CNN Only Took Hours To Play Race Card.....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Blacks ARE under-represented because the DEMs rigged it that way. They WANT the blacks to be under-represented so the old white guys can run the show. I guess you missed my point entirely. Are you REALLY unaware that DEMs are racist? Are you really unaware that they have been the party that has ALWAYS promoted racism and segregation?

Look at what they just pulled in Florida. OMG! Try to imagine a Republican President and former President asking a BLACK guy to step out of an election so they could beat an Hispanic and give the seat to a WHITE guy!

DEMS have always segregated blacks, DEMs still segregate blacks. They carve out a little, useless, meaningless playground for them and give them some Gerrymandered seats but not enough to really matter and at the same guarantee they can never get a seat except those which are carefully rationed out to them. They they say "Look, WE support black people because LOOK, all the blacks in congress are DEMs"

Given that the phenomenon is not new or even recent, a reasonable conclusion would be that the political system is corrupt and serves to make the rich richer while screwing over the poor. Most people probably agree with this conclusion in one form or other, yet you seem intent on singling out the Democratic party for the blame. I'm afraid your rationale stinks of disingenuousness

Edited November 3, 2010 by Ron Burgundy

[alienlovechild 75]

If the claim in the article is true, why are there no black senators?

It could be because there aren't racial or ethnic quotas in the legislature. Why don't you start ranting why there are more Jews, lawyers, rich folks or men in Congress than in the general population?

No state has over 50% black people so it's not exactly strange if you base everything on race. Also consider that black voters tend to be very loyal to one party. A Democratic candidate doesn't need to court black voters as he has their vote. A Republican can, at best, hope to glean off a few black voters so the net effect is to take the black vote for granted (Dems) or write them off (GOP)= not enough political power to elect more black candidates that will appeal to the general population.

Edited November 3, 2010 by alienlovechild

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It could be because there aren't racial or ethnic quotas in the legislature. Why don't you start ranting why there are more Jews, lawyers, rich folks or men in Congress than in the general population?

No state has over 50% black people so it's not exactly strange if you base everything on race. Also consider that black voters tend to be very loyal to one party. A Democratic candidate doesn't need to court black voters as he has their vote. A Republican can, at best, hope to glean off a few black voters so the net effect is to take the black vote for granted (Dems) or write them off (GOP)= not enough political power to elect more black candidates that will appeal to the general population.

I didn't mention quotas, I asked an open question that arises from the claim in the op article.

Stop being a drama queen.

[alienlovechild 75]

I didn't mention quotas, I asked an open question that arises from the claim in the op article.

Stop being a drama queen.

I answered your question and if you can't understand how basic voting patterns yield a certain crop of candidates then I'm wasting my time on you.

If you want certain type of candidate either you need quotas, accept inequalities as part of the political landscape or keep raising the same dumb question and ignoring all else. Considering quotas are used in the UK it's hard to believe you could be so dense.

Reserved political positions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_political_positions

"The use of all-women shortlists (AWS) is the political practice intended to increase the proportion of female Members of Parliament (MPs) in the United Kingdom by allowing only women to stand in particular constituencies for a particular political party.[1][2] Though the practice is available to all parties, only the Labour Party uses it.[3] Jacqui Smith, who served as Home Secretary, was one prominent politician elected on an all-women shortlist.[4][5]"

"All-women shortlists had been credited with breaking down prejudices that impeded the selection of women and discouraged women from offering their candidacy.[1] In both 1997 and 2005, fifty per cent of women MPs elected were selected from all-women shortlists.[17]

The increase in women in politics brought increased parliamentary priority to issues such as women's health, domestic violence, childcare.[17] In addition, the increased number of women MPs and greater focus on women's concerns likely resulted in increased female support for Labour at the polls.[17] AWS may also have made it easier for women to be selected non all-women shorlist seats.[30] The shortlists also gave rise to the appointment of Britain's first female Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith in June 2007."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-women_shortlists

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But Dave, there are people here who promote the idea that racial inequalities don't exist at all and are somehow illusory and not worthy of discussion.

I am fully aware that there is no easy or simple answer to the question I asked, hence it was largely rhetorical, not literal. Inequalities do exist, it is obvious. Why not simply admit it?

Edited November 3, 2010 by Ron Burgundy

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't think the statistic means much without looking into individual congressional races from both parties and where each party focused their efforts on.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think the statistic means much without looking into individual congressional races from both parties and where each party focused their efforts on.

Indeed. It's merely the tip of an iceberg.

[SMR 368]

Is it? If you flipped a coin 50 times and got all heads, would you think that you were just really lucky?

