It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will there be woman or minorty president in the next 25 years in the United States?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Several?

Let's see...first one in German History, one in British History and one in a few other Nation's...

Will there be one? Yes...
When? Who knows?

The problem is, a minority President is highly unlikely for the next decade or two, a woman? Maybe...but again who do we have?

Clinton and Rice are no good.
Colin Powell might stand a chance as a minority, but not unless one of the major parties give him their backing...


Though getting a little too old soon, Elizabeth Dole would make a good female president, she has an exelent record of middle of the road conservitism that would appeal to both the Right and the LEft.




posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
At long last, I have some time free to actually post…

There is a large problem, when estimating the ability of a minority to take control of the United State’s Presidency - firstly, you after to operationalise what you mean by minority - do women fall into this bracket? Should it only boil down to anyone who isn’t a white, Christian, male?

Secondly, is this style of racism any better? Should we not wait for a “minority” to raise to prominence based on their ability, rather than the fact the Government’s are planning on abusing the fact they are a minority…

and thirdly, is there a level of underlying racism in the United State’s? Although a candidate might be the best for the job, will people shift party allegiance on the basis the person is black, Hispanic, female, etc?

Out of all the candidates that the United State’s has to offer, that fall into a “minority”, Colin Powell is arguably the most suited to run as President and seems to be the one pushing for it the most - this can be seen with his resignation from the Bush Administration and the vocal approach he has taken in recent months, commenting on things such as the wiretapping scandal, the War in Iraq and aiming his comments based on how he would run the Nation.

The main problem with Powell, is who will allow him to run? It is likely the Democrats will have Hillary Clinton as at least, one out of two of the Party hopefuls and the Republican Party seems to be angling to throw in Rice to counter this move as one of their own…so will Powell even get a look in from the two main parties? Or will he even need to?

Honestly, I see Powell running for President in 2008 or at least 2012 as an independent he is doing his best to distance himself from the present administration but also to criticise both political parties normally a move done by Election hopefuls and he also has the making of a President with the ability to gain a large amount of support - in fact, covering many areas of what the United State’s population seem to desire, strong, military veteran and so on and so fourth. Along with the ability to mobilise the party of the population in the U.S. who tend to vote the least - the minority groups.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Mr Bunny

I need to know if the requirement today for a candidate has become that they are middle of the road? Or is it that they are qualified for the office?
As I also stated in a previous post...is it that they are female or a canditate from one of the racial minoritys? Is this now the standard to play through now that we have been thoroughly preconditioned to think this way by education, the media,and the body politic.??? In otherwords the settings in our brains are no longer our setttings in individual thinking. They are someone elses settings and most of us no longer are aware of this.
I say this in the same light in which I posted earlier ..the concept so often used to play through in public office...it became such a sham that it was not whether you were qualified for the office ..even the office of dog catcher..but the issue was what is your stance on abortion?? Understand now???
IN the face of this kind of mind manipulation...the issue becomes what sex or minority are you from..not what are your qualifications for the office.

Odium,
The poster to whom you replied about the Jewish leader in the republican party.
While I have my complaints with the republican party ..I find this kind of race baiting, or guilt by race, misusing race to label one party or another for votes offensive. It becomes as if race is the exclusive ballywick of one party and not another. This is used or to me ..misused..in a similar vein as abortion is used by politics. This becomes eventually a type of racism for votes. This being effective by racial preconditioning so that people dont seem to notice it is being used. They become automatically defensive..which is the obvious intent of this control mechanism. It becomes a default to play thorough..unchallanged. You see ..to me this becomes to where it is not leadership..it is a default to play through unchallanged..no matter who is using it.

Show you how this works...when put to its conclusion in intelligence. A few weeks ago I stayed up to watch some movies. The movie I tuned into out of curiosity about the title was " Left of the dial". This movie turned out to be a type of narrative or documentary concerning the last presidential election and the role played in it by a radio station called "Air America."
In this documentary there were statements made by a talk show host named Randi Rhodes. By the comments made I quicky deduced that this was a very liberal political platform promoted by this radio station.
The astonishing thing to me was that on election night what was documented as happening to these people working the station was that as the election returns came in and some middle America results arrived for George Bush...the reply from Randi Rhodes several times was " dont worry..no one lives there." I found this to be highly offensive. These people were pushing a canditate and platform for the office of President of the United States ...the whole United States on the premise that in some states ..no one lives there.???? This is not leadership material. Especially for a station than uses the title Air America..implying that they represent America or American views. This is divisive..not uniting. This is a party platform ..a qualification for the office of President based on " No one lives there??"
In the same vein neither is race baiting..or economic status baiting, or baiting by sex. These become very tired olde mantras when you see them used or more appropriately misused by one party or another to divide America rather than unite this country. The idea that one party or another has carte blanche to play through on these settings becomes sickening after awhile when you can see it coming over and over and over and over..ad nausium. What you realize after awhile is that these people really dont have anything else other than this type of baiting.
This is precisely what is being done to galvanize unthinking highly emotional people behind the lever in a voting booth. It is a control mechanism to replace individual thinking of people by controls which are not even theirs. This is not leadership..it is political whoredom at its worst.

