Make the best choices for your Medicare needs with AARP’s Medicare Made Easy. Try it today!

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
474
Views

Re: Guess the Ratio - White to Black/Brown - Men to Women?

474 Views
Message 1 of 14

mickstuder wrote: 

Well that's extremely unfortunate for you and a total fabrication and misrepresentation of what I posted - I never called or referred to you - rk9152 - as anything!

I am of the Conservative political thinking, I do create "flak". So, when you said, "Very True - So Why all the FLAK when others simply point out how the Right Loves Candidates Who Are:" (and then your list of offensive terms. So, what did I fabricate or misrepresent?

 

This was your Previous Post that I responded too and of course you failed to include it in your current post so I will

 

rk9152 wrote:

"Number 3 sums it up completely. If people want to vote for someone for gender or racial reasons to create "diversity", they have the right to do that.

 

On the other hand, if voters want to vote for the candidate more closely aligned with their thinking regardless of gender of race, they are free to do so."

 

I mickstuder simply Agreed - Everyone has the right to Vote for anyone they want - but if they vote for someone who Personifies one or more of the Attributes I listed above - then they at least ought to be honest enough to OWN IT

 

And there is the rub - "OWN WHAT"? All your offensive comments?

 

Are you trying to dodge having made a very offensive over generalization and know it, or do you really believe that anyone politically to the right of you is all those offensive things?

 

 

 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
474
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
475
Views

Re: Guess the Ratio - White to Black/Brown - Men to Women?

475 Views
Message 2 of 14

@afisher wrote:

    Ignornance of the gerrymandering in some states, aka:  TEXAS is case in point.    It has been proven in lawsuits is one reason that there is unequal representation by Hispanics is gerrymandering of districts / precincts.     

    GOP have a low percentage of women legislator's in part because of the ideology of the Republicans of paternalism / strict father families and the underlying "morality".    

    How many of the women who are in Congress are there because they come from Wealth?    Ask the same question of the women in the Cabinet?      That is the one thing that can, occasionally override the paternalism or is it Tokenism?   


But back to the real world - our Members of Congress are elected by the citizens. Shall we establish a "quota" system to determine who a citizen is allowed to vote for??

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
475
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
481
Views

Re: Guess the Ratio - White to Black/Brown - Men to Women?

481 Views
Message 3 of 14

    Ignornance of the gerrymandering in some states, aka:  TEXAS is case in point.    It has been proven in lawsuits is one reason that there is unequal representation by Hispanics is gerrymandering of districts / precincts.     

    GOP have a low percentage of women legislator's in part because of the ideology of the Republicans of paternalism / strict father families and the underlying "morality".    

    How many of the women who are in Congress are there because they come from Wealth?    Ask the same question of the women in the Cabinet?      That is the one thing that can, occasionally override the paternalism or is it Tokenism?   

PRO-LIFE is Affordable Healthcare for ALL .
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
481
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
482
Views

Re: Guess the Ratio - White to Black/Brown - Men to Women?

482 Views
Message 4 of 14

@rk9152 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

Very True - So Why all the FLAK when others simply point out how the Right Loves Candidates Who Are:

 

1. Bigots

 

2. Racists

 

3. Mysoginists

 

4. Mostly White

 

5. Mostly White Males

 

6. Mostly Dedicated to Making Mostly White Males Wealthy

 

7. Mostly Christain Proselytes

 

8. Homophobic

 

9. Authoritarian

 

10. Faux Populists

 

And seek to assimilate............................?

 

It is sad to see partisan catch phrases projected as "fact" and then call reality "flack". It is no wonder we cannot have honest discussions.

 

I am a Conservative. And, as I have pointed out, have been for over a half century. As such I resent being called a racist and the rest of your offensive litany.

 


 


Well that's extremely unfortunate for you and a total fabrication and misrepresentation of what I posted - I never called or referred to you - rk9152 - as anything!

 

This was your Previous Post that I responded too and of course you failed to include it in your current post so I will

 

@rk9152 wrote:

"Number 3 sums it up completely. If people want to vote for someone for gender or racial reasons to create "diversity", they have the right to do that.

 

On the other hand, if voters want to vote for the candidate more closely aligned with their thinking regardless of gender of race, they are free to do so."

 

I mickstuder simply Agreed - Everyone has the right to Vote for anyone they want - but if they vote for someone who Personifies one or more of the Attributes I listed above - then they at least ought to be honest enough to OWN IT

 

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
482
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
492
Views

Re: Guess the Ratio - White to Black/Brown - Men to Women?