You're grossly oversimplifying the issue. How often do you flip a coin when determining who to vote for? Skin color is a physical characteristic. That is all. How many people do you think honestly vote based on skin color? If you agree with someone's politics, you vote for them. Otherwise, you don't.

Honestly, what do you intend on doing about this supposed issue? Do you plan on voting for someone just because of his or her skin color? Do you plan on supporting someone more vigorously because of his or her skin color? If so, you're a racist. If not, it's a completely pointless non-issue.

If the claim in the article is true, why are there no black senators?

Well, it could be because one of them got elected president and thus isn't a senator anymore...

In all seriousness, Obama demonstrates the point that black is a skin color (and not much more). He was raised in a white family. He grew up with white culture. But yet, everyone talks about him being the first black president. Why? Because he has more melanin in his skin. He doesn't fit the definition of black by any of these complicated cultural, socioeconomic definitions. He is black because it's the color of his skin.

Anybody who was concerned about diversity on a more than skin-deep level would point out that Barack Obama is not much more diverse and multi-cultural than John McCain.

Edited November 3, 2010 by SMR

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Doesn't that imply that there is some overarching "black culture"? I don't think that's the case.

Would you say that Walter Moseley is more or less black than 50 Cent?

Morgan Freeman more or less "black" than Eminem?

[Jenn! 918]

You're grossly oversimplifying the issue. How often do you flip a coin when determining who to vote for? Skin color is a physical characteristic. That is all. How many people do you think honestly vote based on skin color? If you agree with someone's politics, you vote for them. Otherwise, you don't.

Honestly, what do you intend on doing about this supposed issue? Do you plan on voting for someone just because of his or her skin color? Do you plan on supporting someone more vigorously because of his or her skin color? If so, you're a racist. If not, it's a completely pointless non-issue.

I don't think you understand my point. If blondes are 25% of the population and there were no blondes in Congress, that would be statistically significant. Why are there no blondes in Congress? Maybe no blondes ran. Maybe the blondes that did run just happened to be unqualified or otherwise unsuitable. Maybe society is prejudiced against blondes. Whatever the reason, the fact that there are no blondes in Congress is not a throwaway observation. I don't know...personally, I like to investigate statistical anomalies, but maybe that's just me. That said, I don't intend on doing anything in particular about this issue.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't think you understand my point. If blondes are 25% of the population and there were no blondes in Congress, that would be statistically significant. Why are there no blondes in Congress? Maybe no blondes ran. Maybe the blondes that did run just happened to be unqualified or otherwise unsuitable. Maybe society is prejudiced against blondes. Whatever the reason, the fact that there are no blondes in Congress is not a throwaway observation. I don't know...personally, I like to investigate statistical anomalies, but maybe that's just me. That said, I don't intend on doing anything in particular about this issue.

[SMR 368]

I don't think you understand my point. If blondes are 25% of the population and there were no blondes in Congress, that would be statistically significant. Why are there no blondes in Congress? Maybe no blondes ran. Maybe the blondes that did run just happened to be unqualified or otherwise unsuitable. Maybe society is prejudiced against blondes. Whatever the reason, the fact that there are no blondes in Congress is not a throwaway observation. I don't know...personally, I like to investigate statistical anomalies, but maybe that's just me. That said, I don't intend on doing anything in particular about this issue.

I understand your point about the coins and it is a good one. But I just think you are analyzing this too statistically and not logically enough. I don't know of anyone who has a problem with black senators. I just don't see it. If the candidate from my district with whom I most agreed with happened to have dark skin, it wouldn't sway me in the least from voting for him and I think practically all Americans would feel likewise.

I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else is drawn to investigate this because of your curiosity towards statistical anomalies.

[Jenn! 918]

I understand your point about the coins and it is a good one. But I just think you are analyzing this too statistically and not logically enough. I don't know of anyone who has a problem with black senators. I just don't see it. If the candidate from my district with whom I most agreed with happened to have dark skin, it wouldn't sway me in the least from voting for him and I think practically all Americans would feel likewise.

I find it hard to believe that you or anyone else is drawn to investigate this because of your curiosity towards statistical anomalies.

You're dismissing the data because it doesn't reconcile with your intuitions. I would be fired for such a thing!

[The_Dude 1,142]

You're dismissing the data because it doesn't reconcile with your intuitions. I would be fired for such a thing!

You mean if you work with statistics you can't change the data to meet your extrapolated, predetermined result?

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Post containing a personal attack along with posts quoting same have been removed. Personal attacks are a violation of TOS whether they are in English or in another language and are not acceptable.