Once again..what is the leadership potential or ability of these candidates..not their sex ..not their minority status,economic status ..or other percieved default based on the changing winds of shallow political preconditioning for votes.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
That is part of the problem what does minority means? Lets put women in then. It seems like when someone uses the word minority it means not qualified. Then you hear the AA quotes and talking like it would be racist to consider that in the mix while not thinking about the history of the problem of racsim. '
' So are you telling me there is no one qualified to run the US in two hundred and something years but a Christian white male? Another problem to me is the discussion on who qualifies these people…
does it depend on the people that are like the candidate or who the two major political parties believe it to be (to me is another problem to why no one other type of person has been elected but a white Christian male.).
For instance can an indigenous Spanish person be considered to be presidential material without a white person saying, ”Yes they are good people.”? There are major people out there that only vote their negativity in political races instead of their candidate that represents them. “The devil I know aspect”. There are many qualified people in America that can run the country I feel better that bush can!! And some of them are not Christian white males. You are right about the democrats they do not want any minorities in major areas of the executive and representative. I have seen like M Jackson and the A Sharpton. Republicans can find minorities to run in subordinate or against strong minority democrats in races but in their ideology they are no different than an average Christian white male.

I feel more people would vote if they felt like they had more of a stake in this process. That’s the funny thing we say democracy butt it’s a republic. We say one vote but it is an electoral college that votes count in the presidential election. We say opportunity but if the two major parties block you out then you are out. Diversity would help this country out immensely if it gave it a chance change is not bad always.


Shallow is thinking that you do not think of race when you make your decision. If you did not think of race there would be more qualified minorites in major government positions.


[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Mr Bunny

I need to know if the requirement today for a candidate has become that they are middle of the road? Or is it that they are qualified for the office?
As I also stated in a previous post...is it that they are female or a canditate from one of the racial minoritys? Is this now the standard to play through now that we have been thoroughly preconditioned to think this way by education, the media,and the body politic.??? In otherwords the settings in our brains are no longer our setttings in individual thinking. They are someone elses settings and most of us no longer are aware of this.
I say this in the same light in which I posted earlier ..the concept so often used to play through in public office...it became such a sham that it was not whether you were qualified for the office ..even the office of dog catcher..but the issue was what is your stance on abortion?? Understand now???
IN the face of this kind of mind manipulation...the issue becomes what sex or minority are you from..not what are your qualifications for the office.

Orangetom



I mention Mrs. Dole as a perspective Female candidate to answer the question of if there could be a minority/female president in the next 25 years.

Not to say that I would like her as a candidate because she is female. A rather distinct difference.

As for the question of is it required to be a middle of the road as a prerequisite to presidency. Well that is a matter of opinion. I personally like middle of the road ideals because it tends to be indicative of a person who is willing to look at each debate individually and without being blinded by extreme party mindsets. I find people who have very strong Right or Left ideals dangerous because of their innate inability to consider an alternative.

Because of this I am more likely to support a middle of the road candidate.


Now, you go on quite a bit about the innate racism and bating of these posts, well if you look at the initial question it is by it's own nature a racist/sexist question by being based on race/sex.

No, I do not think that anyone of any position should have that position due to their sex/race.. but I do not think they should be excluded from it for the same reason. I would like to believe that everyone rises to their positions due to pure merit but I also recognize that I live in the real world that puts a great deal of focus on race/sex by all, not just the white Christian men but self imposed by women/men/straight/gay/bi/black/Hispanic... etc.. etc.. etc..

Example... Obama... very vocal about his race as an African American but he is infact half black and half Hawaiian (I say black not African because as I understand it his father is American and not from Africa) and a Hawaiian mother though he claims to be an "African American" thereby ignoring his Hawaiian heritage. Is this a political choose because no one would be as interested if he were to say he was a mutt?