492 Views
Message 5 of 14

@mickstuder wrote:

Very True - So Why all the FLAK when others simply point out how the Right Loves Candidates Who Are:

 

1. Bigots

 

2. Racists

 

3. Mysoginists

 

4. Mostly White

 

5. Mostly White Males

 

6. Mostly Dedicated to Making Mostly White Males Wealthy

 

7. Mostly Christain Proselytes

 

8. Homophobic

 

9. Authoritarian

 

10. Faux Populists

 

And seek to assimilate............................?

 

It is sad to see partisan catch phrases projected as "fact" and then call reality "flack". It is no wonder we cannot have honest discussions.

 

I am a Conservative. And, as I have pointed out, have been for over a half century. As such I resent being called a racist and the rest of your offensive litany.

 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
492
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
499
Views

Re: Guess the Ratio - White to Black/Brown - Men to Women?

499 Views
Message 6 of 14

@rk9152 wrote:

@mickstuder wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Another way of looking at the numbers is - those are the people elected by the American voters. What alternative method would you propose, some sort of a bureaucratically administers quote system for election?

 

As to who is in the picture - they are the people who supported the legislation. Seems like a reasonable way to develop the guest list for the celebration of it's signing. Shall we also have a "picture quota" system? I have a better idea - more black, brown, and female support for the President.

 

And "token" - that assumes racism or sexism as opposed to the reality of "supporters regardless of gender or race".


Ah Yes - How come for some people every statement of facts - needs to be looked at "another way" - Republicans like Spicer & Conway like to reference this phenomenon as - "Alternative Facts".........................

 

Ok lets look at this scenario - "another way"

 

1. Yes most of the Republicans in the picture were elected but some were most likely appointed by Republican Governors to fill unexpected vacancies until either Special Elections or the next Normal Election Cycle Rolls Around

 

2. Regardless of how these Republicans got in the picture - they do represent many of the Electorate who Voted for both the Republicans in the Picture and for Trump. What does that mean? Well it means that a majority of the Republican Electorate prefer White Men to represent them, that a fact no matter how many different ways you want to look at it

 

3. As far as - Quota Systems?

 

No Need - Voters Already Have a Choice if they want more diversity in their Elected Officials - they can vote Progressive - that's not the same as voting for Traditional Democrats however because Traditional Democrats are Just Like - Traditional Republicans - They say one thing to get Elected and then act just like all the other Incumbents once in office in Washington - They do whatever is necessary to get re-elected and thats requires 90% of them cozying up to the Special Interests with all the money - just like the Republicans do

 

4. Clinton was a Traditional Democrat and we all know what happened - certain Special Interests exposed her and her Democratic Establishment Cabal for what they were - Already Very Rich & Politically Powerful and Very Elitist and Incompetent....................the problem here is now we will have other Special Interests down the road exposing Republicans for what they are and vice-versa every election cycle - the purpose of course is to confuse - sow doubt and increase chaos - Goal Achieved in the 2016 Election Cycle 

 

Bill Clinton having the Gall to visit Loretta Lynch on her plane being just a singular example of how Elitist and Out of Touch the Democratic Establishment is - Clinton just announced she is - Part of the Resistance and she is going to organize a resistance PAC or something

 

Again, Hillary you've already done enough to produce resistance to voting Democrat or Progressive in the Electorate - Please Go Away somewhere nice and just accept that - American Voters Do Not Care About of Beleive Anything You Might Offer and Your Going to Ruin It For the Others Who They Do Care About and Want to Hear From by sucking the air out of the Coverage for anyone not named Clinton

 

 


Number 3 sums it up completely. If people want to vote for someone for gender or racial reasons to create "diversity", they have the right to do that.

 

On the other hand, if voters want to vote for the candidate more closely aligned with their thinking regardless of gender of race, they are free to do so.


Very True - So Why all the FLAK when others simply point out how the Right Loves Candidates Who Are:

 

1. Bigots

 

2. Racists

 

3. Mysoginists

 

4. Mostly White

 

5. Mostly White Males

 

6. Mostly Dedicated to Making Mostly White Males Wealthy

 

7. Mostly Christain Proselytes

 

8. Homophobic

 

9. Authoritarian

 

10. Faux Populists

 

And seek to assimilate............................?

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
499
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
501
Views

Re: Guess the Ratio - White to Black/Brown - Men to Women?

501 Views
Message 7 of 14

@mickstuder wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Another way of looking at the numbers is - those are the people elected by the American voters. What alternative method would you propose, some sort of a bureaucratically administers quote system for election?

