• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Democrats say they now know exactly why Clinton lost

bobknightfan said:
I listed one in the post that you were ranting about.
Click to expand...

Right - you listed the the minority group of whites who have multiple children as teenagers with no functioning family unit- what are your other examples?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
QFP.
Click to expand...

Why do you think I would disagree with that statement? People who fuck up in life aren't going to do as well in life as people who don't fuck up....and that doesn't have anything to do with racism. Racism doesn't make teenagers have multiple children with multiple fathers. As I said white teenagers who do that aren't doing well in life, either.
 
bobknightfan said:
Why do you think I would disagree with that statement? People who fuck up in life aren't going to do as well in life as people who don't fuck up....and that doesn't have anything to do with racism. Racism doesn't make teenagers have multiple children with multiple fathers. As I said white teenagers who do that aren't doing well in life, either.
Click to expand...

Funny that you don't have anything to say about men who have multiple children with multiple women.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Right - you listed the the minority group of whites who have multiple children as teenagers with no functioning family unit- what are your other examples?
Click to expand...

Why do you need another example? What other minority group are you talking about that applied to the "not equally represented" question?
 
PhDeac said:
Funny that you don't have anything to say about men who have multiple children with multiple women.
Click to expand...

I figured that since you graduated from a National Top 25 University, you could figure out that the two were interchangeable without it having to be laid out for you.

(And I don't post on the NBA or NFL threads.)
 
Last edited:
We can all disagree on how to fix it, but to deny the existence of systemic racism is the dumbest fucking thing. There is a giant fucking mountain of evidence that tells us it exists.
 
bobknightfan said:
Why do you need another example? What other minority group are you talking about that applied to the "not equally represented" question?
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about any minority group. You were the one used whites with multiple children as a minority group that didn't have equal representation "either".

I was just curious about which other groups you were talking about who didn't have equal representation because they were having out of wedlock children
 
Deacsfan27 said:
I want Congress to represent the demographics of America more adequately. That is what I have stated several times.
Click to expand...

Is this not more a reflection of inter-party politics. I would assume most successful candidates need to have the support of a number of prominent party members. If we expect to have more minority representatives, the parties will need to run more minority candidates.

Seems like the barrier is party politics. There are not a lot of self funded billionaires that can ignore party.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
27*
Click to expand...

The ironic thing about all this "National Top 25 University" crap is that there are hundreds of active posters here who have degrees from such a University.....and the most intelligent, clear-thinking & reasonable poster on the boards graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill.

There has to be a moral in that somewhere. Maybe UNC-Chapel Hill is the real "National Top 25 University"? Or...more likely...the entire concept is a total crock of shit designed to make people feel good about themselves and as a tool to con people into paying exorbitant prices for a liberal arts degree.
 
bobknightfan said:
The ironic thing about all this "National Top 25 University" crap is that there are hundreds of active posters here who have degrees from such a University.....and the most intelligent, clear-thinking & reasonable poster on the boards graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill.

There has to be a moral in that somewhere. Maybe UNC-Chapel Hill is the real "National Top 25 University"? Or...more likely...the entire concept is a total crock of shit designed to make people feel good about themselves and as a tool to con people into paying exorbitant prices for a liberal arts degree.
Click to expand...

What exactly are you arguing? You should look at the rankings sometime.
 
bobknightfan said:
The ironic thing about all this "National Top 25 University" crap is that there are hundreds of active posters here who have degrees from such a University.....and the most intelligent, clear-thinking & reasonable poster on the boards graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill.

There has to be a moral in that somewhere. Maybe UNC-Chapel Hill is the real "National Top 25 University"? Or...more likely...the entire concept is a total crock of shit designed to make people feel good about themselves and as a tool to con people into paying exorbitant prices for a liberal arts degree.
Click to expand...

You can get a good education at UNC but many people probably don't. You also likely become a Tar Heel fan, and that's a high price to pay.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
What exactly are you arguing? You should look at the rankings sometime.
Click to expand...

I don't give a fuck about the rankings. It is easier to read all the posters on these boards who are the results of those rankings. If I had never done that, I am quite certain that I would feel very different about my Alma Mater. Reading these boards has caused a sea-change in the way I view Wake Forest now as opposed to the way I viewed it before I ever posted on these boards. As I have said, you guys have really opened my eyes.
 
bobknightfan said:
I don't give a fuck about the rankings. It is easier to read all the posters on these boards who are the results of those rankings. If I had never done that, I am quite certain that I would feel very different about my Alma Mater. Reading these boards has caused a sea-change in the way I view Wake Forest now as opposed to the way I viewed it before I ever posted on these boards. As I have said, you guys have really opened my eyes.
Click to expand...

Ok.
 
bobknightfan said:
The ironic thing about all this "National Top 25 University" crap is that there are hundreds of active posters here who have degrees from such a University.....and the most intelligent, clear-thinking & reasonable poster on the boards graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill.

There has to be a moral in that somewhere. Maybe UNC-Chapel Hill is the real "National Top 25 University"? Or...more likely...the entire concept is a total crock of shit designed to make people feel good about themselves and as a tool to con people into paying exorbitant prices for a liberal arts degree.
Click to expand...

Or you could be a moron who finds kinship in a clown troll.
 
knowell said:
Is this not more a reflection of inter-party politics. I would assume most successful candidates need to have the support of a number of prominent party members. If we expect to have more minority representatives, the parties will need to run more minority candidates.

Seems like the barrier is party politics. There are not a lot of self funded billionaires that can ignore party.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I think party politics do play a role in that a lot of candidates who are supported by the traditional party structure are perhaps more likely to be "traditional" candidates (more moderate, less diverse). As was discussed earlier though, and as you point out, women don't win at a lower rate than men once they're in the race they just don't run at the same rate.

Arguably this is more evidence of a system structured to preserve the status quo, which at the end of the day strikes me as discernibly more "conservative" ideology than "progressive."

There are a lot of studies and theories out there on minorities and women (who are not a minority) running for office and why they choose (or are chosen over) not to run. Most agree there's systemic bias, the real question is pinpointing what that bias actually is and how it is propagated most "effectively."
 
riscdeac said:
This is interesting and looks like a great place to start. I'm not pro choice but it says candidates not affiliated one particular party. I will read through this. Good organization is my initial reaction. Thanks.

Can anyone answer this:

I asked this question before skipper, and none of you intellectuals reponded. Can the constitution be amended to increase the size of the House of Representatives? Areas where congress PERSONS would represent their communities? Serious question. Would that help?

Here is an article that makes sense. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cry...-of-the-house/
Click to expand...

I'm not an expert but I believe the 435 could be changed by Congress and doesn't require an amendment. It has increased several times in our history, most recently through the reapportionment act of 1929.

435 is not a constitutional construct.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yes and no. I think party politics do play a role in that a lot of candidates who are supported by the traditional party structure are perhaps more likely to be "traditional" candidates (more moderate, less diverse). As was discussed earlier though, and as you point out, women don't win at a lower rate than men once they're in the race they just don't run at the same rate.

Arguably this is more evidence of a system structured to preserve the status quo, which at the end of the day strikes me as discernibly more "conservative" ideology than "progressive."

There are a lot of studies and theories out there on minorities and women (who are not a minority) running for office and why they choose (or are chosen over) not to run. Most agree there's systemic bias, the real question is pinpointing what that bias actually is and how it is propagated most "effectively."
Click to expand...

It may suggest problems in the system. It may also suggest preferences that women have. Personally, I could not imagine a worse existence than being a politician. Men and women are different and it could be that part of those differences would account for the lower proportion of women in politics. It is a quite ugly business. My guess would be a bit of both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top