Ultimately, yes there is still sexism and racism in America, some of it is genuine. I would have to say that a good portion of it is self imposed and generated by those who "suffer" from it.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
orangetom1999, this was the point I was making.

Everytime someone says that Party-X doesn't say it is reprosentative, they play the "We have a such and such" card.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
Mr bunny Obama is half African His father was a porter on a train service in Nigera I beleive.

You are right things are mostly self-imposed for all of us even the thought there is no racism on major decisions of this country. I again ask is there no one qualified to run the US in two hundred and something years but a Christian White Male?

[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThought
I again ask is there no one qualified to run the US in two hundred and something years but a Christian White Male?

[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]


Are the people who run it now qualified?

The United State's was built on on racism, on hatred for a group of people they base everything around "us" or "them" and the "us" in this case was White-Christian's, who based everything around "men" being more "fit" to run it than women. That is how children were raised.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThought
Mr bunny Obama is half African His father was a porter on a train service in Nigera I beleive.

You are right things are mostly self-imposed for all of us even the thought there is no racism on major decisions of this country. I again ask is there no one qualified to run the US in two hundred and something years but a Christian White Male?

[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]


Fair enough, then I would say that his father is an African American, but he is not, again a rather distinct difference.

You can be an American with African decent.. or in my case American with Welsh and Spanish decent but does that make me a Spanish American? or a Welsh American? Most of the people I knew in College who ranted and raved about the oppression of their people and the hatred of African Americans could not name 5 countries in Africa. Hell, one guy I knew kept referring to the Country of Africa.

Sexism is based in Religion. Racism is a relatively new bias evolving only in the last few hundred years. Prior to that it was more of a bias to political rule and the country/clans I think primarily based on language. Anyone unable to speak your language was considered lesser than you, this became intrinsically tied to race.

Since the Judeo Christian religions are not going to go away.. and since there are going to be different cultures and languages.. Sexism and Racism will never go away.

As for have there been more qualified people to hold the presidential position rather than White Christian Men in the last 200 years? Of course there have been, Has there been one that would be accepted by our bass backwards Democratic Republic nation? Nope

Will there be?... Shrug.. eventually.. probably.

Will it be for the right reasons? Probibly not.



[edit on 12/27/2005 by MrBunny]



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I agree there are a lot of angry people without knowing the right reasons. There are a lot of ignorant people and if the schools taught more about Africa that what is being taught not we would not have this problem. Yes I know people like that also. Just like I know people who say this is a Christian nation when god in not seen once in the constitution.

You are right until the formation of America there was only people from a certain country or area as a tribe or village. That is why the rise of Hitler, his philosophy came from early Americans. That is why we need to change this. Nationalism then the attachment of race then we get into a lot of trouble. If you read the transcripts of UN speeches you will see many countries when they are accused of wrong doing from America they respond by stating what Americans did to the indigenous people along with diasporatic Africans.

Unfortunately to me this is not a shrug issue this is as important as pro-life, guns, voting, and the Continent African history. The hyphenated name such as African American yes I would like to get rid of it but in talking to people from other areas of the world most have a really unrealistic almost TV like view of who lives in America. They do not see a lot of normal African Americans. Also when looking a statistics, history, and post on this board I see that some don’t believe I should not belong in America empowered but subdued in their culture alone. The African was added to let people in America know that these people have history started before they were “enslaved”.


Becasue The Asian people were given reparations. And I have a question for you if you heard a person telling a racist joke do you check them on it or do you let it go because "it is not your problem"

That is how slights and indifference twist the problem even more...
Dooming to world is not going to get you out (not you personally) of answering ultimtate questions like why are we here, now that we are here how important is life?

[edit on 12/09-2005 by BlackThought]



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackThought
I agree there are a lot of angry people without knowing the right reasons. There are a lot of ignorant people and if the schools taught more about Africa that what is being taught not we would not have this problem. Yes I know people like that also. Just like I know people who say this is a Christian nation when god in not seen once in the constitution.

You are right until the formation of America there was only people from a certain country or area as a tribe or village. That is why the rise of Hitler, his philosophy came from early Americans. That is why we need to change this. Nationalism then the attachment of race then we get into a lot of trouble. If you read the transcripts of UN speeches you will see many countries when they are accused of wrong doing from America they respond by stating what Americans did to the indigenous people along with diasporatic Africans.

Unfortunately to me this is not a shrug issue this is as important as pro-life, guns, voting, and the Continent African history. The hyphenated name such as African American yes I would like to get rid of it but in talking to people from other areas of the world most have a really unrealistic almost TV like view of who lives in America. They do not see a lot of normal African Americans. Also when looking a statistics, history, and post on this board I see that some don’t believe I should not belong in America empowered but subdued in their culture alone. The African was added to let people in America know that these people have history started before they were “enslaved”.


