(06-19-2016 06:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 05:43 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 11:14 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 07:24 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Why isn't there a Republican on the ballot? Isn't there any minor party candidates? Something wrong in this thread's basic premise.

In California's primary since 2011 the voters are allowed as individual citizens to vote for any candidate, and the top two candidates regardless of party will advance to the general election. The Presidential election is exempt as it is a contest for delegates rather than a direct election for an office.

Interesting. Sure looks like someone stacked the deck. Makes me wonder why all the liberal ******** on here, get so incensed over alleged Republican gerrymandering.

How could that be stacking the deck? The more of one party in the race the more they split the vote and open the door for a candidate from the opposition party or a minor party to slip in to the runoff. Also you can't gerrymander a statewide race.

You stack the deck when you have a 50% higher rate of registration, making it likely for a one-two Dem finish.

And please spare me your ****** arrogance. I never said gerrymander a statewide race and I think you know that.

(06-19-2016 07:04 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  Who cares what color They are . I'd likely tag 'em at my age if it presented that situation. Lol

I have....I like the way you think

#noshame

the only ones left are a a brit and an aussie.....a tad of irony from the 'sip

(06-19-2016 07:07 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 06:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 05:43 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 11:14 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 07:24 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Why isn't there a Republican on the ballot? Isn't there any minor party candidates? Something wrong in this thread's basic premise.

In California's primary since 2011 the voters are allowed as individual citizens to vote for any candidate, and the top two candidates regardless of party will advance to the general election. The Presidential election is exempt as it is a contest for delegates rather than a direct election for an office.

Interesting. Sure looks like someone stacked the deck. Makes me wonder why all the liberal ******** on here, get so incensed over alleged Republican gerrymandering.

How could that be stacking the deck? The more of one party in the race the more they split the vote and open the door for a candidate from the opposition party or a minor party to slip in to the runoff. Also you can't gerrymander a statewide race.

You stack the deck when you have a 50% higher rate of registration, making it likely for a one-two Dem finish.

And please spare me your ****** arrogance. I never said gerrymander a statewide race and I think you know that.

Sorry my post got you upset. No reason to curse though. If only 2 Ds run I can see your point but it seems more likely to me that in a crowded primary field in a state with such a high percentage of Ds registered it is much more likely that there will be several Ds on the ballot, not just two. In that case is is very possible that the D vote gets split and an R or other slips in to one of the two spots. In regard to the gerrymandering it tends to be a matter of who's ox is being gored, regardless of party. I've been gerrymandered to the point of really having my vote in several races rendered meaningless.

(06-19-2016 08:17 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 07:07 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 06:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 05:43 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 11:14 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  In California's primary since 2011 the voters are allowed as individual citizens to vote for any candidate, and the top two candidates regardless of party will advance to the general election. The Presidential election is exempt as it is a contest for delegates rather than a direct election for an office.

Interesting. Sure looks like someone stacked the deck. Makes me wonder why all the liberal ******** on here, get so incensed over alleged Republican gerrymandering.

How could that be stacking the deck? The more of one party in the race the more they split the vote and open the door for a candidate from the opposition party or a minor party to slip in to the runoff. Also you can't gerrymander a statewide race.

You stack the deck when you have a 50% higher rate of registration, making it likely for a one-two Dem finish.

And please spare me your ****** arrogance. I never said gerrymander a statewide race and I think you know that.

Sorry my post got you upset. No reason to curse though. If only 2 Ds run I can see your point but it seems more likely to me that in a crowded primary field in a state with such a high percentage of Ds registered it is much more likely that there will be several Ds on the ballot, not just two. In that case is is very possible that the D vote gets split and an R or other slips in to one of the two spots. In regard to the gerrymandering it tends to be a matter of who's ox is being gored, regardless of party. I've been gerrymandered to the point of really having my vote in several races rendered meaningless.

wow.....you couldn't have described how being a puss=boots any better with that last statement......lifo/fifo couldn't be metaphorically analogized better....

I never knew you had it in ya....>sarC?>

(06-19-2016 08:29 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 08:17 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 07:07 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 06:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 05:43 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Interesting. Sure looks like someone stacked the deck. Makes me wonder why all the liberal ******** on here, get so incensed over alleged Republican gerrymandering.