 

As to who is in the picture - they are the people who supported the legislation. Seems like a reasonable way to develop the guest list for the celebration of it's signing. Shall we also have a "picture quota" system? I have a better idea - more black, brown, and female support for the President.

 

And "token" - that assumes racism or sexism as opposed to the reality of "supporters regardless of gender or race".


Ah Yes - How come for some people every statement of facts - needs to be looked at "another way" - Republicans like Spicer & Conway like to reference this phenomenon as - "Alternative Facts".........................

 

Ok lets look at this scenario - "another way"

 

1. Yes most of the Republicans in the picture were elected but some were most likely appointed by Republican Governors to fill unexpected vacancies until either Special Elections or the next Normal Election Cycle Rolls Around

 

2. Regardless of how these Republicans got in the picture - they do represent many of the Electorate who Voted for both the Republicans in the Picture and for Trump. What does that mean? Well it means that a majority of the Republican Electorate prefer White Men to represent them, that a fact no matter how many different ways you want to look at it

 

3. As far as - Quota Systems?

 

No Need - Voters Already Have a Choice if they want more diversity in their Elected Officials - they can vote Progressive - that's not the same as voting for Traditional Democrats however because Traditional Democrats are Just Like - Traditional Republicans - They say one thing to get Elected and then act just like all the other Incumbents once in office in Washington - They do whatever is necessary to get re-elected and thats requires 90% of them cozying up to the Special Interests with all the money - just like the Republicans do

 

4. Clinton was a Traditional Democrat and we all know what happened - certain Special Interests exposed her and her Democratic Establishment Cabal for what they were - Already Very Rich & Politically Powerful and Very Elitist and Incompetent....................the problem here is now we will have other Special Interests down the road exposing Republicans for what they are and vice-versa every election cycle - the purpose of course is to confuse - sow doubt and increase chaos - Goal Achieved in the 2016 Election Cycle 

 

Bill Clinton having the Gall to visit Loretta Lynch on her plane being just a singular example of how Elitist and Out of Touch the Democratic Establishment is - Clinton just announced she is - Part of the Resistance and she is going to organize a resistance PAC or something

 

Again, Hillary you've already done enough to produce resistance to voting Democrat or Progressive in the Electorate - Please Go Away somewhere nice and just accept that - American Voters Do Not Care About of Beleive Anything You Might Offer and Your Going to Ruin It For the Others Who They Do Care About and Want to Hear From by sucking the air out of the Coverage for anyone not named Clinton

 

 


Number 3 sums it up completely. If people want to vote for someone for gender or racial reasons to create "diversity", they have the right to do that.

 

On the other hand, if voters want to vote for the candidate more closely aligned with their thinking regardless of gender of race, they are free to do so.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
501
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
504
Views

Re: Guess the Ratio - White to Black/Brown - Men to Women?

504 Views
Message 8 of 14

@Olderscout66 wrote:

rk - if you really want more "black/brown and female" support for the President, you should NOT have elected a racist misogynist.


Making stuff up again.

 

I merely pointed out that those in the picture were those who supported the legislation. Gender and race were not (as is typical for Republicans) a factor.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
504
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
505
Views

Re: Guess the Ratio - White to Black/Brown - Men to Women?

505 Views
Message 9 of 14

@umbarch64 wrote:

@rk9152 wrote:

Another way of looking at the numbers is - those are the people elected by the American voters.

 

Outwardly reasonable...BUT...your statement presumes the elections were representative of the general population in the district.  That's unwarranted. 

No presumption. Just a truthful statement - those elected representatives were elected to Congress and actively supported the passage. No gender or race involved.

 

Your statement presumes each of those voters were fully and accurately informed, had a complete and accurate understanding of what a candidate stood for, understood the issues and voted knowledgeably.  That's really unwarranted...you know that.   

It presumes nothing. I just accurately states why they were there - no gender or racial meaning.

 

Your statement presumes, with clear evidence to tha contrary, that gerrymandering does not and did not exist in any of the election districts in question....that's BS.  Are both democrats and republicans guilty...yes.  Equally...no.  IF you were intellectually honest about all this instead of interminably grinding you ideological axe, you might accomplish something of worth to the American People.  I guess that would make you a Patriot.  

My statement presumes nothing. It accurately points out that it was a photo-op for supporters of the bill regardless of gender or race.

 

You just said the entire Republican electorate may be plagued with misogyny based on the frequency distribution in the picture AND in the Republican congressional contingent....OR you just said that there aren't enough  qualified and competent women to fill those positions within the Republican Party....There's an approximately 50/50 split-men/women in the general population. That's not what exists.  Yes?

