416
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 24:
Line 24: + Line 29:
Line 30: − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Affirmative Action President (view source)
Revision as of 01:19, November 6, 2008
, 01:19, November 6, 2008→Liberal Vandalism?: how relevant
"An Affirmative Action President is strongly supported by some liberals who favor affirmative action. As they support affirmative action for other positions, it is a logical extension for them to favor it for the presidency also. " While is may be true, as presented here it just sounds like complete hearsay. While there may be individuals who indeed feel this way but there is no centralized liberal authority or association that has officially expressed these views. It is irresponsible and disgraceful to imply that thi is the main reason for the endorsement of Senator Obama by people who cal themselves liberals.
"An Affirmative Action President is strongly supported by some liberals who favor affirmative action. As they support affirmative action for other positions, it is a logical extension for them to favor it for the presidency also. " While is may be true, as presented here it just sounds like complete hearsay. While there may be individuals who indeed feel this way but there is no centralized liberal authority or association that has officially expressed these views. It is irresponsible and disgraceful to imply that thi is the main reason for the endorsement of Senator Obama by people who cal themselves liberals.
:I agree. It seems to imply that a minority could never become president on their own merits. I personally feel that his race is hurting him, I can't count the number of times I've seen bloggers saying 'I'll never vote for that n----r'. [[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 12:06, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
== A note on the sources ==
== A note on the sources ==
There are three sources given as they contain Affirmative Action President in the headline. However the first two seem to be positively disavowing (perhaps even criticising the suggestion) that they think Obama would be an affirmative action president. The third source can be used as a reference to support the proposition in the article. Therefore I suggest that we remove the first two sources as they only superficially appear to support the proposition - not the ideal we are seeking here.
There are three sources given as they contain Affirmative Action President in the headline. However the first two seem to be positively disavowing (perhaps even criticising the suggestion) that they think Obama would be an affirmative action president. The third source can be used as a reference to support the proposition in the article. Therefore I suggest that we remove the first two sources as they only superficially appear to support the proposition - not the ideal we are seeking here.
By the way I have no problem as far as the article stands except for this point. [[user:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]]
By the way I have no problem as far as the article stands except for this point. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
: Sorry, a correction. I am commenting on sources 2 and 3.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 23:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
::Is there no interest in this? Well I shall give it another day and then take another look at how best to proceed. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:00, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Since no one argues, I am going to delete the sources as they do not support the contention being made.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 10:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
== Majority / Minority ==
I object to the following sentence:
:"There is nothing wrong with a Vice President representing a minority, as long as the President represents the majority"
After I removed it, it was swiftly reinstated by editor AdamE with a note that "[t]he President represents the majority of Americans by definition (he gets the majority of votes)". While this is certainly true in terms of majority ''political'' support, the article is concerned with a President being chosen on grounds of ''racial'' minority.
The point of the article is that a President should not be chosen on grounds of race alone - but then neither they should they be excluded on grounds of race alone. If this sentence is included within the article, it suggests that the President must represent the ethnic majority - I.E. the President must be white - and I think that that is an argument best avoided, and likely to debase this article and its message.
Please note that I am not accusing any editor of being racist as I assume good faith, but I believe that if this sentence is left in place, it puts quite a racist message in the article. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 12:45, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
(edit conflict) I was going to remove that section for being silly, but I thought I should post here first. The section is full of opinion and conjecture, and makes little sense.
:"There is nothing wrong with a Vice President representing a minority, as long as the President represents the majority."
Apart from being a blatant opinion, is this about ethnicities or views? If it's about ethnicities, then it's sating a President must be white. I hope that's not what anyone's trying to say. If it's about viewpoints, then I have to question first, whether its true (shouldn't the VP and President be of the same mind on most issues?) and secondly, what it has to do with affirmative action, which is about ethnicity and gender, not about views.
:"Having a minority Vice President makes more Americans feel represented by the President, as it should be."
So having a VP who's out of touch makes the President seem more in touch by comparison? Is that a real strategy? Or are we talking about races? Would a darker VP make the President look more white?
:" Besides, there is no doubt on the Presidential Candidate choosing the best Vice President for him. Would he risk his possible election with a less-than-ideal Vice President candidate? "
Of course there's doubt. Also, there is probably no such thing as an "ideal" VP, as everyone has advantages and disadvantages. Some people are already questioning McCain's choice of Palin, and Obama's selection of Biden, and others have certainly been questioned in the past. Also, since when do encyclopedias ask questions?
:"Certainly not. Therefore it would be absurd to call the Vice President an Affirmative Action Vice President."
I don't see how it's any more absurd than an affirmative action president. Especially when Presidential candidates are elected through primaries, and VP candidates are appointed. This should be removed. [[User:JohnA|JohnA]] 12:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::Please guys. Is it so difficult to spot parodists? I must suck at it. Check every edit of mine. Is there one sane edit? Geez. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 13:01, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Thank you for being so candid. [[User:JohnA|JohnA]] 13:03, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
::::No problem. And good luck with this wonderful article. This is a farewell, I imagine. --[[User:AdamE|AdamE]] 13:10, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, I did have a suspicion that might be the case. [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 13:14, 29 August 2008 (EDT)
==Sarah Palin==
So will Palin be considered an Affirmative Action VP? She's about equal to Obama in terms of experience. Maybe less, considering how much smaller the population of Alaska is compared to Illinois.[[User:CraigC|CraigC]] 09:23, 30 August 2008 (EDT)
== Liberal Vandalism? ==
BHarlen, I am not "vandalising" in a liberal nor conservative sense. Do you not think that the claim deserves a citation? Do you think all these people voted Obama based on the colour of his skin? [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 17:33, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:I didn't spell it "vandalising", I said "vandalism". I would have said "vandalizing".
:Do you really doubt the veracity of the claim? If you don't believe it, just do a two-second Google search for ''Obama "because he's black"''. That's what I did, and I found citations right away.
:Instead of contributing, liberals just complain. Conservatives, as always, end up doing the work.
:I you say this was in good faith, I believe you, but if you think critically about your actions you are likely to make more useful contributions to society. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 17:58, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::Well, seems you are quite rude. Good day sir. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 18:00, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::Liberals always get their feelings hurt in debates. This is why they rarely engage in them.
:::May God bless you. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:03, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::::My feelings are not hurt, I just choose not to engage with people who are rude to others. [[User:AdamBeyer|AdamBeyer]] 18:05, 5 November 2008 (EST)
BHarlan, you refs are no good. Two are blogs and one is a message board. Two are simply arguments of assertion, and one of these has a quote at the bottom which ''disproves'' the statement you are trying to make. The third does present a legitimate argument (though I mention again: it's just a blog) except that he is only saying that ''he'', one person, was going to vote for Obama because he was black. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama didn't win by one vote.
Additionally, you aren't even pretending to be helpful on the talk page. Consider this your last warning: if you are not more polite to other users you will be blocked. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:18, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:I will try to be more Christ-like. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 20:10, 5 November 2008 (EST)
::You latest reference [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6182486&page=1] doesn't really relate to the topic at all. [[User:LiamG|LiamG]] 20:13, 5 November 2008 (EST)
:::<blockquote>Exit polls also showed that 27 percent of voters in Virginia said the race was at least a minor factor in determining their vote. Among those who said race was a factor, 95 percent of blacks voted for Obama while whites supported McCain 61-38 percent.</blockquote>
:::[[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 20:19, 5 November 2008 (EST)