How could that be stacking the deck? The more of one party in the race the more they split the vote and open the door for a candidate from the opposition party or a minor party to slip in to the runoff. Also you can't gerrymander a statewide race.

You stack the deck when you have a 50% higher rate of registration, making it likely for a one-two Dem finish.

And please spare me your ****** arrogance. I never said gerrymander a statewide race and I think you know that.

Sorry my post got you upset. No reason to curse though. If only 2 Ds run I can see your point but it seems more likely to me that in a crowded primary field in a state with such a high percentage of Ds registered it is much more likely that there will be several Ds on the ballot, not just two. In that case is is very possible that the D vote gets split and an R or other slips in to one of the two spots. In regard to the gerrymandering it tends to be a matter of who's ox is being gored, regardless of party. I've been gerrymandered to the point of really having my vote in several races rendered meaningless.

wow.....you couldn't have described how being a puss=boots any better with that last statement......lifo/fifo couldn't be metaphorically analogized better....

I never knew you had it in ya....>sarC?>

Huh?

(06-19-2016 08:54 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 08:29 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 08:17 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 07:07 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 06:41 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  How could that be stacking the deck? The more of one party in the race the more they split the vote and open the door for a candidate from the opposition party or a minor party to slip in to the runoff. Also you can't gerrymander a statewide race.

You stack the deck when you have a 50% higher rate of registration, making it likely for a one-two Dem finish.

And please spare me your ****** arrogance. I never said gerrymander a statewide race and I think you know that.

Sorry my post got you upset. No reason to curse though. If only 2 Ds run I can see your point but it seems more likely to me that in a crowded primary field in a state with such a high percentage of Ds registered it is much more likely that there will be several Ds on the ballot, not just two. In that case is is very possible that the D vote gets split and an R or other slips in to one of the two spots. In regard to the gerrymandering it tends to be a matter of who's ox is being gored, regardless of party. I've been gerrymandered to the point of really having my vote in several races rendered meaningless.

wow.....you couldn't have described how being a puss=boots any better with that last statement......lifo/fifo couldn't be metaphorically analogized better....

I never knew you had it in ya....>sarC?>

Huh?

(

(06-18-2016 07:51 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:21 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 10:15 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is this some kind of surprise Max?

It kind of is. We've only had a single woman of color in the 225 years of the senate. And for the Republicans not to get a runoff candidate again shows how far Raygun's CA GOP has fallen.

and she was a one-term disaster. that's what heppens when you pick your senators solely on the basis of their genitalia or the color of their skin.

Yeah there have never been any white male disasters, that's for sure. And it's mildly offensive to suggest they only got where they are because of the color of their skin. Harris is a Stanford Law grad and CA attorney general.

I think diversity does matter actually. Different perspectives matter. When Jesse Helms tried to push through a Confederate flag patent, it was the one black member of the Senate who stood up and filibustered it. A 100% white senate passes it. Welfare reform gets plowed through with votes from people who look nothing like those who will be disproportionately effected. A black legislator locally is demanding our state's clean energy act not only create jobs, but create those jobs in the poor (heavily POC) communities which have been breathing the dirty air around the fossil fuel plants for years.

I know white conservatives on here don't see the significance of having non white voices in the Senate, but of course they don't.

Re Condi Rice, that was significant but she wasn't elected.

(06-19-2016 10:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:51 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:21 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 10:15 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is this some kind of surprise Max?

It kind of is. We've only had a single woman of color in the 225 years of the senate. And for the Republicans not to get a runoff candidate again shows how far Raygun's CA GOP has fallen.

and she was a one-term disaster. that's what heppens when you pick your senators solely on the basis of their genitalia or the color of their skin.

Yeah there have never been any white male disasters, that's for sure. And it's mildly offensive to suggest they only got where they are because of the color of their skin. Harris is a Stanford Law grad and CA attorney general.

I think diversity does matter actually. Different perspectives matter. When Jesse Helms tried to push through a Confederate flag patent, it was the one black member of the Senate who stood up and filibustered it. A 100% white senate passes it. Welfare reform gets plowed through with votes from people who look nothing like those who will be disproportionately effected. A black legislator locally is demanding our state's clean energy act not only create jobs, but create those jobs in the poor (heavily POC) communities which have been breathing the dirty air around the fossil fuel plants for years.

