NEW YORK (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders vowed to nominate Latinos into key cabinet posts in their administrations if elected, according to their answers to a questionnaire organized by the nation’s largest Latino coalition.
This article illustrates the worst in American politics: pandering for votes via racism: https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-democrats-clinton-sanders-promise-latinos-cabinet-130827571.html.
When we suffer so many economic problems that need to be addressed by those best able to address them, the two Democratic Party candidates, true to their liberal form, continue to attempt to get votes, not by presenting how they would correctly solve the economic problems that currently cause scores of millions of Americans to suffer, but by pandering with the social issue of race that is meaningless to solving those highest priority problems.
Their racist presentation is simply that, and, though it will seduce votes, it is done via an egregious ethical violation .. that most will be too seduced to recognize.
The link I presented in this OP (http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/246193-dont-let-politicians-fear-monger-us-into-economic-ruin.html) explains how politicians (and all of them are doing it, not just Bernie and Hillary) attempt to manipulate our votes via social issue rhetoric, to our detriment economically, and at our psychological-emotional expense.
Racial is not the same thing as racist. Words seem to be confusing you today.
LOL The real racial pandering is being done by Trump and in a hateful and dividing way too. Is that more to you taste?
When I said in the OP that "all of them are doing it", all would indeed include all.LOL The real racial pandering is being done by Trump and in a hateful and dividing way too. Is that more to you taste?
Cherry picking people because of their race is racist..
I know you libs like to slippery slime paths around your double standards but you are not fooling as many of us as you think you are..
Racism requires a belief in the superiority or inferiority of a race.
Racism isn't a favoritism for another race. It's viewing your race as superior to another's.No.. It can be simply favoritism for any reason..
No.. It can be simply favoritism for any reason..
Saying they will be included is not favoritism. Nor is it racism.
"vowed to nominate Latinos into key cabinet posts "
That means they will specifically pick people BECAUSE they are latino.. Favoritism..
No, it simply means they will be included. Nor does it mean they will only be picked because they are latino.
No, it simply means they will be included. Nor does it mean they will only be picked because they are latino.
This article illustrates the worst in American politics: pandering for votes via racism: https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-democrats-clinton-sanders-promise-latinos-cabinet-130827571.html.
When we suffer so many economic problems that need to be addressed by those best able to address them, the two Democratic Party candidates, true to their liberal form, continue to attempt to get votes, not by presenting how they would correctly solve the economic problems that currently cause scores of millions of Americans to suffer, but by pandering with the social issue of race that is meaningless to solving those highest priority problems.
Their racist presentation is simply that, and, though it will seduce votes, it is done via an egregious ethical violation .. that most will be too seduced to recognize.
The link I presented in this OP (http://www.debatepolitics.com/general-political-discussion/246193-dont-let-politicians-fear-monger-us-into-economic-ruin.html) explains how politicians (and all of them are doing it, not just Bernie and Hillary) attempt to manipulate our votes via social issue rhetoric, to our detriment economically, and at our psychological-emotional expense.
They will be picked because they are latino, that is exactly what the quote said. People should be nominated solely because of their skills, not because of their skin color or gender or sexual orientation. Anyone using any of those criteria is a racist or a sexist.
That's always the anti-Affirmative-Action argument: it's racist to include others based on their race or ethnicity. And that would be absolutely true - IF we were living in a world where all races and ethnicities had the same level of opportunity, and faced the same level of prejudice in their efforts to succeed.
But the various races and ethncities do NOT have the same level of opportunity, and they do NOT face the same level of prejudice - anyone who claims otherwise is either incredibly naive or has less-than-savory motives in making that claim.
And what happens when there's no efforts to bring in minorities to leadership positions? You get leaders who do not understand the minority community, who do not understand the challenges and pressures that they face that are quite different from what those in the white community normally face. This is how we wind up with majority-black schools getting significantly less funding than majority white schools, and blacks with similar (or even less) criminal records than whites being given longer prison sentences than whites for the same offense.
It boils down to this: in any given nation, the ethnicity or race that is socioeconomically dominant, if it wants to improve social order and diminish unrest and violence, MUST make allowances for increased opportunity for the members of less-influential races or ethnicities...for failure to do so will only result in deep resentment and hatred and will result not only in violence, but will create a drag on that nation's economy as a whole.