The schools have their own problems and I do not think it is a problem with them not teaching about Africa.. the schools don’t teach much about Asia but you don't see a bunch of Japanese calling for reparations for the Japanese entrapment camps in the USA during WWII, you never hear about all the Chinese that were kidnapped out of Shanghais and forced to build the railroads.

As for the slavery thing... almost every culture has been enslaved at some point. Hell the Welsh were enslaved for Centuries... I am not saying that we should forget.. but it is not an excuse and defiantly not something to base one identities on.

Which goes back to the whole idea of electing a minority or a woman for a position on that basis only... Ones Race or sex should never be the core of ones identity, be part of it sure... but not the whole.


As for the Shrug.. in my opinion it is a shrug issue.. as is abortion, as are guns, as is terrorism... at least until people discover that they need to be responsible for their own actions and accept responsibility and punishment for the things they do. Until then we will be a race of petty arguing mammals bent of domination and destruction of one another on the basis of ever changing ideals and while that happens I will continually hope for our total destruction.

Yes, you read it right.. I believe that the only salvation of the earth is the obliteration of the human race. We have failed as a species in a far shorter time span than the dinosaurs. There is no redemption for humans.

I am sorry if I am a bit of a fatalist, but just look outside and you will see what a self destructive creature we have become...



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Also thanks for your clarification. It is just that I get so tired of the standard mantras from the body politic ..based on the very things they try to preach to us are not right for us to do...they in fact by thier conduct ..do and for all things..for votes. It just comes across as a type of double standard.
I myself would have voted for Colin Powell if he had run. Not for any racial reasons but because I respect the man much more than alot of what is out there. I also respect the idea that he consulted his wife on this and decided it is best for him to stay out of politics as much as possible. He seems to me to be a man who understands service and duty but also wants to get out of politics and just be a citizen. It sort of reminds me of the storys around this Roman General Cincinnatus. As I recall when he had finished his duty he went back to being a farmer. At times I think we need more politicians with this trait not.. professional politicians.

By the way, I did not know Obama was part Hawaiian and part Nigerian. I am myself Hawaiian from my fathers side. I dont consider it important nor my mothers side..German/French. I do consider it important for a child to know something about thier history of thier people ..both sides ...to know where and from whom they came and the historys of some of these peoples.
This does not make me a Obama fan..just a intresting tidbit you posted for which I was unawares. Thanks for this.
I would have no problem voting for a woman for president if they were in fact qualified. I just get insulted when they keep touting this rubbish as if this is their main qualification. Same thing with race.
As far as I am concerned we have already had a woman president in Edith Galt Wilson. She ran the office when her husband, Woodrow Wilson was very sick. As I recall it caused quite a stir in Washington too since she so limited access to Woodrow Wilson that many thought he was actually dead. I salute her for this and for limiting the access to her husband. A wise woman.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom



posted on Dec, 28 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Yea, I gotta admit that I like Powel too. All in all seems to be a down to earth kind of guy and not a professional politician. I think that is what I liked about Dr.Coop back in the day.. he was not afraid to say what he knew was right. I think I was sitting by him at a restaurant in Annapolis a few months back but I didn't want to stop and ask if it was him.. (Didn't want to be rude and interrupt his lunch)

I can't think of a candidate I have really liked in the last 25 years.. it has always come down to a lesser of evils. I have to admit that I would have liked McCain... he is a little unstable.. but they guy was in a POW camp for a while so I can understand his moods... but like Powel he seems to be a straight forward no BS kind of guy. Also as I mentioned earlier I like that he is fiscally conservative but when it comes to human rights he is fairly liberal... going back to that middle of the road ideal thing.

Past presidents... I can't say that in my lifetime I have seen one that I was really proud of.. Clinton would be the closest.. yea, he is slimy, but he was charismatic.. and we finally had a balanced budget.. and all our dues were paid with the UN, and ultimately we had a good relation with most of the world. Ford as alright... Carder is a better post president than he was president...

I know I am going to get flame for that last paragraph.. the UN sucks bla bla bla good relations ? then why did 9-11 happen bla bla bla.... Budget was a backlash from the almighty Regan administration our lord Ronald the Great bla bla bla and before any of you start with that I will simply say bite me. If you want to flame me go right ahead but be prepared for a lovely debate... infact... please flame me on this... I could use the entertainment.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join