Quote:
Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst
Then the discussion is by default trivial, because:
1. Race and gender does bring with it cultural aspects which can make for various inherent political issues because of the variance of cultures and their different standards of living and coexisting.
2. It begs my original question: What would having a minority as POTUS accomplish that wouldn't be accomplished by a non-minority if we ignore their individual stances on issues?
I don't think the real issue is whether America is ready for a minority POTUS; it obviously is to see two minority candidates come this far. I think we need to be honest with ourselves and just say the real reason we want a minority as POTUS is because we think our minority group will get special favors (pandering), or to snub our nose at the white man and say "We've arrived." (ego-driven).
|
I don't know what you're talking about for much of this, to be honest with you.
And I personally don't "want" a minority
as president so much as I want for minority candidates to be the norm from which we choose who we vote for. But you would know that I wouldn't vote just because someone is a minority if you had read the other page.

Just like I don't vote based on political party, since I'm neither a Dem or Repub--although I like the Repubs much more than I like the Dems. So if there is a minority candidate whose stances I agreed with, I would vote for her/him.
I interpreted this thread to be about status group membership ideology that has always surpassed "politics." While I think both of the race and gender minority candidates this election are wishy washy, those who wouldn't vote for a woman or a black person anyway are much less forgiving of that than someone who is open to the idea of voting for a nonwhite and nonmale candidate. That's not a trivial discussion if we ground it in a social critique. But if you crave a discussion of politics, there are threads that discuss their stances.