That's always the anti-Affirmative-Action argument: it's racist to include others based on their race or ethnicity. And that would be absolutely true - IF we were living in a world where all races and ethnicities had the same level of opportunity, and faced the same level of prejudice in their efforts to succeed.
But the various races and ethncities do NOT have the same level of opportunity, and they do NOT face the same level of prejudice - anyone who claims otherwise is either incredibly naive or has less-than-savory motives in making that claim.
And what happens when there's no efforts to bring in minorities to leadership positions? You get leaders who do not understand the minority community, who do not understand the challenges and pressures that they face that are quite different from what those in the white community normally face. This is how we wind up with majority-black schools getting significantly less funding than majority white schools, and blacks with similar (or even less) criminal records than whites being given longer prison sentences than whites for the same offense.
It boils down to this: in any given nation, the ethnicity or race that is socioeconomically dominant, if it wants to improve social order and diminish unrest and violence, MUST make allowances for increased opportunity for the members of less-influential races or ethnicities...for failure to do so will only result in deep resentment and hatred and will result not only in violence, but will create a drag on that nation's economy as a whole.
Riiiiiiiiight. Which is why when blacks and whites have very similar rap sheets, and when they are arrested and convicted of the same crime, blacks are NORMALLY given longer or more severe sentences.
That could have everything to do with which jurisdiction the people are sentenced in. Likely blakcs are more often sentenced in jurisdictions where the judge sees a LOT of the same crime committed over and over predominately by blacks and the judged therefore become more strict due to their experiences in the area.
White crime is likely more spread out over many/all jurisdictions where judges are not infuriated by the amount of crime in the area and therefore may be more lenient..
And that's why schools in black neighborhoods are chronically underfunded per student when compared to schools in white neighborhoods. Whites have better access to health care and better access to quality K-12 education than blacks. This is not seriously debatable.
Well... Blacks tend to congregate in certain areas, self segregating, and these ares tend to be very poor, high poverty, high unemployment. It makes a lot of sense to me that poor areas are going to have poorer schools and poorer healthcare..
BLAME IT ON THE WHITE MAN..
Nope.. Black areas are poorer because there are more blacks there and blacks are in general poorer because they have lower IQs on average and therefore lower incomes on average..
Just because backs tend to not be able to be as successful as whites is not the white mans fault. It is genetic effect on IQ.. FACTS!!
And that's why studies show that yeah, white privilege is quite real.
But don't feel bad for claiming that there's no such thing as white privilege - you're not the only one that feels that way...and there's a scientific study showing precisely why you deny white privilege in spite of the overwhelming evidence of how pervasive it is in our society.
I don't have a care in the world what colleges bent of brainwashing the youth of the nation to there liberal agendas think or what "studies" they put forth to push their agenda..
NO SUCH THING AS WHITE PRIVILEGE
MUST make allowances for increased opportunity for the members of less-influential races or ethnicities...
Are there no Latinos who are well-and-truly qualified for the positions?
Just what is the seemingly monolithic "white community" you so freely speak of? White people represent the dominant population on our welfare rolls all the way up to some of the richest people on the planet. Same with the other races, welfare all the way up to the Oprahs, Michael Jordan's, the Obamas... My kids will never have the advantages of those of the higher level economic stations.You get leaders who do not understand the minority community, who do not understand the challenges and pressures that they face that are quite different from what those in the white community normally face.
We have done so, we have a black guy at the very pinnacle, we could very well choose a Cuban immigrant's son...or a our first female, or our first billionaire, but not based on that, based on if they is the best person for the job. That is how it should be from here on out... we are hurting too bad to do otherwise.It boils down to this: in any given nation, the ethnicity or race that is socioeconomically dominant, if it wants to improve social order and diminish unrest and violence, MUST make allowances for increased opportunity for the members of less-influential races or ethnicities...for failure to do so will only result in deep resentment and hatred and will result not only in violence, but will create a drag on that nation's economy as a whole.
"vowed to nominate Latinos into key cabinet posts"No, it simply means they will be included. Nor does it mean they will only be picked because they are latino.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?