I know white conservatives on here don't see the significance of having non white voices in the Senate, but of course they don't.

Re Condi Rice, that was significant but she wasn't elected.

The fact that the only African-American currently in the senate is a conservative republican exposes the lie in your post. But keep lying, nothing unusual there.

(06-19-2016 10:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:51 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:21 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 10:15 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is this some kind of surprise Max?

It kind of is. We've only had a single woman of color in the 225 years of the senate. And for the Republicans not to get a runoff candidate again shows how far Raygun's CA GOP has fallen.

and she was a one-term disaster. that's what heppens when you pick your senators solely on the basis of their genitalia or the color of their skin.

Yeah there have never been any white male disasters, that's for sure. And it's mildly offensive to suggest they only got where they are because of the color of their skin. Harris is a Stanford Law grad and CA attorney general.

I think diversity does matter actually. Different perspectives matter. When Jesse Helms tried to push through a Confederate flag patent, it was the one black member of the Senate who stood up and filibustered it. A 100% white senate passes it. Welfare reform gets plowed through with votes from people who look nothing like those who will be disproportionately effected. A black legislator locally is demanding our state's clean energy act not only create jobs, but create those jobs in the poor (heavily POC) communities which have been breathing the dirty air around the fossil fuel plants for years.

I know white conservatives on here don't see the significance of having non white voices in the Senate, but of course they don't.

Re Condi Rice, that was significant but she wasn't elected.

you completely whiffed his point....

agenda based policy = fail after building upon any landscape

it doesn't matter what freaktoid bs one uses....

all you see is color.....

we dont fk'n care....we only look for competency in leadership.....

(06-19-2016 10:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:51 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:21 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 10:15 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is this some kind of surprise Max?

It kind of is. We've only had a single woman of color in the 225 years of the senate. And for the Republicans not to get a runoff candidate again shows how far Raygun's CA GOP has fallen.

and she was a one-term disaster. that's what heppens when you pick your senators solely on the basis of their genitalia or the color of their skin.

Yeah there have never been any white male disasters, that's for sure. And it's mildly offensive to suggest they only got where they are because of the color of their skin. Harris is a Stanford Law grad and CA attorney general.

I think diversity does matter actually. Different perspectives matter. When Jesse Helms tried to push through a Confederate flag patent, it was the one black member of the Senate who stood up and filibustered it. A 100% white senate passes it. Welfare reform gets plowed through with votes from people who look nothing like those who will be disproportionately effected. A black legislator locally is demanding our state's clean energy act not only create jobs, but create those jobs in the poor (heavily POC) communities which have been breathing the dirty air around the fossil fuel plants for years.

I know white conservatives on here don't see the significance of having non white voices in the Senate, but of course they don't.

Re Condi Rice, that was significant but she wasn't elected.

The fact that the only African-American currently in the senate is a conservative republican exposes the lie in your post. But keep lying, nothing unusual there.

Cory Booker is a conservative Republican?

And just because they have Tim Scott doesn't mean they see his significance.

(06-19-2016 10:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yeah there have never been any white male disasters, that's for sure. And it's mildly offensive to suggest they only got where they are because of the color of their skin. Harris is a Stanford Law grad and CA attorney general.

Of course, whenever there is a minority who speaks out against affirmative action the first thing that often comes out of the mouth of AA proponents is that that particular person has no appreciation as to how they benefited from AA. Saying someone is just token hire is all of the sudden all right when it can be done to attack people speaking out against AA.

(06-19-2016 10:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I think diversity does matter actually. Different perspectives matter. When Jesse Helms tried to push through a Confederate flag patent, it was the one black member of the Senate who stood up and filibustered it. A 100% white senate passes it. Welfare reform gets plowed through with votes from people who look nothing like those who will be disproportionately effected. A black legislator locally is demanding our state's clean energy act not only create jobs, but create those jobs in the poor (heavily POC) communities which have been breathing the dirty air around the fossil fuel plants for years.

What is the kind of diversity that you speak of? Is it just diversity of appearance or actual diversity of world views and experiences? I'm curious to know which it is because the former is really stupid and superficial and the latter is massively hypocritical.

