Talk:Affirmative Action President

Somebody's Missing Something Here

I added the following:

"However, in the past blacks and women couldn't vote or run for President, and white males did benefit from their race and gender."

And got the following helpful advice:

That really has nothing to do with an Affirmative Action president does it? --TrueValues 19:52, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Don't continue to reinsert incorrect information. There's never been racial or gender restrictions on becoming president.--Aschlafly 22:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

But I'm still unenlightened. I thought what I added was relevant to Conservapedia's definition of an "affirmative action president" as having an advantage based on "race or gender", as stated at the beginning of the article, followed by the assertion that no President has had such an advantage up to now. Also, back when women and blacks couldn't vote, does that mean they could still have a reasonable chance of getting elected? And I thought I knew something about history.Pluto 22:50, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Sir, is that statement correct? Women were granted the right to vote by the 18th amendment to the constitution. I'm no American so perhaps I'm wrong but if someone isn't on the electoral roll, how could they possibly stand for office.DamianJohn

Good question. It was actually the Nineteenth Amendment that allowed women the right to vote in 1920, and many African-Americans couldn't vote until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Before the American Civil War, only a few New England states allowed blacks an equal right to vote. Illinois and Indiana had laws excluding free blacks from their states. Other free states excluded blacks from skilled occupations and wouldn't allow them to serve on juries.Pluto 23:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the correction Pluto. I still want to hear from Andy though, he's a lawyer and therefore knows something we haven't consideredDamianJohn

Not racism, not at all. In any case, Barack would be a terrible choice... Remember what happened the last time you elected an Illinois senator with only two years in office? Barikada 15:59, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Here are the Google results from a search for "Affirmative Action president" and "Barack Obama." There are 265 on the entire Internet. Most are from blogs, not from reputable news sources. Many - if not more than half of these hits contest, not reinforce, the idea that Obama is such a thing. Please justify your case for saying that "many" people make the claim in question before reverting my edits. Peace. Rodney 14:51, 10 February 2008 (EST)

I see you've edited without providing a source. So be it. Please provide a source prior to removing the relevant tag. peace. Rodney 15:59, 10 February 2008 (EST)

"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. CraigC 12:06, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

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.

By the way I have no problem as far as the article stands except for this point. --DamianJohn 23:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Sorry, a correction. I am commenting on sources 2 and 3.--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. --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.--DamianJohn 10:50, 4 July 2008 (EDT)