boost the standings if those standings aren't based on actual registered voter numbers. I tried to say that in my original post.
  • Reply 18 of 30
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by keyboardf12

    I think a better way would be for braun or sharpton to get adopted but the Bushes. That way their new daddy could use all his power and influence to get them into whitehouse. Even if they were not qualified for the position.



  • Reply 19 of 30
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by alcimedes

    actually it's ironic the number of high power positions the republican party has appointed in the last decade or so considering thye're supposed to be the "white man's" party.



    It's the same here in Australia.. While the Labor party ( equal to Democrats ) trumpets change, demands AA for women & minority groups....it's all hot air...



    In the meantime, the Liberals, ( eqivilant to Republicans ) have placed more women, & minorities amongst their benches than Labor..I think the ratio is 3 to every 1 by labor...



    The difference is..alll of those in the Liberal party got there on merit..not skin color, ethnicity,religion or gender....



    And guess what..voters relate to them, because they feel that they haven't been foisted on them to make a party " look good "



    So your right..preselection based on AA is bullshit & treats minority groups as dumb asse ignoramases that are happy vote Democrat just because of a AA appearance.



    I agree with Fellows..



    It is just another form of patronising racism.
  • Reply 20 of 30
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,457member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by bunge

    Sorry Alclimedes.



    Anyway,



    I don't think it would be legal for the DNC to boost the standings if those standings aren't based on actual registered voter numbers. I tried to say that in my original post.




    You are 100% correct. (You better take a screenshot again)



    Applying AA to the Democratic Presidential candidates would have nothing to do with whether they succeed. AA is only about entry to the university. The fact that the AA admitted students often flunk out at disportionate rates and likely cause more racism as a result is of no consequence to supporters of AA.



    Nick
Sign In or Register to comment.