I said that those were the people elected by the voters - period.

 

What alternative method would you propose, some sort of a bureaucratically administers quote system for election?

 

There may be no solution short of a cultural restructuring, which really won't happen IF theologically driven.  You profess conservatism.  What you do does not fit what Webster says that is. 

Sounds interesting. Start a topic, I'll be glad to interact with you.

 

As to who is in the picture - they are the people who supported the legislation. Seems like a reasonable way to develop the guest list for the celebration of it's signing.

 

Granted...so what?  Within the incomplete representation shown, the number of 'women' was incredibly short of the 50/50 split I suggested would represent equality.  The argument you advance is specious....irrelevant too.

The voters are not bound by an quota system. Not specious, not irrelevant, simply factual.

 

Shall we also have a "picture quota" system? I have a better idea - more black, brown, and female support for the President.

 

Well...sure, that is what you would suggest as that is what you'd like to have exist.  Understandable.  Wishful thinking, though.

It is not I who is questioning the ratios.

 

And "token" - that assumes racism or sexism as opposed to the reality of "supporters regardless of gender or race".

 

Yes...it is a valid point, even though you abuse it.  People should not presume another person's worth based on race, color, creed, gender or sexual orientation... none of which should diminish their humanity.  No matter who and what they are, they are human beings.   IF any of their physical characteristics become a criteria for judgement or choice, there had best be a compelling reason that meets with what our Constitution says.  You OK with that?

Agreed - voters should not vote based on gender or race. Equally people should not assume they did.


 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
505
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
513
Views

Re: Guess the Ratio - White to Black/Brown - Men to Women?

513 Views
Message 10 of 14

@rk9152 wrote:

Another way of looking at the numbers is - those are the people elected by the American voters. What alternative method would you propose, some sort of a bureaucratically administers quote system for election?

 

As to who is in the picture - they are the people who supported the legislation. Seems like a reasonable way to develop the guest list for the celebration of it's signing. Shall we also have a "picture quota" system? I have a better idea - more black, brown, and female support for the President.

 

And "token" - that assumes racism or sexism as opposed to the reality of "supporters regardless of gender or race".


Ah Yes - How come for some people every statement of facts - needs to be looked at "another way" - Republicans like Spicer & Conway like to reference this phenomenon as - "Alternative Facts".........................

 

Ok lets look at this scenario - "another way"

 

1. Yes most of the Republicans in the picture were elected but some were most likely appointed by Republican Governors to fill unexpected vacancies until either Special Elections or the next Normal Election Cycle Rolls Around

 

2. Regardless of how these Republicans got in the picture - they do represent many of the Electorate who Voted for both the Republicans in the Picture and for Trump. What does that mean? Well it means that a majority of the Republican Electorate prefer White Men to represent them, that a fact no matter how many different ways you want to look at it

 

3. As far as - Quota Systems?

 

No Need - Voters Already Have a Choice if they want more diversity in their Elected Officials - they can vote Progressive - that's not the same as voting for Traditional Democrats however because Traditional Democrats are Just Like - Traditional Republicans - They say one thing to get Elected and then act just like all the other Incumbents once in office in Washington - They do whatever is necessary to get re-elected and thats requires 90% of them cozying up to the Special Interests with all the money - just like the Republicans do

 

4. Clinton was a Traditional Democrat and we all know what happened - certain Special Interests exposed her and her Democratic Establishment Cabal for what they were - Already Very Rich & Politically Powerful and Very Elitist and Incompetent....................the problem here is now we will have other Special Interests down the road exposing Republicans for what they are and vice-versa every election cycle - the purpose of course is to confuse - sow doubt and increase chaos - Goal Achieved in the 2016 Election Cycle 

 

Bill Clinton having the Gall to visit Loretta Lynch on her plane being just a singular example of how Elitist and Out of Touch the Democratic Establishment is - Clinton just announced she is - Part of the Resistance and she is going to organize a resistance PAC or something

 

Again, Hillary you've already done enough to produce resistance to voting Democrat or Progressive in the Electorate - Please Go Away somewhere nice and just accept that - American Voters Do Not Care About of Beleive Anything You Might Offer and Your Going to Ruin It For the Others Who They Do Care About and Want to Hear From by sucking the air out of the Coverage for anyone not named Clinton

 

 

( " China if You're Listening - Get Trumps Tax Returns " )

" )
" - Anonymous

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
513
Views