Assuming you are going to have broad experiences just because you have "people of color" is no different than the college professor that calls on the only black student in the class to get "the black perspective" on a topic. You can't say there's any meaningful diversity in diversity of skin tones without putting groups of people into monoliths, which is one of the purest forms of racism there is.

"Diversity" is nothing but a hypocritical FoS religion that has taken over higher education and the realm of government hiring.

(06-18-2016 07:46 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 06:18 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 10:42 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:49 AM)Max Power Wrote:  The two candidates in a runoff for retiring Sen Barbara Boxer's seat are both Dems, so we're guaranteed to hold this one.

Expect Attorney General Kamala Harris to win over Rep Loretta Sanchez. She's a rising star and might even run for president in 2024. Either way though we get a woman of color in an institution that has been sorely lacking.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politic...enate-race



This is the seat Carly Fiorina ran for and lost big in 2010.

...and yet not one woman (of color) ran for POTUS on the Democratic side. Bunch of racists you all are.

The Democrats had a bunch of ancient white people and discouraged anyone but their anointed one from running.
The Republicans had two Hispanics and a Black in their final 5 (really their final 4-Kasich was never in it) and had two 43 year olds.

Ooo. A black what?

The typical libtard response.

Note: I still stand by this statement, even though I thought I was responding to racist Max.

OK...

It used to be the more liberal members of this form that would throw out all the insults. The typical conservative response on this board is "Libtard".

(06-19-2016 11:01 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:51 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:21 PM)Max Power Wrote:  It kind of is. We've only had a single woman of color in the 225 years of the senate. And for the Republicans not to get a runoff candidate again shows how far Raygun's CA GOP has fallen.

and she was a one-term disaster. that's what heppens when you pick your senators solely on the basis of their genitalia or the color of their skin.

Yeah there have never been any white male disasters, that's for sure. And it's mildly offensive to suggest they only got where they are because of the color of their skin. Harris is a Stanford Law grad and CA attorney general.

I think diversity does matter actually. Different perspectives matter. When Jesse Helms tried to push through a Confederate flag patent, it was the one black member of the Senate who stood up and filibustered it. A 100% white senate passes it. Welfare reform gets plowed through with votes from people who look nothing like those who will be disproportionately effected. A black legislator locally is demanding our state's clean energy act not only create jobs, but create those jobs in the poor (heavily POC) communities which have been breathing the dirty air around the fossil fuel plants for years.

I know white conservatives on here don't see the significance of having non white voices in the Senate, but of course they don't.

Re Condi Rice, that was significant but she wasn't elected.

The fact that the only African-American currently in the senate is a conservative republican exposes the lie in your post. But keep lying, nothing unusual there.

Cory Booker is a conservative Republican?

And just because they have Tim Scott doesn't mean they see his significance.

so color vs. the self serving politicians that represent color is tossed out of this argument?

all you see are rainbows.....you're absolutely clueless....

(06-19-2016 10:52 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:51 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:21 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 10:15 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  It is this some kind of surprise Max?

It kind of is. We've only had a single woman of color in the 225 years of the senate. And for the Republicans not to get a runoff candidate again shows how far Raygun's CA GOP has fallen.

and she was a one-term disaster. that's what heppens when you pick your senators solely on the basis of their genitalia or the color of their skin.

Yeah there have never been any white male disasters, that's for sure. And it's mildly offensive to suggest they only got where they are because of the color of their skin. Harris is a Stanford Law grad and CA attorney general.

I think diversity does matter actually. Different perspectives matter. When Jesse Helms tried to push through a Confederate flag patent, it was the one black member of the Senate who stood up and filibustered it. A 100% white senate passes it. Welfare reform gets plowed through with votes from people who look nothing like those who will be disproportionately effected. A black legislator locally is demanding our state's clean energy act not only create jobs, but create those jobs in the poor (heavily POC) communities which have been breathing the dirty air around the fossil fuel plants for years.

I know white conservatives on here don't see the significance of having non white voices in the Senate, but of course they don't.

Re Condi Rice, that was significant but she wasn't elected.

you completely whiffed his point....

agenda based policy = fail after building upon any landscape

it doesn't matter what freaktoid bs one uses....

all you see is color.....

we dont fk'n care....we only look for competency in leadership.....

