Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Is not being a "white guy" reason enough to vote for a candidate

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 02:57 PM
Original message
Poll question: Is not being a "white guy" reason enough to vote for a candidate
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 03:11 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?

Sorry, polls are turned off at Level 3.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. fuck no. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
2. flamebait
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:01 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. you must have missed this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

but it's really only the OP who thinks this way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. The options the OP laid out are disengenuous.
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 03:20 PM by lwfern
That's unaffected by the content of the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. me?
I didn't start this thread. I'm confused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Oops, my bad
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!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:07 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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beaverhausen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:10 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:07 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:13 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:06 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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:11 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:26 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. That is truly sad.
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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. This is the political equivelant of asking your spouse if you look fat.
There's no safe answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. In my house we say "yes" if its true.
Honesty is expected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Rinaldo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
8. Other.
Race or Gender can be one of a number of considerations that may be relevent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lojasmo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
12. Enough among this pathetic group. EOM
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunnies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
15. WHO are these people
that think we should vote based solely on race and gender?! And WHAT is the reasoning behind that?! I dont get it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spirit of 34 Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
16. Unbelievable
I'm really impressed with the high level of political discourse on the threads I'm reading in this subforum. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
19. A Deliberate Mischaracterization of Affirmative Action
and pure flaimbaiting to boot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:32 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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. Um,
I liked Carter. Is that ok?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. ok, so you give it a 1:6 rating
again, the odds are not in its favor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:33 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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Openly gay,
not one of those closeted republicans, thank you very much. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:56 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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
24. Hell no.
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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
29. Affirmative action? Rush, is that you? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 06:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC