posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I am a little annoyed that it seems THAT is the reason they're selected. It seems a bit weak for reasoning ..and I'll just assume the media is
focusing on it to the exclusion of other factors.
The media is indeed excluding other factors:
1. Only ONE of the five have been nominated. The others are, at this time, "expected" or "slated" to be nominated.
2. Other ambassadors have also been nominated and are "expected" to be nominated, but they are ignored in favor of highlighting the gay ones.
3. There is no indication that any of these ambassadors have been or will be nominated BECAUSE they are gay.
4. The idea that ~5% of the population “handed Obama the election” is laughable. See?
Obama is known to encourage diversity in his administration, including many minorities and women. He promised to do so. So, yeah, some of the old
white men that resemble Congress are gone and have been replaced with diversity. But he also replaced Hillary with an old white man.
So, I don't
think he's picking people BECAUSE they are diverse, but that certainly enters into the equation.