Sure, the electorate only cares about competency. Maybe that's why there has only been one woman of color in 225 years of the Senate, and 43 straight white males in the White House until 2009. Just competency.

That's our history. That's why this is significant.

(06-19-2016 11:02 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:46 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 06:18 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 10:42 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  ...and yet not one woman (of color) ran for POTUS on the Democratic side. Bunch of racists you all are.

The Democrats had a bunch of ancient white people and discouraged anyone but their anointed one from running.
The Republicans had two Hispanics and a Black in their final 5 (really their final 4-Kasich was never in it) and had two 43 year olds.

Ooo. A black what?

The typical libtard response.

Note: I still stand by this statement, even though I thought I was responding to racist Max.

OK...

It used to be the more liberal members of this form that would throw out all the insults. The typical conservative response on this board is "Libtard".

Well, in my defense, I did think I was responding to racist Max. I most likely wouldn't have used the word "libtard" if I realized I was responding to you.

(06-19-2016 11:01 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:51 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:51 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:21 PM)Max Power Wrote:  It kind of is. We've only had a single woman of color in the 225 years of the senate. And for the Republicans not to get a runoff candidate again shows how far Raygun's CA GOP has fallen.

and she was a one-term disaster. that's what heppens when you pick your senators solely on the basis of their genitalia or the color of their skin.

Yeah there have never been any white male disasters, that's for sure. And it's mildly offensive to suggest they only got where they are because of the color of their skin. Harris is a Stanford Law grad and CA attorney general.

I think diversity does matter actually. Different perspectives matter. When Jesse Helms tried to push through a Confederate flag patent, it was the one black member of the Senate who stood up and filibustered it. A 100% white senate passes it. Welfare reform gets plowed through with votes from people who look nothing like those who will be disproportionately effected. A black legislator locally is demanding our state's clean energy act not only create jobs, but create those jobs in the poor (heavily POC) communities which have been breathing the dirty air around the fossil fuel plants for years.

I know white conservatives on here don't see the significance of having non white voices in the Senate, but of course they don't.

Re Condi Rice, that was significant but she wasn't elected.

The fact that the only African-American currently in the senate is a conservative republican exposes the lie in your post. But keep lying, nothing unusual there.

Cory Booker is a conservative Republican?

And just because they have Tim Scott doesn't mean they see his significance.

Oops, forgot Booker. So it's one and one.
Like most left wingers, you support diversity in color, gender, religion, sexual preference--everything but diversity of thought.

(06-19-2016 11:05 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:52 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:51 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:21 PM)Max Power Wrote:  It kind of is. We've only had a single woman of color in the 225 years of the senate. And for the Republicans not to get a runoff candidate again shows how far Raygun's CA GOP has fallen.

and she was a one-term disaster. that's what heppens when you pick your senators solely on the basis of their genitalia or the color of their skin.

Yeah there have never been any white male disasters, that's for sure. And it's mildly offensive to suggest they only got where they are because of the color of their skin. Harris is a Stanford Law grad and CA attorney general.

I think diversity does matter actually. Different perspectives matter. When Jesse Helms tried to push through a Confederate flag patent, it was the one black member of the Senate who stood up and filibustered it. A 100% white senate passes it. Welfare reform gets plowed through with votes from people who look nothing like those who will be disproportionately effected. A black legislator locally is demanding our state's clean energy act not only create jobs, but create those jobs in the poor (heavily POC) communities which have been breathing the dirty air around the fossil fuel plants for years.

I know white conservatives on here don't see the significance of having non white voices in the Senate, but of course they don't.

Re Condi Rice, that was significant but she wasn't elected.

you completely whiffed his point....

agenda based policy = fail after building upon any landscape

it doesn't matter what freaktoid bs one uses....

all you see is color.....

we dont fk'n care....we only look for competency in leadership.....

Sure, the electorate only cares about competency. Maybe that's why there has only been one woman of color in 225 years of the Senate, and 43 straight white males in the White House until 2009. Just competency.

That's our history. That's why this is significant.

so your argument is that color change will create change in that forum...

are you really that young?

please explain how that would change anything other than color.....

please realize I'm hardly arguing against status quo as being the answer.....

remember, I'm pro Trump that the redcoats despise.....

I'm on record on any position.....I'm a centrist.....

you are slighted in slant.....as are almost all others.....

you gettin' it' yet?

argue any of that......I'll play...

(06-19-2016 11:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 11:05 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:52 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-18-2016 07:51 PM)EagleX Wrote:  and she was a one-term disaster. that's what heppens when you pick your senators solely on the basis of their genitalia or the color of their skin.

Yeah there have never been any white male disasters, that's for sure. And it's mildly offensive to suggest they only got where they are because of the color of their skin. Harris is a Stanford Law grad and CA attorney general.

I think diversity does matter actually. Different perspectives matter. When Jesse Helms tried to push through a Confederate flag patent, it was the one black member of the Senate who stood up and filibustered it. A 100% white senate passes it. Welfare reform gets plowed through with votes from people who look nothing like those who will be disproportionately effected. A black legislator locally is demanding our state's clean energy act not only create jobs, but create those jobs in the poor (heavily POC) communities which have been breathing the dirty air around the fossil fuel plants for years.

I know white conservatives on here don't see the significance of having non white voices in the Senate, but of course they don't.

Re Condi Rice, that was significant but she wasn't elected.

you completely whiffed his point....

agenda based policy = fail after building upon any landscape

it doesn't matter what freaktoid bs one uses....

all you see is color.....

we dont fk'n care....we only look for competency in leadership.....

Sure, the electorate only cares about competency. Maybe that's why there has only been one woman of color in 225 years of the Senate, and 43 straight white males in the White House until 2009. Just competency.

That's our history. That's why this is significant.

so your argument is that color change will create change in that forum...

are you really that young?

please explain how that would change anything other than color.....

please realize I'm hardly arguing against status quo as being the answer.....

remember, I'm pro Trump that the redcoats despise.....

I'm on record on any position.....I'm a centrist.....

you are slighted in slant.....as are almost all others.....

you gettin' it' yet?

argue any of that......I'll play...

I gave you three examples.

A diversity of perspective s matters. Color is one part of that. As is poverty, age, military background. We're best served when a legislature reflects the people it represents.

(06-19-2016 11:50 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 11:16 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 11:05 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:52 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:47 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Yeah there have never been any white male disasters, that's for sure. And it's mildly offensive to suggest they only got where they are because of the color of their skin. Harris is a Stanford Law grad and CA attorney general.

I think diversity does matter actually. Different perspectives matter. When Jesse Helms tried to push through a Confederate flag patent, it was the one black member of the Senate who stood up and filibustered it. A 100% white senate passes it. Welfare reform gets plowed through with votes from people who look nothing like those who will be disproportionately effected. A black legislator locally is demanding our state's clean energy act not only create jobs, but create those jobs in the poor (heavily POC) communities which have been breathing the dirty air around the fossil fuel plants for years.

I know white conservatives on here don't see the significance of having non white voices in the Senate, but of course they don't.

Re Condi Rice, that was significant but she wasn't elected.

you completely whiffed his point....

agenda based policy = fail after building upon any landscape

it doesn't matter what freaktoid bs one uses....

all you see is color.....

we dont fk'n care....we only look for competency in leadership.....

Sure, the electorate only cares about competency. Maybe that's why there has only been one woman of color in 225 years of the Senate, and 43 straight white males in the White House until 2009. Just competency.

That's our history. That's why this is significant.

so your argument is that color change will create change in that forum...

are you really that young?

please explain how that would change anything other than color.....

please realize I'm hardly arguing against status quo as being the answer.....

remember, I'm pro Trump that the redcoats despise.....

I'm on record on any position.....I'm a centrist.....

you are slighted in slant.....as are almost all others.....

you gettin' it' yet?

argue any of that......I'll play...

I gave you three examples.

A diversity of perspective s matters. Color is one part of that. As is poverty, age, military background. We're best served when a legislature reflects the people it represents.

color/gender w/o agenda I agree with...

color/gender roles have evolved over time both locally and nationally....

however, to argue diversity w/o understanding how the game is played is false....

this government never was and never will be run by a diverse group regardless of color/gender....

your posit is simply naive in thinking it being plausible in the real world....

one day, if you're lucky enough, you'll understand why age matters....